Sitting of 23 July 2002

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

    HSBC INVESTMENT BANKING BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Tuesday 15 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What recent discussions he has had with his South African counterpart regarding the situation in Zimbabwe. [69576]
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on the impact of smart sanctions on Zimbabwe. [69578]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I met South African Foreign Minister Zuma on 20 June. We discussed a range of issues, including Zimbabwe.
    The situation in Zimbabwe is serious and deteriorating, with many facing severe poverty, hardship and starvation. The principal cause is not the drought, but the policies of the Mugabe regime. Despicably, the regime is now actively diverting humanitarian food aid, with the deputy Foreign Minister telling the public that it will go only to ZANU-PF supporters.
    Sanctions are having an impact. Yesterday, EU Foreign Ministers agreed unanimously to more than triple the number targeted by the assets and travel ban to 72, to cover the whole of the ruling elite.
    Mr. Swayne: The extension of smart sanctions is long overdue and most welcome, but how are they to be enforced? Is there any possibility of extending the net to catch businesses that support Mugabe?
    Mr. Straw: Enforcement of the sanctions is in the hands of EU member states. We have no evidence at all of any breach of the sanctions. There is a provision in the common position—this may have been implicit in the hon. Gentleman's question—for members of the ZANU-PF elite who have to attend certain international
    830
    gatherings. EU member states have no real discretion over that, any more than the United States has discretion over their attendance at the United Nations. However, the system is working. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the measure, and we will certainly consider its extension.
    Mr. Bellingham: Members of the ruling elite are still transiting through Europe: for example, Mugabe transited through Madrid the other day. Has the Foreign Secretary looked again at my suggestion of a ban on Air Zimbabwe flights? With the Commonwealth games coming up, has he looked at a sporting boycott? Has he spoken to the International Cricket Council about the forthcoming World cup cricket tournament in South Africa and Zimbabwe? I welcome yesterday's EU announcement, but surely it is too little, too late.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, on the efforts that he made in going to Zimbabwe the other day? Will the Foreign Secretary go there himself to convey these very tough messages?
    Mr. Straw: It would not be appropriate to ban Air Zimbabwe, as it would significantly inconvenience thousands of decent people from Zimbabwe—black, white and Asian—and would lead to immediate retaliation against other carriers. We would need to think carefully about that.
    Spain has refused transit visas to the Mugabe regime. The result is that, quite properly, members of the regime have been humiliated and inconvenienced by having to wait to change planes in Madrid airport, rather than being allowed into Madrid. There are international obligations that we cannot avoid, but the very fact that the Mugabe regime is making such efforts to try to get around the sanctions emphasises their effectiveness and the degree to which they are leading to the regime's isolation.
    I am glad that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) visited Zimbabwe. He was able to enter incognito and, much though I would wish to do likewise, I am told by my security people that it might be a tad more difficult for me.
    Roger Casale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the EU's common position on Zimbabwe, with the stepping up of sanctions against Zimbabwe, is a vindication of this Government's constructive engagement with Europe? Will he make sure that, through the Convention on the Future of Europe, the EU's common foreign and security policy is strengthened? Does he agree that it is in this country's interests, as we see in the case of Zimbabwe, if the EU can punch its weight in the world?
    Mr. Straw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. A year ago, the clear aim of the Mugabe regime was to do its best to keep this as a bilateral dispute between the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe. As a result of action that we have been able to take, the dispute has been multilateralised to the Commonwealth and the EU.
    Mr. David Heath: We understand why the travel ban cannot be applied when

    831
    President Mugabe or one of his Ministers is attending a United Nations function, but is there any reason why that latitude should be extended to his entourage of staff, bodyguards and flunkeys? Would not a ban on them deter some of the flights that are being taken?
    Mr. Straw: We must act proportionately. We have now trebled the number of people subject to the ban, resulting in a list of 72, which we judge to include virtually the whole of the ruling elite of ZANU-PF. We shall certainly consider extending the ban to business men, where there is clear evidence that that would be appropriate. It is important, however, in terms of there being understanding across Africa, that it is recognised that we are acting in a proportionate and targeted way, not in an indiscriminate way.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to the post-Lockerbie sanctions on Libya? He will recall that there was a total ban on air flights to that country. Is that not a model for what we should be considering for Zimbabwe? After all, in the case of Libya, innocent people were affected by the ban.
    Mr. Straw: It is a matter of proportion, but the simple fact is that, if we were to impose a ban on Air Zimbabwe flights, it would lead to a ban on flights by British and European carriers, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise. That would gravely inconvenience thousands of ordinary Zimbabweans, including 40,000 UK passport holders. These are issues that we must weigh in the balance, but my judgment is that this would hurt innocent people more than it would hurt the regime.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and I were in Zimbabwe last Wednesday. Is the Foreign Secretary aware—as I was made aware when I was there—of the obscenity of growing famine, starvation and AIDS existing alongside acre after acre of farm land that is unprepared, unsown and not producing food? Does he also understand the obscenity of displaced black farm workers, some of whom I met, who have been thrown off their farms without hope, jobs, possessions or homes? There are now 85,000 of them, and, if the 2,900 farms are closed in two weeks' time, the number could rise to 300,000. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the despair of people in Zimbabwe is only increased when they hear reports—I hope that they were incorrect—that, while I was in Zimbabwe, he was saying that he could do nothing to help them? Will he now assure us that he can, and will, seek to help them?
    Mr. Straw: I was indeed aware of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, because I am an assiduous reader of the Conservative party website. I have therefore followed exactly what he has said, and his analysis is entirely correct. Zimbabwe under Mugabe is now the worst-performing economy in the whole of Africa, which is an extraordinary record, given that only a few years ago it was the best-performing economy. GDP is likely to have collapsed by a quarter in three years, the inflation rate is 122 per cent. and rising, and the unemployment rate is 70 per cent. and rising. We are profoundly concerned about the situation, as the right hon. Gentleman
    832
    knows. We have been doing everything we think we practically can, but we are always ready to listen carefully to specific proposals for further action, including those from him.
    Mr. Ancram: I will take the right hon. Gentleman up on that offer. Will he hold discussions, as I did last week, with his colleagues in South Africa and Malawi on the catastrophe that is about to spill over into those countries if Zimbabwe implodes? They are already feeling the effects of what is happening there. Does he not agree that a humanitarian disaster in southern Africa will affect us all, and that, if it happens, we will all be called on to help to end it? Given that we all have an interest in avoiding such disasters, will he seek to persuade our southern African colleagues that acting jointly to bring pressure to bear on Mugabe to hold fresh elections is in all our interests, but, above all, in the interests of the people who are suffering so badly in Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Straw: The answer to all those questions is yes. On humanitarian aid, yes, there is a catastrophe, which is partly being caused by drought, but which has been greatly exacerbated in Zimbabwe and the surrounding areas by the actions of the Mugabe Government. Yes, we need collective discussions with the Southern African Development Community, and they will take place at EU level. I am glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman has endorsed that.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has already allocated an extra £45 million of aid directly to Zimbabwe, as well as other amounts to the other countries of southern Africa to help cope with this crisis.
    Mr. Ancram: On the European Union, may I belatedly welcome the extension of the sanctions that was announced yesterday, six weeks after I first called for it? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the previous sanctions in Zimbabwe were regarded as ineffective and a joke? Why did yesterday's extension not go further? Why are not spouses and families included? Why does the list—unlike that of the United States—not include the close business associates who sustain and finance Mugabe and his henchmen?
    Does the Foreign Secretary not understand that yesterday's announcement goes only part of the way? This time, the sanctions must be more than just words. The loopholes must be closed, and the sanctions must be made to bite until Mugabe is forced to realise the reality of the situation, and to call for the fresh elections without which this problem cannot be solved.
    Mr. Straw: Those of us with reasonably long memories will be only too delighted to note the right hon. Gentleman's conversion to the principle of sanctions. If the Conservatives had supported sanctions against South Africa, the evil of apartheid might have been ended a bit more quickly.
    We are working on this issue, and one spouse was included on yesterday's list—Mrs. Grace Mugabe. On proportionality, we have judged it important to target the serious and real villains—the principals in the elite—rather than being dragged into diversionary arguments about whether it is also appropriate to target spouses and

    833
    children. We are ready to consider the question of businesses, but I should point out that, so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, there is always a great gap between the word and the deed. The biggest difference is that he calls for these sanctions—
    Mr. Ancram: And the Americans.
    Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman mutters about the Americans, but our total package of sanctions is tougher than theirs. He calls for these sanctions, but the one certainty is that, had he been in my position, he would never have achieved these sanctions because he would never have had the EU on his side.

    New Partnership for Africa's Development
    Mr. Win Griffiths: What plans he has to meet the African Union to discuss the role of the New Partnership for Africa's Development in strengthening democracy and human rights. [69579]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, along with the Minister with responsibility for Africa, my noble Friend Baroness Amos, hold regular meetings with leaders of the African Union, and the Government are active in supporting the New Partnership for Africa's Development in all its contacts with those leaders.
    Mr. Griffiths: We have just discussed the tragic example of Zimbabwe, where Africa's democracy and human rights are being flouted in an almost unprecedented way. However, there have been successful elections in countries such as Sierra Leone, and others such as Angola and Sudan are emerging from terrible civil wars. In the light of those examples, will my hon. Friend ensure that our Government and the EU will provide the fullest support to strengthen democratic structures, and to ensure that human rights are observed as part of the package for improving the economies of those countries?
    Mr. MacShane: The answer is yes, but let us welcome the African Union itself. The union's declaration on the principles governing democratic elections in Africa includes free and fair elections, free association and impartial electoral institutions. If only those principles had been observed in Zimbabwe, the tragedy that we have just discussed would not have taken place. It is for Africa to shape its own future; it is not for the west to impose any particular values or ideas. We welcome what the African Union is doing.
    Andrew Selous: Does the Minister agree that the New Partnership for Africa's Development would stand a greater chance of success if the Presidents of South Africa and Nigeria, among others, wholeheartedly condemned the abuses of democracy and human rights, and not least the current sheer theft of assets in Zimbabwe?
    Mr. MacShane: I rather think that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did just that. However, the African Union would have had a much greater chance of success if the Leader of the Opposition had made even just one
    834
    reference to Africa in his keynote speech on international affairs at Chatham house earlier this year. Given that the shadow Foreign Secretary is not on holiday in Florida, I hope that he can explain to the Leader of the Opposition where Africa is.
    Ms Meg Munn: Given the terrible situation in. Africa in relation to HIV/AIDS, what role does my hon. Friend believe that the partnership can play in tackling the spread of this dreadful disease?
    Mr. MacShane: That is undoubtedly the biggest single challenge facing Africa, and it is one to which this Government—along with partners around the world and in Africa itself—have pledged real material resources. The issue will of course be raised at the forthcoming Johannesburg summit on sustainable development. I can think of no greater current challenge to humanity than ridding Africa, in particular, of the scourge of HIV/AIDS.
    Mr. Richard Spring: What encouragement can the hon. Gentleman give the people of southern Africa, where there is now so much suffering, that the worthy objectives of the African Union—to promote peace, security and stability on the continent—will be translated into concrete commitment by member nations? What actions does he foresee the international community taking through NEPAD to ensure that those objectives are met?
    Mr. MacShane: At the G8 summit in Kananaskis, there were commitments to a serious development partnership. I think it is fair to say that the Government have been working more seriously than any western or northern Government in supporting the world summit in Johannesburg on sustainable development. We are trying to break down the trade barriers against African goods in both the European Union and north America. Our commitment is to trade and economic growth, providing the material basis for a more secure and peaceful future for all the peoples of Africa.

    Saudi Arabia
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What representations he has made to the Government of Saudi Arabia in respect of statements of support for terrorist activities. [69580]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The Government of Saudi Arabia are well aware of her Majesty's Government's complete condemnation of terrorism, including suicide bombings. The Government of Saudi Arabia have made clear their rejection of terrorism, including in relation to the middle east peace process.
    Dr. Lewis: I agree with everything that the Foreign Secretary said, but given that our relationship with Saudi Arabia is so sensitive and important, is he not gravely concerned that on 13 April the Saudi ambassador, Ghazi Algosaibi stated:
    "When the call comes for Jihad
    There's no need for a referendum or a Fatwa'.
    The Day of Jihad is the Day of Blood.";

    835
    that on 9 July, he stated that Israeli actions on the West Bank were
    "far more severe than anything the Germans did when they occupied Europe in World War Two";
    and that on 5 June, he stated:
    "I do not fear death—on the contrary, I long to die as a martyr, although I am at an age that does not allow me to carry out a martyrdom operation."?
    How sad that he cannot do it, but how sad also that he is the ambassador of that country to this one.
    Mr. Straw: As I made clear, we disagree profoundly with the Saudi ambassador and we believe that terrorism, including suicide bombing, is to be condemned and that there is no comparison between what happened during the Nazi occupation of the whole of Europe and what is happening in Israel and the occupied territories.
    Lawrie Quinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the following statement made earlier this year by the King of Saudi Arabia? He said:
    "Regardless of its origin, terrorism must be eliminated and terrorists, regardless of who they are … must be taken to justice".
    Does my right hon. Friend agree with that, and does he also agree that some of the acts that Israel has recently perpetrated in Gaza might amount to that sort of terrorism?
    Mr. Straw: As I indicated in my opening statement, the Government of Saudi Arabia have made clear their rejection of terrorism, and the quotation that my hon. Friend has just read out is confirmation of that.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: In condemning terrorist atrocities in the middle east, will my right hon. Friend condemn the two terrorist acts against Israeli Jews last week, which resulted in the loss of innocent life, and, equally, the terrorist act carried out by Israeli forces in Gaza yesterday, which resulted in the death of eight innocent children as part of a state-targeted assassination? Will my right hon. Friend ascertain that no British equipment was involved in an action that was organised, to his shame, by the Israeli Minister of Defence and leader of the Labour party?
    Mr. Straw: As I made clear, we condemn all terrorist acts, including those to which my right hon. Friend has just referred. I issued a statement in which I said that I regard the action taken by the Israeli defence force as wholly unjustifiable and unacceptable. It is not acceptable that innocent people, especially innocent children, should be killed as a result of military operations of that kind.

    Bahrain
    Mr. Michael Clapham: When he next plans to visit Bahrain to discuss bilateral relations; and if he will make a statement. [69581]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to visit Bahrain at present. However, my right
    836
    hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will meet His Majesty the King of Bahrain tomorrow and will discuss bilateral relations.
    Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, and am pleased to hear that he and the Prime Minister are meeting the King of Bahrain tomorrow. My hon. Friend will be aware that, since 1999, Sheikh Hamad has introduced widespread democratic reforms, including greater transparency, greater accountability, equality between the sexes and respect for human rights, particularly rights for women. Women can now stand as candidates in local and general elections as well as voting in them. Does my hon. Friend agree that our close relationship with Bahrain gives us the opportunity of extending the influence of democratic development and combating the conflicts in the middle east and the Gulf area in particular, without having to enter into ill-considered meddling in other people's affairs?
    Mr. O'Brien: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we continue to support development of human rights and democratic values in the middle east. Indeed, in respect of Bahrain, we have offered advice and expertise, particularly on citizenship education. Our embassy held a conference, aimed at promoting citizenship education, which was open to the media, NGOs, Government Ministries and other bodies. We have sponsored visits to the United Kingdom for leading Bahrainis to learn about UK democracy and issues such as human rights and freedom of the press. We have provided the Bahraini Government with information on electoral boundaries, systems of government and trade unions. We welcome steps taken by the Bahraini Government to progress towards a constitutional monarchy and a democratic state. In the context of the middle east, those are very welcome developments.
    Mike Gapes: When my hon. Friend meets the King of Bahrain, will he congratulate the Government and people of Bahrain on showing that the Arabian peninsula does not have to be dominated by 14th century attitudes to women, repression of minorities and apologists for terrorism, but can be a beacon for democracy and human rights throughout the Arab world?
    Mr. O'Brien: Human rights have indeed improved dramatically in Bahrain in recent years. There are now no political prisoners and exiles have been allowed to return. We maintain a constructive dialogue on a number of issues with the Bahrainis. Bahrain is in many ways providing a lead to show that it is possible to create a more democratic state in the middle east that can participate in the international community with its head held high.

    Ukraine
    Mr. Russell Brown: What plans he has to develop links between the UK and Ukraine. [69583]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): As part of our effort to support and encourage Ukraine's transformation to a democratic state, the UK is building on established links to enhance bilateral and multilateral engagement with Ukraine.
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. He may be aware that Ukraine recently established a consulate in Edinburgh and that the intention is to establish a Scotland-Ukraine foundation. People are looking to Ukraine for support, advice and guidance on agriculture, farming—particularly fish farming—and forestry. Does my hon. Friend see a role for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in helping to establish and strengthen such a foundation?
    Mr. O'Brien: Yes, we very much welcomed the opening of a Ukrainian consulate in Edinburgh in February 2002. A Scottish-Ukrainian foundation or society would, we feel, help to develop UK-Ukrainian bilateral links. I shall ask our new ambassador at Kiev to see what he can do to help launch a Scottish-Ukrainian society or foundation, perhaps by holding an inaugural reception, for example.
    Andrew Mackinlay: In view of the enlargement of Europe, which we all welcome and endorse, will the Foreign Secretary ensure that Ukraine is not left out of the equation, that we will not create a new iron curtain along the Polish border and that we will recognise that communities in Belarus and Ukraine need access to their fellow kinsmen and women in Poland as well as the commerce and trade on which they depend? I am concerned that we will cut these people off if the map of Europe does not include Ukraine or Belarus.
    Mr. O'Brien: We certainly do want to ensure that there are no more iron curtains. Europe has had enough of that and is well rid of it. We want to ensure that Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova—especially Belarus—all have a record on human rights and democratic values that is to some extent better than it is today. A debate on Belarus in Westminster Hall today certainly showed that that country has a very long way to go before we can say that it would be part of the European Union, or indeed Europe in a broader sense.
    Ukraine is developing more democratic values, but we still need to have a critical engagement with it on the way forward to ensure that we can perform our close economic and political ties with Ukraine.

    Sudan
    Mr. David Drew: What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Sudan on the renewed fighting in the Sudan, with specific reference to conflict around the oil fields. [69584]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): I am happy to welcome the agreement on the Sudan peace process announced at Machakos on 20 July, which addressed the main points made in my hon. Friend's question. I shall place a copy of the text of the framework agreement in the Library.
    Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend. In this rather depressing world, with all these conflicts, that is some of the best news that those of us who take an interest in Sudan could possibly hear, given that it is the world's longest-lasting conflict. As we move towards the way in which self-determination will be allowed for in the south
    838
    as part of the peace formula, does my hon. Friend agree that it is even more necessary to try to get a ceasefire in the area around the oilfields, in the western upper Nile, and will the Government continue to take a leading role in trying to bring the parties together so that we end this conflict once and for all?
    Mr. MacShane: It is indeed good news, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that this is the first major step forward in the framework agreement; there is much more to be done. The United Kingdom, together with our partners—America, Norway and Italy—will be taking an active interest. I pay tribute to Alan Goulty, the Foreign Office official who has been the Prime Minister's envoy in Sudan. British diplomacy has been shown to work, and this shows the importance of engaging with Africa.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: I join the Minister in welcoming recent developments in Sudan and join him wholeheartedly in paying tribute to American efforts in the region and those of Alan Goulty and his team from our own Foreign Office.
    A second round of talks is due to start on 12 August. The talks are designed to pick up the recent framework agreement and, for instance, add some constitutional arrangements that might better define relations between north and south. What prospects are there for a comprehensive ceasefire, not just around the oil fields but everywhere, between the Government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army, and what is the Minister's assessment of the next steps that can be taken to achieve one?
    Mr. MacShane: I do not have time to read out the text of the agreement, but there are references to the people of south Sudan, which I know will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman, who has taken a very direct personal interest in Sudanese affairs. They have the right to control and govern affairs in their region and participate equitably in the national government. They have the right to self-determination, inter alia through a referendum to determine their future status. For those hon. Members interested in Sudan, I recommend a thorough reading of the detail of this agreement. It shows that good news—really good news—can come out of Africa.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: I welcome the tremendous news and the remarkable and assiduous diplomacy of the members of the Sudan unit, but does my hon. Friend accept that perhaps the key to this whole process and to the breakthrough has been the inclusion in the agreement of a decision to hold a referendum after a six-year interim period, which would include an option for secession, as well as an option for unity of the country? In pursuing the hard work that needs to be undertaken in the next few weeks and months, will my hon. Friend ensure that humanitarian access to the whole country is prominent in discussions?
    Mr. MacShane: That is important to a number of hon. Members who participated in a Westminster Hall debate on the subject. My hon. Friend is right about the six-year time frame. I hope that the two interested groups in Sudan will agree that it is better to keep the country together, in line with the agreed text on state and religion. Part of that

    839
    process is continuing the aid—£8 million is coming from the United Kingdom alone this year—and my hon. Friends at the Department for International Development are engaged in that. We should mention the role of President Daniel Arap Moi of Kenya, whose statesmanship helped to bring the agreement to fruition.

    China
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What recent representations he has made to the Government of the People's Republic of China with respect to the practitioners of Falun Gong; and if he will make a statement. [69585]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): We regularly raise our concerns about Falun Gong with the Chinese, both in bilateral meetings and at the UK-China human rights dialogue. Last Monday, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so in his meeting in Beijing with the Chinese Foreign Minister, Mr. Tang.
    Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend's concern for the practitioners of Falun Gong is welcome. Does he agree that what is happening to Falun Gong and other religious minorities in China is extremely worrying, but that the forthcoming Olympic games provide a real opportunity for the entire international community to put pressure on the People's Republic of China to improve its human rights record and to free practitioners of Falun Gong?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is right; I welcome his commitment to, and involvement in, this issue. Many of his arguments were raised in an excellent debate last week in Westminster Hall on the persecution of Christians in Asia. The Olympic games are an enormous opportunity for all of us to engage in every sense with China on political democracy, human rights and economic opening. The two previous Olympic games that took place in Asia—Japan in 1964 and South Korea in 1988—helped to accelerate the process of modernisation and reform and the transition from a more authoritarian form of society in those countries. I hope that the 2008 Olympic games will do the same for China.

    Israel
    Ann Clwyd: If he will make a statement on Government policy on arms sales to Israel via a third country. [69586]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): All export licence applications for items to be exported to Israel via an intermediate country are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated European Union and national arms export licensing criteria in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time and taking account of other relevant factors. Licence applications for goods where it is understood that they are to be incorporated
    840
    into products for onward export are assessed as described in my written reply of 8 July to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping).
    Ann Clwyd: Given that the Israeli defence force has admitted using more weapons and munitions against the Palestinians in the month of April alone than it did in the whole of the previous 10 years, what possible justification can there be for selling any more arms to Israel?
    Mr. Straw: While I understand my hon. Friend's point of view, I do not share it. All countries have a right to defend themselves and that is made explicit by the European Union and national criteria. These are extremely difficult decisions. I had to think long and hard, as did my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Trade and Industry, who are also involved in making the decisions. They are difficult, but I am satisfied that the decisions that we made are consistent with the EU and national criteria.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Following the killing of children in a targeted attack yesterday, will the Foreign Secretary summon the Israeli ambassador and tell him that he believes that that uncivilised conduct does nothing but harm to a country that many of us hold in real affection and high regard, which we want to see survive as a thriving, prosperous, independent, protected nation, but which is not conducting itself quite as we expect it to at the moment?
    Mr. Straw: I am making arrangements for the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), to speak to the ambassador this afternoon. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's views, which I think that the whole House shares, about the unjustified and disproportionate nature of the attack and its consequences are conveyed to the ambassador and, through him, to the Israeli Government.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that Israel is entitled to defend itself from attack and that it has a specific right to defend its citizens, at least 1 million of whom are currently at threat from rockets supplied by Iran through Syria, which are ready to be fired from Israel's northern borders on its civilian population?
    Mr. Straw: As I said a moment ago, I accept the right of any country, under the UN charter. to act in self-defence. Such self-defence has to be proportionate and to take account of other circumstances. That goes without saying. On the specific issue of arms exports, I say again that if my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members read the criteria, they will see that they are a complex matrix of criteria that seek to balance some very difficult and often conflicting issues.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Might I ask the Foreign Secretary to consider a specific instance? If the pilot of the F-16 that fired the missile which did such terrible damage and caused so many casualties in Gaza yesterday had been using, as he may be able to in 2003, a head-up display manufactured by a British company and

    841
    licensed for export by the United Kingdom Government, would the Foreign Secretary have considered the export of that component to be consistent with Government policy?
    Mr. Straw: We are still getting further information about, as it were, which F-16 was used in the attack, but the contract between British Aerospace and Lockheed Martin for the supply of head-up displays is of long standing. So it is perfectly possible—I do not happen to know—that such equipment, licensed by previous Administrations or indeed by this Administration, was incorporated in that equipment.
    Of course, I share the belief around the whole House about the unacceptable nature of the attack, but there are other issues involved in the licensing decisions that we have to make, particularly when there is incorporation into a third country's products. Particularly over the past five years, all defence industries have become much more transnational—in our case, transatlantic—and what we are doing is part of a transatlantic assembly line.
    Other EU countries face exactly the same dilemma. So far as we have been able to ascertain—their information is confidential on the whole, while ours is fully public—they have acted in a very similar way. At heart, there is on the one hand concern to avoid the kind of thing that happened this morning. On the other, countries have a clear right in international law to act in self-defence, not only against other nation states but against terrorism. In addition, we as a nation have taken a strategic decision to have a defence industry. It necessarily follows that, in properly controlled circumstances, that defence industry must be allowed to export.
    Richard Burden: When a 150 sq m, two-storey apartment block is hit by a missile from an F-16 killing 15 people and nine children, how is it acceptable that British equipment could be supplied for that through a third party, whereas it would not be acceptable if we did it directly?
    Mr. Straw: The issue is more complicated than that. The equipment appears to have been misused in this case, but if my hon. Friend looks carefully at the criteria, he will find, first, that we have applied the criteria and, secondly, that the criteria seek to take account, under criterion 7, of
    "the capability of the recipient country to exert effective export controls."
    It so happens that the Quadripartite Committee itself said that the United States' conventional arms transfer policy
    "does not appear to differ in any important way from the EU Code or the UK national criteria. In some respects … it is an improvement".
    Although in a particular instance the United States may come to a slightly different decision from us or the EU, the fact is that its arms control policy and the exercise of it are, on any basis, at least as transparent and as effective as the United Kingdom's, and certainly more transparent than that of almost all of our European Union partners.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Given that, last year, direct arms sales to Israel almost doubled from £12.5 million to £22.5 million, and in the light of atrocities such as that which occurred yesterday, how can
    842
    the right hon. Gentleman, sincere as he no doubt is, be expected to be taken as an honest broker in the middle east peace process?
    Mr. Straw: Interestingly enough—although, of course, this is a matter of grave concern—the suggestion that we do not have a role to play in the middle east because we supply arms is not one that has been raised with me by any interlocutor in the middle east. On the issue of arms sales to Israel, it is true that the number of licences has increased, but so has the number of refusals. While, altogether, there were six refusals of specific licences in 2000, there were 31 refusals of specific licences last year.
    Ms Christine Russell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent proposal by the Israeli Government to deport forcibly the families of suspected Palestinian militants from the west bank to Gaza will result in further escalation of violence rather than improvement in peace and security?
    Mr. Straw: What I would say is that violence is never justified, but I regard the threat of deportation, still more the reality, as wholly unjustified. Yesterday, I ensured that that word, "unjustified", was inserted into the General Affairs Council's conclusions when we discussed the middle east.

    Poland
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: What recent discussions he has held with the Polish Government concerning their proposed accession to the EU. [69588]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): Foreign Office Ministers have met their Polish counterparts to discuss this matter on numerous occasions in recent months and the Secretary of State will be meeting the Polish Foreign Minister tomorrow.
    Dr. Whitehead: Has my right hon. Friend had any discussions with his Polish counterparts specifically concerning the status of Kaliningrad following Poland's accession to the EU, and particularly in relation to arrangements for transits between Kaliningrad and Russia should Lithuania, too, join the EU subsequently?
    Peter Hain: I am aware of my hon. Friend's close interest in, and family connections with, Poland and, therefore, of his expertise. We are in close contact with all the countries in the region, Poland included, as of course Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave, borders Poland as it does Lithuania. It is a difficult issue to resolve: meeting the Russians' concerns that citizens of Kaliningrad should have access to the rest of Russia while at the same time making sure that borders are secure and that the EU's external border—as it will be, after enlargement—is free from trafficking that might threaten extra crime waves.
    Michael Fabricant: What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in Poland regarding Poland's expectations for receiving moneys for its agricultural policy?
    Peter Hain: A lot of discussions.
    Ms Gisela Stuart: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that, on an issue such as Kaliningrad, which, classically and ideally, should be resolved by the EU rather than by individual member states, the French President saw fit to see Mr. Putin on Monday and therefore break ranks in many ways? That is really not helpful in terms of finding a suitable long-term solution to Kaliningrad and to a single EU external voice.
    Peter Hain: I understand and agree with my hon. Friend's desire for a much stronger external policy for the European Union. It is important, however, that, in the absence of that, we all make every effort to try to crack this problem. The Danish presidency is seized of the need to engage on this matter, and the European Commission is in weekly discussion on Kaliningrad on behalf of the whole of Europe.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Further to the Minister's informative reply to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), was he misquoted when he was reported as having said that the European Union should press ahead with enlargement even in advance of prior agreement on radical agricultural reform? Surely, unless the Fischler reforms are agreed, enlargement to the east will be totally unsustainable.
    Peter Hain: It is much more complicated than that. If we allow countries—some of them are in the European Union—effectively to block enlargement because they want to protect their vested interests in the bloated and inefficient common agricultural policy, we will not secure that objective. We therefore need to complete the negotiations on the agricultural chapter, which are already 95 per cent. concluded. The tough 5 per cent. concerns direct payments, which is a serious issue for Poland as well. We do not want those negotiations, which I am sure can be satisfactorily concluded, to prejudice wider reform of the CAP—that is why we asked for a delay in the decision until the informal European Council in October or November—or to prejudice the wider process of enlargement. That process is crucial to the reunification of Europe and to getting countries, such as Poland. into Europe, which is where they should always have been.

    Lockerbie Disaster
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to his recent meeting with the Lockerbie relatives, when he expects to make a decision on setting up a public inquiry into the international aspects of Lockerbie. [69589]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): As the Foreign Secretary told the House on 11 July, he has explained to the families of the Lockerbie victims that he does not see a case for a public inquiry. A successful criminal process has convicted an agent of
    844
    the Libyan intelligence services of carrying out the attack. Public inquiries are less worthwhile when there has already been an exposition of the case in a criminal trial. The passage of time since Lockerbie would make a public inquiry of still more uncertain value. However, we are still considering whether aspects of Lockerbie, including international aspects, warrant further study. We shall inform the relatives of the victims as soon as we have come to a conclusion.
    Mr. Dalyell: What knowledge does the Foreign Office have of a payment of $11 million on or about 23 December 1988 from Iranian sources via a bank in Lausanne, the Banque Nationale de Paris and the Hungarian development bank to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine? What knowledge does the Foreign Office have of a payment on or about 25 April 1989 to Mohammed Abu Talb, an "incriminee" of the Lockerbie trial and a long-term suspect?
    Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend's question is, no doubt, an appetiser for the Adjournment debate that we hope to hold later this evening. The answers to his questions are complex, and I hope to be able to set them out in the reply to that debate. I will happily try to cover that point and many, many others.

    World Service
    Mr. Fabian Hamilton: If he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the BBC World Service. [69591]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): The BBC World Service is a vitally important asset for Britain. We want it to remain the best known and most respected voice in international broadcasting. That is why, last week, we announced an uplift of £48 million in funding for it over the next three years.
    Mr. Hamilton: I am sure that my hon. Friend and the whole House agree that that is a tremendous boost for the BBC World Service. Does he agree that it played a crucial part in the recent war in Afghanistan and that it is the main source of communication among many Afghans, who listen to the World Service before any other station? Does he also agree that the Persian service has played, and continues to play, a crucial role in Iran in supporting the reformist elements of President Khatami? For example, in January 2001, 287,000 people contacted the Persian language website, but the figure had increased to 2.4 million by last month.
    Mr. MacShane: I fear that my hon. Friend has answered his own question. He is right. An increase in services using regional languages—Persian, Pashtun, Urdu, Hindi, Arabic and central Asian languages—has been provided by the World Service.
    I refer to another part of the world where the World Service has performed marvels: it has doubled its audience in the United States. I know that Mr. Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Fed, listens to the World

    845
    Service. People all over America download from the World Service's internet web service accurate, impartial and non-propagandist news.

    Convention on the Future of Europe
    Mr. Colin Challen: If he will make a statement on progress at the Convention on the Future of Europe. [69592]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): The Convention has concluded its listening phase, during which it took soundings from its members and a wide range of civil society. It is now moving into its analytical phase, including working groups on specific issues.
    Mr. Challen: May I ask my right hon. Friend to contrast the almost complete absence of public debate on the Convention of the Future of Europe and on the democratic nature of the enlargement that is to take place with the £37,000 that is spent every day on euro preparations, which I estimate has amounted to £8 million or £9 million since I last raised the issue? Does that suggest that we are not really interested in encouraging public debate on the future of Europe?
    Peter Hain: No, it does not. I spend quite a lot of time travelling around Britain—I have travelled to all three nations—explaining what enlargement and the future of Europe are about. It is hard to get attention in the media for that debate, but I agree that it is essential to do so.
    On preparations for the euro, I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that it is important that our companies, many of which are small businesses, are properly prepared for the existence of the euro in the eurozone countries, because many of them trade in the euro. That is what the Treasury plan and the money that is being spent, under the Chancellor's supervision, are designed to achieve.

    Iran
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: If he will make a statement on bilateral relations with Iran. [69593]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The UK, through critical engagement, seeks to apply a twin-track approach in respect of Iran. We support reform in Iran while maintaining a robust dialogue on matters of concern, such as human rights and weapons of mass destruction.
    Mr. McCabe: The US State Department and Israeli intelligence have warned that Iran is a state that sponsors terrorism. In view of that, and of Iran's developing nuclear and chemical weapons and its appalling human rights record—with almost daily public executions and
    846
    floggings, sometimes for the most trivial offences, such as playing snooker—why is Iran a friend, yet Iraq, which has a remarkably similar record, is an enemy and a threat?
    Mr. O'Brien: At least in Iran, unlike Iraq, the Government are led by a reformist President democratically elected by the people of Iran. The UK supports President Khatami's stated objective of a civil society based on the rule of law. The UK remains committed to a policy of critical engagement, which allows us to support reform in Iran while maintaining robust pressure in relation to issues of concern, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend. Those issues include Iranian support for terrorist groups in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran's reported development of weapons of mass destruction and aspects of its human rights record. We believe that constructive and critical engagement is the best way forward.

    International Criminal Court
    Valerie Davey: What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the USA about the International Criminal Court. [69594]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had discussions with the United States Secretary of State on the ICC, resulting in United Nations Security Council resolution 1422, which was unanimously adopted on 12 July 2002 and which respects the statute of the court and allows the US to continue to participate in UN peacekeeping operations.
    Valerie Davey: I welcome that reply, but there is a clear recognition that that is a compromise. May I ask the Minister whether there will be ongoing debate or dialogue with the United States so that we do not have another US stand-off position in a year's time?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is right. That is why the Foreign Secretary is continuing those discussions. The United States Senate, Congress and leadership have always been unwilling to sign up to the International Criminal Court. We continue to try hard to persuade them that an international rule of law in this area is the right way forward, and that will continue to be our position.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's statement. Does he agree that this is sending a bad signal to other nations, especially when we bear it in mind that there is a fall-back position: the United States could take any action against any of its citizens? In that context, would it not be better to encourage the United States to join international law enforcement as well as international law keeping?
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman makes his point effectively. I would hope that every hon. Member, even those who voted against the Third Reading of the International Criminal Court Bill, now supports his position.

Future of Air Transport
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): I should like to make a statement about future air transport and airport capacity in the United Kingdom.
We have built the fourth largest economy in the world on our ability to trade. Air travel is crucial to our expanding economy and we need to plan for the future. There has been a sixfold increase in air travel since 1970, and now half the population flies at least once a year. Demand is expected to continue to grow.
The Government will next year publish a White Paper on air travel. As part of that, we will set out our concluded views on how much additional airport capacity is needed and where it should be sited. Before we do that, we need to canvass views on a range of options. So today, in advance of the White Paper, I am publishing six consultation papers covering the English regions, Scotland and Wales. A further consultation paper for Northern Ireland will be published shortly.
The key issues that we need to address are how we should respond to the continued growth in demand for air travel; how much additional airport provision is needed; and where it should be located. Just as importantly, we need to deal with the environmental impact of expansion and its effects on the people living close to airports. Providing a framework for sustainable development for the next 30 years and beyond is essential. So the consultation is the first stage in that process. It seeks views on a range of options and their implications.
I should first set out the background against which we need to plan. There has been a phenomenal growth in travel by air. In 1970, some 32 million passengers passed through UK airports. Today, that figure is 180 million. People increasingly want to travel by air, whether for holidays abroad or business travel, in an increasingly international economy. Business depends on its ability to get goods quickly to markets across the world. One third of all UK goods exported now go by air. Air travel has opened up possibilities that simply did not exist years ago.
This is not just about travel, however; the airline industry is of critical importance to economic prosperity. It directly employs 180,000 people, and as many jobs again depend indirectly on the aviation industry. Many firms choose to locate close to airports and many businesses choose to invest in the UK because of our good communications, particularly air travel.
Today we publish a range of projections of the number of people who might be expected to use each of the main UK airports over the next 30 years. Some airports will not be able to deal with even a modest increase in demand. At this time of year, of course, holidaymakers are familiar with congested airports, but this is not just a summer issue. Throughout the year, some airports, such as Heathrow, are already near their full capacity.
So doing nothing is not an option. As a first step, we of course need to do all we possibly can to make the most of existing capacity—but on any view that is not enough. The Government therefore aim to set a framework for sustainable development against which people can plan. It has to be sufficiently flexible to cater for changes in demand and in patterns of travel, but it must provide a degree of certainty too.
848
It is essential that we get this right, which is why we are consulting. We will be making decisions that shape the air industry and air travel for the next generation and beyond. The need to take full account of the environmental consequences of air travel is critical, which is why, for example, the consultation asks about rail alternatives in relation to domestic air travel. Where there is increased airport capacity, we need to strike the right balance between benefits from increased travel and trade and their environmental costs. As we said in 1998, we believe that the aviation industry should cover its environmental costs. Our forecasts for demand reflect that, and the proposals on which we are consulting include strict environmental controls, paid for by the air industry.
Let me summarise the options in each consultation paper before I turn to the options for the south-east. Those, for obvious reasons, have significance for the whole country. There has already been substantial growth at regional airports throughout the country, and the Government want to encourage development of such airports. As well as making travel more convenient, that is essential for economic development all over the country. The consultation looks at how to maximise the use of regional airports. For every part of the UK, we ask how we should respond to people's increasing desire to travel by air; whether extra capacity is needed and where it should be; and in every case we seek views on the environmental impact of any future development.
In Scotland in the past 10 years the number of people using the main Scottish airports has doubled to 16 million a year, and we expect continued growth as the Scottish economy expands. The consultation paper looks at making the most of existing capacity. It asks where new capacity should be situated—should it be concentrated at one or two key airports, or spread across all Scottish airports? It asks what scope there is to develop Edinburgh or Glasgow as a hub airport for Scotland, attracting new services to a wider range of destinations, and the Scottish Executive are also publishing a report on how to improve rail links to both those airports. The consultation looks at other issues of vital concern in Scotland, such as maintaining access to London and the lifeline air links to the highlands and islands.
In Wales, the consultation paper looks at what new capacity might be needed, especially at Cardiff. BMI recently announced that it will establish a second UK base there for its low-cost airline. Wales is already a major centre for aircraft maintenance, and to develop that, the consultation includes proposals for a major aerospace park. Because two thirds of passengers living in Wales fly from airports in England, the consultation covers improved surface links to airports in both Wales and England, and looks at the potential to start up internal flights within Wales, which would improve access where surface journeys are lengthy.
The north of England has seven major airports handling 26 million passengers a year, and that number is expected to rise over the next 30 years. Expansion could support many new jobs in the region. Manchester airport is by far the biggest outside the south-east of England and demand is likely to be higher there than at any airport outside London, so the consultation paper looks at how it could be developed further to become a hub airport complementing Heathrow. The consultation also asks how to make the most of other airports in the region; whether additional

849
capacity should be concentrated at one or two airports, or spread across the region; and how far rail can substitute for domestic services, particularly to London.
In the midlands, there are now 10 million air passengers a year. The consultation paper looks at what options are available once capacity at Birmingham is reached, and it considers the role of east midlands airport, which is the third largest freight airport in the country. The consultation identifies options—again over the next thirty years—including a new runway either at Birmingham or at east midlands airport. There may be more demand for services from Birmingham than from east midlands, but that needs to be balanced against the impacts of noise and traffic congestion. A new site between Coventry and Rugby might be examined: away from houses, impacts would be less, but the cost of a new airport would of course be much greater. Decisions about capacity at south-east airports will have consequences for developments in the midlands, as elsewhere.
In south-west England, demand for air travel is growing fast. Most people living in the south-west use airports in both the south-east and the midlands. The Government are keen to ensure that airports meet as much local demand as they can, so the consultation looks at the expanded capacity that might be needed at Bristol airport and elsewhere, and asks how a wider range of services could be secured. Because vital links between the south-west and London are limited, the document looks at supporting these air links and at improving rail connections to London airports.
Development of London airports will affect every part of the country and air travel to the rest of the world. One in every six of the world's international passengers start or finish their journey at a south-east airport. So those decisions affect the whole country, and they are central to the future of our United Kingdom aviation industry.
Already, 117 million passengers a year use south-east airports, and the number is likely to grow substantially. The pressures on existing London airports today are obvious enough, so on any view doing nothing is not an option. As with the rest of the country, we need a framework to cater for people's increasing wish to travel and trade. Again, of course, existing capacity must be maximised—for example, at Luton and Stansted, which have seen substantial growth of low-cost airline travel.
With Heathrow, we have a world-class hub airport. Some 15 million international passengers transfer through the airport—the biggest number at any airport in the world—and it employs 68,000 people directly, but Heathrow is already under pressure. Airlines cannot get the runway slots to operate new services. It is already at its limit. Gatwick's single runway is full for much of the day, and Stansted is rapidly filling up, too.
In the meantime, in Europe, there have been substantial developments at Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam, all of which want to rival Heathrow and attract its business. If we do nothing, the United Kingdom will lose out, not just in terms of flights, but in terms of jobs. So the consultation asks about the importance of an international hub airport. We believe that it is in Britain's interests to maintain a world-class global hub airport in the south-east, not just because it is good for passengers, but because it is an essential part of United Kingdom's prosperity. The key question is where should it be.
850
One option is to build at Heathrow—already the fourth busiest airport in the world. That could mean an additional, shorter runway, complementing what is already there. Alongside the economic benefits, we would, of course, need to consider the environmental impact, particularly the effects on the many people who live around the airport and its flight paths.
A second option looked at is Stansted—another existing airport that could be developed to become a hub itself or to complement Heathrow. As with expanding Heathrow, costs would be less than building a new airport, but it would be necessary to improve transport links to and from the airport, and of course the impact on the local community has to be considered.
A third option is to build a completely new airport, with the option of development at Cliffe in north Kent. The advantage is the maximum flexibility to construct a new airport to meet the demands of the future. Against that, we need to consider the environmental consequences of building at Cliffe and, of course, the very substantial cost of a new airport. Those have to be balanced against the considerable benefits for jobs and economic regeneration of Kent, Essex and east London.
So the Government seek views on the merits of a new development. As well as the question of a hub airport, the consultation looks at where any other new capacity should be located.
At Gatwick, a legal agreement rules out construction of a new runway before 2019, and the Government do not propose to challenge that. So we are not putting forward any option for a new runway, but there is still some capacity that can be used in the years to come, as is already agreed locally.
The consultation also looks at the needs of other airports in the region, including Luton and an option of a freight airport at Alconbury. The consultation looks at most major airports and asks what further development is necessary and desirable and, in each case, at how to deal with the environmental effects of any development.
Air travel is crucial to our expanding economy. We need to plan for the future and to provide a framework for sustainable development for the next 30 years and beyond. The consultation is the first stage in that process. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr. Tim Collins: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his characteristic courtesy in providing me with a copy of it in advance. I am very much looking forward to debating transport matters with him in the coming months, and I hope to provide him with robust but genuinely constructive opposition, since, as he will know better than any other right hon. Member, there are no easy or quick solutions to the nation's transport difficulties.
Of course the Secretary of State is entirely right to say that we must plan for the long term. As he knows, up to 500,000 jobs and something like £10 billion of gross domestic product in this country depend on the air transport industry. He will also know that there are serious concerns about the competitiveness of the UK with airports in Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt. He will have heard today the chief executive of BA saying:
"We in the UK are falling behind mainland Europe.-
Clearly that is not sustainable.

851
The Secretary of State is entirely right to say that doing nothing is not an option. He would have been derelict in his duty had he failed to plan for growth; I am pleased to see that he did not. However, there are still detailed questions that he would expect me to ask.
On passenger number projections, the Secretary of State will know that the media today—particularly the lunchtime television bulletins—were heavily briefed about a set of figures that suggested a figure of 180 million passengers at the moment rising to an expected 400 million by 2020. Interestingly, the Secretary of State did not refer to those figures in his statement. Does he agree that straight-line predictions of growth call often be dangerous? The world has changed in recent months and will change even further in years to come.
The figure of 180 million passengers was a figure for the year 2000. Can the Secretary of State provide the House with the figure for 2001 yet? Is he aware that, since the figure for 2000 was announced, there have been a global economic slowdown as well as the events of 11 September? Is he aware that many people who earn a living predicting the future of the airline industry are not so sanguine about rapid growth as perhaps he and his officials are?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Farnborough air show has its lowest level of commercial aircraft orders for 30 years? Is he aware that the largest airline manufacturing company in the world, Boeing, has halved production and sacked 30,000 workers in recent months? Is he familiar with the fact that Sabena has gone bust and that Swissair, Aer Lingus and BA are in financial difficulty? [Interruption.] I am sure that he is aware of these matters. In light of that, will he tell the House whether he is committed personally—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must allow the hon. Gentleman to be heard.
Mr. Collins: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. Is the Secretary of State saying that he personally stands by the projected figure of 400 million passenger movements by 2020, which the Department provided extensively to the broadcast media at lunchtime today?
The Secretary of State is right to say that many residents will be affected by airport expansion. Does he recognise that there is a need for certainty? He is right to consult, but does he recognise that swift decisions will be greatly welcomed by those affected? None of us wants to see the whole procedure of terminal 5 repeated—
Andrew Mackinlay: Oh yes we do.
Mr. Collins: We do not want the procedure to be dragged out indefinitely. Is the Minister aware that the compensation provided to residents affected in this country is arrived at on a different basis from elsewhere in Europe? Will he look at that?
One hon. Member is clearly very interested in terminal 5. Is the Secretary of State aware that the BAA website, even today, still says that one of the arguments for terminal 5 is that it
"would not require another runway"?
852
Is he aware that the website says today that BAA is
"prepared to be legally bound that noise levels would not exceed 1994 levels",
and that it is not calling for any more night flights? Can the Secretary of State say whether the proposals that he is thinking about today relating to an extra runway at Heathrow are consistent with those assurances and undertakings?
Only last November, the Government imposed a cap on the number of flights into Heathrow. The Secretary of State will recall that the cap was set at 480,000 air transport movements. However, in the documents published today, he says that an extra runway could see that increase to 655,000 ATMs. Does the cap announced last November stand or not? Can he give any other assurances to residents living near other airports?
Will the Secretary of State address, as he did in part of his statement, the question of sharing the burden of extra capacity around the United Kingdom? He will know that a substantial proportion of passengers coming into the south-east to use airports do not actually live in the south-east. Does he have a strategy substantially to expand regional airport capacity?
At lunchtime today, I spoke with the chief executive of Luton airport, Paul Kehoe, who said that Luton airport was ready rapidly to double its existing passenger numbers from 7 million a year and could quite easily triple that figure. Has the Secretary of State taken that into account in his planning?
Does the Secretary of State believe that the Government have demonstrated joined-up government on this issue? Is he aware that, in most of the areas in which he is contemplating substantial runway expansion, the local authorities have been told by the Government in the last few days that they will also have to cope with substantial increases in the number of homes to be planted in their area, above and beyond what their residents want; and that, because of changes in the local government funding formula, they will have less, rather than more, money to help them to cope with that? How, against that background, does he expect them to expand their infrastructure to cope with extra runways?
The Secretary of State referred to the north of England, saying that the consultation looks at how far rail can substitute for domestic services, particularly to London from the north and north-west of England. Those of us who represent north-western constituencies find that a somewhat ironic observation for the Secretary of State to make in the week when the west coast main line upgrade appears permanently to have been shelved. Will he say a word about upgrading public transport access to the new runways, whether in new or old airports? Does he recognise an essential need for public transport to be upgraded?
Is the right hon. Gentleman furthermore prepared to tell the House whether the proposal for a possible new airport at Cliffe marshes is an entirely serious and worked-through proposal? The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has said:
"in environmental terms it is hard to think of a worse site for an airport in the south east than Cliffe Marshes".

853
The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, on page 82 of his own document, he says:
"The success of a new airport would depend crucially on its ability to attract airlines."
Has he done a feasibility study on whether airlines will be prepared to move out to Cliffe marshes? Is it not the case, as some have speculated, that this proposal has been advanced only so that the Secretary of State can look very green when he abolishes it, never having been in favour of it in the first place?
Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray!"]—well, Labour Members may not think that these questions are important, but let me assure them that their constituents and others believe that these matters are important. The Secretary of State is quite right to be thinking about these issues, and I commend him on the spirit in which he has done so. He will have the constructive support of Her Majesty's Opposition in looking for sensible and practical solutions. Will he recognise, however, that it is essential that these decisions be taken in a swift but consultative manner? Will he say specifically that he does not expect the Government to take anything like as long to take these decisions as they took to reach a conclusion about terminal 5?
Mr. Darling: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his new post. I have to say that we shall miss the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)—for reasons that she may not appreciate—but anyway, she has gone now. I must also commend the hon. Gentleman for another reason. He flashed across my consciousness once before, when, during the Tory leadership campaign in 1995, he described the campaign team of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) as
"a swivel-eyed barmy army from ward 8 at Broadmoor."
Hon. Members will be aware that one of the members of that swivel-eyed barmy army is now the Leader of the Opposition. Either there has been a rapprochement, or the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has not come across this description yet.
I am conscious of the fact that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to ask me questions, and I shall deal with the points that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) has raised. I shall not criticise him for being light on policy, since, three hours into his appointment, it is probably a bit early for him to be anything else.
I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the Government are consulting. He went on to ask some detailed questions about matters such as Cliffe, for example, on which, by definition, we have not yet made firm proposals because we are consulting on a principle. He asked me to reach a swift decision after the consultation, and I agree with him that that is wholly desirable. It is best for everyone concerned—residents, people who are affected by airports, the industry and the travelling public—to know what the Government are proposing, and I want to bring these matters to a conclusion as quickly as I can, consistently with doing justice to the representations that are made. Moreover, the consultation period does not end until the end of November. It will therefore be next year before we publish a White Paper, but I entirely accept the point that he makes.
854
The hon. Gentleman mentioned several points of detail, the first of which concerned terminal 5, Heathrow and night flights. The decision on terminal 5 holds good, and was made in the light of existing pressures on Heathrow and its two runways. The inspector acknowledges in his report that the Government are embarking on long-term consultation, looking ahead to the next 30 years. So the position on terminal 5, and on the cap on the number of flights that was referred to at that time, remains good in relation to Heathrow's current situation. Everybody knew that we would look at Heathrow in the context of the other London airports over a longer period. The Government will publish a consultation paper on night flights towards the end of this year.
As I said in my statement, there is excess capacity at Luton, and as the general manager recognises, it can be expanded. However, if the hon. Gentleman was thinking of Luton as an alternative to, say, developing Stansted, I should point out that a second runway cannot be built at Luton because of the topography, which inevitably imposes some constraint.
The hon. Gentleman asked about rail links from the north-west in particular. In developing any sensible airport policy, it is important to allow for the fact that, in some cases, people should find it easier and better to travel by rail. I accept that there are problems with the west coast main line upgrade, although as he will discover, it has not been postponed. Having discovered that Railtrack had grossly underestimated the costs and scale of the project, the Strategic Rail Authority is examining the matter from the start. So his point about Railtrack is not a particularly good one, especially as the main cause of the problem relates to Railtrack's initial setting up.
The hon. Gentleman made a general point about future projections. The document looks at the likely demand for unconstrained travel—in other words, the number of people who are likely to want to travel, or to trade, in the next few years. It also examines assumptions and options, based on constrained travel in the south-east or throughout the entire United Kingdom. The point is that, if airports are extended or new ones are built, the work will be done by the private sector, which will have to take a view on the likely levels of business. The Government are consulting on the numbers who are likely to want to fly, and how we respond. That is the point of a consultation period.
The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that, if we look ahead 30 years, there are bound to be some ups and downs. Twelve months ago—after September—people thought that the air industry would take a knock and that it would not recover. However, domestic and European travel has recovered substantially—not just because of low-cost airlines—and transatlantic journeys are also approaching previous levels. In this case, we must look ahead 30 years, which is what we are doing in the consultation documents published today. Over the next few months, the object of the exercise is to gather people's views on what they think will happen.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for recognising that doing nothing—pretending that there is no problem, or hoping that it will go away—is simply not an option. We all face this difficulty in our lives: most people want to travel by plane, and most of us have to fly from time to time, but all of us are concerned about airport expansion. Frankly, we cannot have it both ways. We must face up to the fact

855
that there is an opportunity here. There are problems to be solved, but Britain's future and prosperity depend on putting them right, and that is something that I am determined to do.
Mr. Don Foster: I, too, welcome the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) to his new post, and I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today. I begin by entirely agreeing with him that doing nothing is simply not an option. However, given that the Deputy Prime Minister accepted that "predict and provide" simply had not worked for our roads, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that it will not work for our airspace either? It is important to develop sustainable approaches to the difficult issues that the statement addresses.
The Secretary of State referred to rail substitution for domestic flights, but does he have any targets for the amount of substitution that he would like to see, given that there are currently some 365,000 domestic flights?
Given that the Secretary of State also rightly referred to the importance of our regional airports, both for their economic benefits to the regions and in reducing pressure on the south-east, will he acknowledge that it is vital that all airports operate on a level playing field, especially as regards landing fees? Is he aware that landing fees at Heathrow are among the lowest in the world?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his statement, although strong on environmental rhetoric, is rather weak on the details? For example, can he tell the House his plans for the development of an EU-wide aviation fuel duty, and what action he is taking to ensure that the increases in flights do not compromise the Kyoto agreement?
Having told us that he wants to make quick decisions, can the Secretary of State tell us why we have to wait for further consultation on night flights? Could he not simply rule out any increase in night flights to or from airports in urban areas?
Why has the right hon. Gentleman given us only one option—and a highly environmentally sensitive one at that—for a new airport for the south-east, when a range of alternatives could, and should, have been provided?
The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): Where?
Mr. Foster: May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman considers Manston as one possible base?
The Secretary of State said that the flight cap of 480,000, rightly imposed on Heathrow by his predecessor, is now up for grabs. Can he explain why it is up for grabs while the legal limits on a new runway at Gatwick seem to be set in stone? Why is there an inconsistency?
The Secretary of State will be as concerned as I am about the current problems with National Air Traffic Services and the various emergency measures that have had to be implemented, such as overtime working and retired air traffic controllers having to help out. Will he give us an absolute assurance that he has plans to ensure that there will be sufficient air traffic controllers to cope with the growth in flights discussed in the paper?
Mr. Darling: We are not in the business of what is known as predicting and providing; no one in their right
856
mind would build an airport on spec. The whole point of the consultation is to obtain people's view of the likely demand and of how we respond to it in future.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that regional airports are very important. I am sure that everyone on this side of the House would like to think that when we land at a regional airport it is a level playing field—and a level landing field as well. I am aware of his point about charges. The industry is examining that, especially in the context of low-cost airlines.
On the environment, when the Government make definite and firm proposals in their White Paper, that will be the time to consider, in respect of specific proposals, what we can do to honour our international and European obligations. The hon. Gentleman asked about the fuel duty. It is not only a matter for the European Union, but for world aviation. It would be curious if there was one regime in Europe and another for the rest of the world—all sorts of difficulties would arise.
On night flights, I said that I want to consult as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that a court case is pending in relation to the decisions taken by the last Conservative Government. That is before the court, and we shall have to consider it, too.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we were not looking at options other than Cliffe. It would be interesting if the Liberal party could actually come up with an option—a real proposal that we could consider.
Mr. Foster: I mentioned one.
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Manston and I appreciate the interest of Kent county council in Manston. However, the problem is that it is about 60 miles further to the east and that would pose difficulties as regards journeys into London. In addition, the further east one goes, the more one has to deal with air traffic considerations in continental Europe.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to NATS and air traffic controllers. NATS is addressing the matter; there is a problem throughout Europe in attracting enough people to deal with the increased demand. Generally, however, it is doing a good job and is coping with the amount of traffic. On his point about the consultation paper, NATS and the Civil Aviation Authority were of course consulted and will need to consider any concluded proposals following the consultation.
Several hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the House that when I call a Back Bencher, I expect only one question to be asked?
John McDonnell: The Secretary of State should be aware of the sense of betrayal, anger and worry felt by my constituents who live near Heathrow. They feel betrayed and angry because at the terminal 4 inquiry we were told that there would be no need for a terminal 5. At the terminal 5 inquiry, the British Airports Authority wrote to every one of my constituents at Heathrow saying that there was no need for a third runway. Six months ago, the Secretary of State told me that the environment of my constituents would be

857
protected by a cap on Heathrow, and now they are coming back for more. My constituents do not believe that this will be a short take-off runway. It will be a full runway, at the end of the day, affecting the homes of 4,000 families, three primary schools and villages and communities that have existed for 1,000 years.
I ask the Secretary of State for an assurance that he comes to the consultation with an open mind. Will he also give a commitment that, for the first time in 30 years of Heathrow's expansion, the interests of my constituents will be protected?
Mr. Darling: This is a consultation, and I made it very clear in my statement that the Government are looking at what we do to ensure that we maintain an international hub airport in the south-east. I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes about his constituents—I would expect that from any Member of Parliament representing a constituency containing an airport. However, he knows that Heathrow employs 68,000 people. There are about 100,000 people whose employment depends on the future of Heathrow. When we look at these matters, we must realise that although an airport's expansion or extension will cause some people concern, many people live around Heathrow and work there, while others fly from there on a number of occasions every year. It is not easy to marry those factors, but we need to consider the bigger picture.
Mr. Francis Maude: There will be widespread agreement with the Secretary of State that, whatever its exact path, there will be significant growth. The demand must be met, and much of it must he met in the south-east. I suspect that there is also agreement that there should be a dominant international hub airport in the south-east. However, does he accept that there is a powerful case that, to secure the long-term prosperity of Britain's civil aviation industry, with all the jobs that he rightly says depend on it, it would be better to consider the option of a new coastal airport, as other countries that have that option are doing, rather than endlessly bolting on capacity to existing inland airports? Does it not make better sense to locate flight paths over water rather than over houses? I do not know whether Cliffe is the right area, but new investment and jobs are urgently needed in the east Thames corridor.
Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is worth bearing it in mind that 65 per cent. of passengers who use south-east airports live in the south-east of England, so the majority are local. On his point about a coastal airport, Cliffe is just that—it is an option to build a new airport on the Thames coast. There will be counter-arguments in respect of Cliffe, just as there are for every other airport. One of the problems in the south-east of England is that there is a limited amount of open space that has no complications and wants an airport. If he finds such a site, he should drop me a line, because I would be interested to see it.
The options are fairly straightforward. The advantage of Heathrow is that it is there already, the advantage of Stansted is that an existing airport could be extended, and the advantage of Cliffe is that it is a new site. However, I readily recognise that there are pros and cons for every site and airport. It is for us. through the consultation process, to try to reach the right answer.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be huge opposition
858
to the construction of a new airport at Cliffe? It will not be based on selfish nimbyism or rejection of the economic benefits but on the massive damage that will be done to the most sensitive ecological sites in Europe, which are irreplaceable. Will the Secretary of State give my constituents at least this comfort? If, during the course of the consultation process, it appears that a new airport can be ruled out on the grounds of cost or anything else, will he give swift notice of that fact, so that the blight overhanging so much of north Kent can be lifted?
Mr. Darling: It is appropriate that my hon. and learned Friend should follow the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude); perhaps they should have a conversation with each other. That illustrates the problems that we face. I say to my hon. and learned Friend that I propose to announce the Government's conclusions after the consultation period—in one announcement rather than in bits, I hope. The whole consultation period has to run.
I say to my hon. and learned Friend, as I have said to other Members, that we must put in the balance the fact that we all know that doing nothing is not an option. There are more and more people who need or want to fly, and our future prosperity depends upon it. Indeed, many people who live near airports fly themselves.
There is no easy answer and, whatever the decision, I dare say that there will be difficulties with it. But I hope that when my hon. and learned Friend approaches the consultation, he will do so in the spirit of recognising that there could also be benefits from airport development at Cliffe and in other places, and reach a final view next year.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In his statement, the Secretary of State repeatedly suggested that environmental considerations would be of the utmost importance. As someone who has worked in the aircraft industry, supported Heathrow and always argued its merits as a premier international hub airport, may I say that constructing a new runway to the north of the existing one at Heathrow would be a development too far? Would it not be a supreme irony for many people who owe their livelihood to the airport, or who work there, to find themselves dispossessed of their homes by the construction of a runway that would fatally prejudice the environment of west London? May I therefore urge a balanced strategy, developing the London airport system as a whole, right round the capital, and the construction of crossrail through London, past Stratford, out to Stansted, to ensure the surface transport access that has so often been denied to passengers?
Mr. Darling: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about Heathrow and I know that, over the years, he has supported development to maintain Heathrow's premier position. The question that we must consider in this consultation period is how to ensure that a major hub airport is maintained in the London area. The question is whether we extend Heathrow—I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about that—or develop Stansted or a new site instead. The consultation also seeks views on whether Heathrow and Stansted could be developed together and complement each other, so the options are all in play.
I would say to the hon. Gentleman—he no doubt does this—that he must also talk to people who currently use Heathrow. who are now taking a long-term view in

859
relation to that airport. I know that the hon. Gentleman sometimes has difficulty in looking across the channel to Europe, but he is aware that while we in this country consider these matters, major hub airports are already being developed in Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt. If we do not decide what to do in a way acceptable to both residents and the industry, we could be in some difficulty in years to come.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Secretary of State will know that for decades British Governments have run away from the difficult questions in aviation, so he is to be most warmly congratulated on his statement today. He will also be aware that this is a matter of some urgency. Will he therefore give me an undertaking that under no circumstances will the decisions in relation either to extra runways, or to possibly a new airport, take place after the next general election? Will he also give me an absolute assurance that the private partners of National Air Traffic Services will be able to fund the expansion of air traffic services without which none of this will be possible? Above all, will he remember that although regional airports will certainly expand, they must have the right to come into the south-east airports protected? Otherwise, regional transport will become a pariah in terms of the development of the economy.
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her introductory words. As I said, I am determined that the Government should come to a firm view, which will be set out in the White Paper next year. It is in no one's interests that the matter should drag out. Clearly, if specific proposals are then made, some will take time to work out for obvious reasons. The uncertainty ought to be brought to an end as quickly as possible, but especially in places where there is not to be any development. She is also right that successive Governments have considered the subject and that some of them have run away from it. In the past few weeks, there have been times when I have seen why. My judgment is that in transport matters it is better to make decisions than not to make them, even though the consequences may be difficult.
My hon. Friend is also right that, on any view, we will have to cater for an increased use of air space, which will have consequent effects on air traffic control. It is important to ensure that NATS and the air traffic control system can cope with that. The consultation document touches on that. It is also important that the necessary funding comes—it is a partnership between the public and the private sectors—to ensure that air traffic control operates effectively.
Sir Paul Beresford: The Secretary of State will accept that it is obvious that there will be huge demand for development around any new runway or airport. With the London proposals in mind in particular, has his Department done any research into the extent to which it anticipates that happening, and if so, will it be published? If not, is such research anticipated and will it be published before the end of the consultation period?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Deputy Prime Minister published proposals on housing last week. My Department and his remain in touch, of
860
course and if the hon. Gentleman has questions relating to that, he can ask them in the normal way. He is right that airport developments have consequential effects, not only for housing but for businesses.
Paul Goggins: My right hon. Friend is right to propose additional runway capacity, but does he agree that an equally strong case can be made for effective ground transport links to airports? With reference to Manchester, will he consider the proposal to extend heavy rail from the airport to the west coast main line? More immediately, will he continue to liaise with the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive to ensure that the Metrolink extension to the airport goes ahead as quickly as possible?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend and other Greater Manchester Members will know that my Department is in touch with Manchester council about the metro. He will know that our concern relates not to the development of light rail, which we very much want, but to the fact that the costs have escalated dramatically recently and we need to get to the bottom of that for obvious reasons. He is also right that public transport links not only to Manchester but to all airports leave much to be desired. For example, Heathrow only acquired a heavy rail link recently, which is astonishing. That is something that we need to attend to in other parts of the country too.
Mr. Mark Prisk: Given that the areas immediately around Heathrow and Stansted are congested and overheating, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a wonderful opportunity, in principle, irrespective of which site is chosen, to create jobs and investment in the Thames gateway, which is the poorest part of the south-east region?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has a point. I said that one of the advantages of a development at Cliffe would be the gains that it would bring to the Thames gateway—an area that the previous Conservative Government and this Government have been anxious to help to regenerate. The difficulty, as he probably recognises—I appreciate his generosity of spirit in suggesting that the airport should be developed somewhere other than his own area—is that people who live in the area concerned sometimes take a different view. This will be an open consultation. There are powerful arguments for development in each and every case, but we also need to take other considerations into account. That is the object of the consultation period.
David Taylor: The Secretary of State reminded the House that the polluter must pay is an important principle. I disagree with him that airport communities are being compensated for the disruption to their environment caused by aviation and regional airports such as east midlands airport. Will he reassure those of us who represent constituencies near regional airports that could be expanded that he will put in place at least a minimum and decent environmental framework to protect the people who live in such communities, in particular from the corrosive and damaging effects of night noise? As he said in his statement, east midlands airport is second or third for

861
freight carriage in this country, but it has a very weak framework indeed. I can tell him that doing nothing is not an option.
Mr. Darling: I am aware of the issue at east midlands airport. Several local authorities have asked us to designate it in terms of noise control. At the moment, we do that only in south-east England. Obviously, those are all things that we need to look at as part of the consultation in relation to any development, but just so that I do not inadvertently, not mislead, but encourage my hon. Friend to think things that he should not be thinking, I am not holding out any hope of reversing my recent decision in respect of east midlands airport.
Mr. David Chidgey: In examining the options for expansion at Southampton international airport, which the Secretary of State will know is in my constituency, can he tell me whether it was discovered that the M27 motorway, the main coast railway line to Portsmouth and the little matter of Southampton city ruled out the construction of a second runway, as a previous study concluded? Is that still the case?
Mr. Darling: I know Southampton international airport. In fact, a couple of weeks ago I spent some time waiting for my train looking at it and its runway. The consultation in relation to Southampton does not envisage a second runway there but considers how Southampton and other airports in the area can be developed further and what their role should be. If anything is canvassed in the consultation that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with, or if there are matters that he thinks that we should examine further, this is the perfect opportunity for him to do that.
Mrs. Irene Adams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that devolution to Scotland was about delivering services and power nearer to the people who are represented? Will he therefore ensure during the consultation that the highly successful Glasgow airport, which is in my constituency and employs 5,000 people, is not sacrificed if the Edinburgh Parliament suddenly develops what might be described as a natural inclination to draw services to itself, and that the spirit of devolution continues to serve all the people of Scotland equally?
Mr. Darling: I am glad that my hon. Friend chose to blame the Edinburgh Parliament rather than the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, who is of course well aware of the competition or rivalry—call it what you will—between our two cities. The consultation with regard to central Scotland looks at what scope there is to develop both airports. There has been growth at both. It also raises the question whether we should try to develop a hub airport, which would probably only be at one airport. In order to make it work and to get the destinations that many people in Scotland want, not just to the south of England but to Europe and the United States, it would be necessary to achieve a certain density of traffic: it might be difficult to achieve that with a hub of two airports. I hope that as Edinburgh and Glasgow are 44 miles apart, although the airports are slightly further apart than that, all of us could see the common interest in doing that, and I say that an as Edinburgh Member.
Mr. Roger Gale: The Secretary of State will be aware that, given the necessary but—in transport
862
terms—relatively modest costs of improvements to the rail service, Manston airport in Kent is about 50 minutes by train to central London. In the light of his earlier answer, does he seriously suggest that Manston's potential is not under consideration in the document?
Mr. Darling: Manston is mentioned in the document, as are most major airports. My point was that, in terms of a large international hub airport, the option in Kent that is being looked at is Cliffe. In relation to Manston or indeed other airports in the region, the whole point of the consultation is to allow people to make representations. At this stage, the Government have not reached a conclusion. We will do so when we reach the stage of publishing a White Paper but there is nothing to stop the hon. Gentleman or other Kent Members making representations if they think that there is a better solution.
Margaret Moran: I welcome the significance that has been afforded to London Luton airport, which is a particularly successful public-private partnership, one of our largest employers and handles the second largest number of business passengers in the United Kingdom. I welcome the proposals for expansion, although not for a second runway, which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) seemed to be advocating, since that would mean tarmacking over half of Luton, probably including my house. Is my right hon. Friend aware that expansion of London Luton is predicated on the need to deal with junction 10 of the M1 and its widening? Can he advise us when a decision is likely to be made on that point?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right that, in relation to all these airports, surface communications, whether motorway or rail, need attention. I cannot tell her when a decision is likely to be made in relation to the M1. I would also say, as she raised the matter, that the options at Luton include a new runway to replace the existing runway, because, as she will know far better than I do, the topography of Luton means that it would not be possible to put a second airport there. As she will know, however, significant capacity over the next 30 years should allow Luton to develop successfully.
Mr. Eric Pickles: The Secretary of State spoke repeatedly about the need to attract a hub operation. Does he understand that that is not entirely within his gift, and that many airports in the world with spacious termini and multi-runways have never been able to attract a hub because they lacked critical mass and the co-operation of a major carrier? Given what is happening in France, Germany and the Netherlands, and the recent failure of British Airways to create a successful hub at Gatwick, what makes him think that there is a possibility of creating an additional hub at Stansted?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. What I said was that, clearly, Heathrow is a very successful international hub airport—one international passenger in six start and finish their journeys in the south-east, and many do so at Heathrow. The question is whether we can maintain Heathrow's position. Does it need an extension in terms of an additional runway, or would it be better to operate Heathrow in conjunction with

863
a second airport such as Stansted? Alternatively, should we accept that Heathrow cannot expand enough, for whatever reason, and move the hub airport elsewhere? I accept that that does not lie entirely in the Government's hands. The people who build the airport, operate the airport and own the airlines are not the Government. Clearly, however, Government can influence these matters. We can listen to the industry and the airlines, and, because of the powers available to us, set up a framework against which all those people, as well as residents, can plan for the future.
I accept that not all these matters lie in the hands of the Government, but the logic of the hon. Gentleman's position is that the Government should stand back and see what others do to sort it out. I do not think that he is saying that. I do think, however, that the consultation period allows time for people to focus their minds. As he raised the point, I hope that it focuses the minds of everybody concerned, as it is in all our interests that we come to a firm decision sooner rather than later.
Alan Keen: Would the Secretary of State add another telling statistic to those that he is beginning to compile? I am the third Heathrow Member to speak this afternoon. One of the other two has always opposed major developments at Heathrow, while the other has always supported them. The latter has changed his mind, and I shall add another to the list of those who have moved across: because of the people living around Heathrow, I do not agree that it is possible to expand outside Heathrow without causing dreadful damage to people's lives. People are already suffering greatly, as I hope that the Secretary of State understands, but they carry on and make a major contribution to one of the world's greatest industries. Two people have therefore switched over this afternoon.
Mr. Darling: I do not quarrel with any Member who advances a particular view because it is in their constituents' interests to do so. My hon. Friend is, therefore, entitled to take that view. All I would say to him, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is that the three of us are concerned about the future of Heathrow. The question is whether it can continue to be the international airport that it is without extending its capacity further. If, at the end, the consensus is yes, that is fine. But if it is no, ail of us—including Members who represent Heathrow constituencies—have to face up to the fact that, at the moment, the airport is responsible, directly and indirectly, for the employment of about 100,000 people. We must take decisions in the next year or so that will determine the future of Heathrow over the next 30 years. There is not an easy answer, as I have said time and again, and all of us have to consider both sides of the argument before reaching a view.
Mr. Graham Brady: Just 12 months after the opening of the second runway at Manchester airport, the possibility of further development would cause real concern among the communities living around it. Will the Secretary of State take on board the fact that when an airport, such as Manchester, is so close
864
to a conurbation, there must be an upper limit on development? Does he accept that the airport cannot continue to grow indefinitely?
Mr. Darling: There is not a proposal to build another runway at Manchester. The view is that the existing runway capacity will be sufficient throughout the 30-year period. There is, however, an option to extend terminal capacity.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but it reflects a common theme in our exchanges. Everyone agrees that something has to be done and that more and more people want to travel. However, when it comes to the particular, people naturally say, "Not here. Somewhere else." As he knows, I do not represent a Greater Manchester constituency, but I speak to quite a lot of Greater Manchester MPs, not least because we have rather more of them than he has. My impression is that opinion is somewhat divided.
Ms Candy Atherton: People in the south-west make fewer air journeys than anyone else in the United Kingdom. That could be because we have the lowest number of airports and slots into the south-east. The situation was not helped when, in the mid-1990s, British Airways withdrew the slot into Heathrow from Plymouth and Newquay. That was bad for the economy of Cornwall and Devon. Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider this issue in the consultation?
Mr. Darling: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about not just air links but other links from the south-west. I have used Plymouth and Newquay airports on several occasions, and I am aware of the problems that she has encountered. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), keeps me right about the south-west of England at every possible opportunity.
The consultation documents consider options for increasing links and for extending capacity at Bristol. I appreciate that Bristol is quite a long way from Cornwall, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) accepts that some things can be done with the smaller regional airports whereas other things cannot. However, I assure her that I perfectly understand her points and, as I suggested, my ministerial colleague will ensure that I consider all the issues.
Sir Teddy Taylor: How substantial and significant to the Secretary of State's plans is the contribution made by outstanding regional airports, such as Southend, which are anxious to expand and develop? As we are heading for a period of expansion, will he make it clear that the CAA will adopt a positive and constructive attitude to airport expansion and that it will not be unduly bureaucratic?
Mr. Darling: I hope that the latter will not be the case. The difficulty at Southend is just how much more scope for expansion there is without encountering real problems. However, it is a pleasure to hear an hon. Member say that he wants a bigger airport in his constituency. I assure him that Southend is one of the options considered in the consultation document, but it is not down for development as a major London airport. It is being considered in its own right.
Sandra Osborne: I want a bigger airport in my constituency. My right hon. Friend will recognise that

865
Glasgow and the west of Scotland are served by two airports, one of which is Glasgow Prestwick in my constituency. It has a rail link and capacity for growth, so what does he say about that in his scenario of a hub for Scotland? Glasgow Prestwick excels at freight, so will he say something about the consultation on freight in relation to Scotland? Finally, does he agree that the consultation document underlines once and for all the need for the Scottish centre at Prestwick?
Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend on that point. She will know that I plan to visit Prestwick in the summer. No doubt, I will see her there.
I know that Prestwick has been through a difficult time over the years. There has been some welcome expansion brought about, for example, by the low-cost airline Ryanair and by the development of freight. My hon. Friend will see from the consultation document that the future development of Prestwick is being examined. On her point about whether it is possible to promote a passenger hub airport at Prestwick, the consultation document suggests that the development of Glasgow and Edinburgh is more likely. However, she will clearly want to make representations on behalf of Prestwick.
John Thurso: Given the potential threat to the Inverness-Gatwick air link, does the Secretary of State recognise its vital importance to the economy of the highlands? Notwithstanding the clear hints that a public service obligation will not be forthcoming, can he assure the House that the Government remain committed to it?
Mr. Darling: Having been in touch with Iain Gray, the Minister with responsibility for transport in the Scottish Executive, I am well aware that the links between Inverness and London are very important. British Airways has said on a number of occasions that it intends to continue with the link, and our discussions and consideration continue. The hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt that the link is critical.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement. He is aware of the mass protest—indeed, he has had a flavour of it in the Chamber—that will result from expansion in the south and south-east. In Doncaster, not only are the vast majority of the population in favour of the project at RAF Finningley, but tens of thousands of people have signed a petition asking for an airport there. Will he agree to meet a delegation of Doncaster and south Yorkshire MPs so that we can tell him in detail about the benefits of having an airport in Doncaster?
Mr. Darling: Over the past 10 years I must have met my hon. Friend on many occasions, mostly informal rather than formal, and I know of his long-standing interest in Finningley and the development there. There has been an inquiry. The inspector is due to report in October or November—I hope that he will do so—and a decision then has to be made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. That is why the proposal does not appear in the consultation document. As I said to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), it is nice to find an hon. Member who wants an
866
airport in his constituency. Although all hon. Members recognise the need for airport capacity to be increased, they are generally wary about where it should go.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The Government's proposals for new runways at Birmingham international airport will cause great concern to my constituents because of the environmental consequences. The Department's summary document states that improvements would need to be made to the road network and the west coast main line. Does that constitute a wish list or a commitment to do something?
Mr. Darling: We are committed to upgrading the west coast main line. Unlike the party that the hon. Lady represents, we are prepared to put in the investment to make that possible, so she is in no position to criticise us on railway development.
The hon. Lady has a more substantive point about Birmingham. The consultation document recognises the fact that extending the development of Birmingham airport could have implications for people living around it. It also makes the point that jobs are associated with the airport. One of the options that was considered as an alternative to the expansion of Birmingham and east midlands airports was a new airport between Coventry and Rugby.
We all recognise the need for good air links, and Birmingham airport is a very good airport that provides links throughout and beyond Europe and is extremely popular. The hon. Lady must weigh in the balance the advantages of Birmingham and the possible need to extend it with her concerns for her constituents. None of us can have it all ways. There is no such thing as a cost-free airport with no implications one way or another.
Andy King: The people of Rugby will be devastated by what they have heard today and to know that two historic villages—Church Lawford and King's Newnham—will disappear under runways. If one had said to anybody in Rugby yesterday that there would be a new airport in Rugby and Birmingham airport will close, they would not have believed that it was humanly possible. My right hon. Friend said that Birmingham is a very successful airport. I believe that it should continue to be so and that the people of Birmingham would not want to lose their airport. Will he meet a delegation of the people of Rugby within the four-month period? [Interruption.] Four months is not long enough, because it will take them four months to get over the shock of hearing about it.
Mr. Darling: I always knew that being Transport Secretary would be good fun. Just before my hon. Friend causes himself a lot of difficulty, I must tell him that we are not proposing a new airport between Coventry and Rugby. We are saying that there is likely to be an expansion in the numbers of people wanting to fly from midlands airports. The options canvass is on whether we expand capacity at Birmingham or east midlands, or both. Alternatively, the option is whether it is worth building a new airport. No decisions whatever have been made.
I strongly urge my hon. Friend, not for my good but for his, that before he tells his constituents that they will be getting a new airport—[Interruption.] I got the

867
impression that he was to tell them. Let us exercise a little caution. I say to him as I have to others this afternoon that all of us as a country know that our future prosperity depends on our ability to trade and travel. That means that difficult decisions have to be made. Let us for goodness' sake look at the options rationally, weigh them in the balance and then come to a conclusion. No decision at all has been reached on any development. Everyone should look at the consultation documents bearing that very much at the front of their minds.
Andrew Selous: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking to look very seriously at the role of airport consultative committees, which to local people at the moment give an illusion of consultation? Will he particularly consider the issue of vectoring, whereby aircraft move from approved routes purely for time reasons?
Mr. Darling: Those are two separate matters. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular point about a consultative committee, perhaps he would let me know. I am not aware of a general concern. I am not saying that there is not one, but I am not aware of it because representations have not been made to me.
Aircraft go off route—presumably with the permission of air traffic controllers—from time to time for perfectly good operational reasons. Again, if the hon. Gentleman has specific concerns or thinks that it is happening too often above his constituency, perhaps he would let me know.
Mr. John Smith: I warmly welcome the statement as it relates to Wales: the recognition that air travel will be at the cutting edge of business communication in Wales; the concentration on development at Cardiff international airport rather than building a new airport at Severnside; and the emphasis on surface access to the airport in order to develop it. Will my right hon. Friend work closely with the Welsh Assembly to progress that excellent agenda?
Finally, may I remind right hon. and hon. Members to wear flight socks when they fly on holiday this summer? Apart from saving lives, they can be very fetching.
Mr. Darling: I will bear that in mind.
As I said in my statement, I know that the announcement by BMI to establish a second base for its new low-cost airline in Cardiff is very welcome. I have also said that surface links, not just to airports but for passengers living in Wales who want to travel from airports in England, need to be improved. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, and we are of course working closely with the Welsh Assembly.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Secretary of State should know that my constituents are not saying, "Not here"; they are saying, "Not any more here." We already have four terminals at Heathrow and do not want any more, although one is to be imposed on us. If he
868
cannot guarantee that air traffic movements will be capped at 480,000 a year and that there will be no third runway at Heathrow, which were both conditions imposed by the inspector on the granting of permission for terminal 5, what is the use of public inquiries in the first place?
Mr. Darling: As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), who speaks for the Opposition, the decision on terminal 5 was recognised as one in relation to the airport as it is now. It needs a fifth terminal to deal with the airport as it is now. The inspector noted and acknowledged in his conclusions the fact that the Government would consult on what was necessary for the next 30 years. The decision made by the Government at the time made that clear.
I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady makes on behalf of her constituents, and the subtle distinction between "Not here" and "Not any more here", but no matter what part of the country we live in, we must acknowledge that people fly. Many of her constituents fly—from Heathrow. Indeed, I would guess that the propensity to fly in the south-east of England and in Richmond is rather greater than that in some other parts of the country. It is necessary to strike a balance. As I said before, the one thing we cannot do is ignore the fact that over the next 30 years conditions will change. We need to plan for those changing conditions and we need to do it now. Pretending that there is no problem gets us nowhere.
Mr. Clive Soley: May I remind my right hon. Friend of Heathrow's importance as a premier airport to jobs and the economy in west London? If it were to decline seriously, the impact on the region would be at least as devastating as was the closure of the docks on east London. People need to understand that when making this judgment on air transport. As one who has lived under a flight path for much of my life, I admit that it is not easy to live with the noise, but I think that if Heathrow went into decline, the devastation wrought on west London would be extremely serious.
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he has put his finger on the problem. He rightly draws attention to the concerns of people living at or near Heathrow and its flight paths, but that airport employs, directly or indirectly, more than 100,000 people. It is therefore critical that we get the decision on the future of the London airports, in particular Heathrow, right, and we need to get it right fairly soon. To leave the decision to someone else—to say that I want nothing to do with it—is not the right approach, so I welcome my hon. Friend's comments.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I have important business of the House to protect. No one understands better than I the importance of the issue, but experience suggests that it is one to which the House will return.

Older People's Services
4.46 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on services for older people.
As the House will recall, the Budget made available substantial increases in funding, not only for the national health service, but for social services. In due course, I will outline how some of the major increases in resources for the health service will specifically assist older people. Today, I can outline to the House how older people will benefit from the extra resources for our country's social services.
Older people are the generation who created our great health and social services. They, above all others, deserve to get the best from them. The mark of any civilised society must surely be how it treats its most senior citizens. Labour Members take pride in the Government's commitment to help to secure dignity and security in old age. Increases in pensions make the average pensioner household £840 a year better off today than in 1997, and there is also special help to lift pensioners out of poverty.
It is for others in the House to explain their opposition to reductions in VAT on heating, extra winter fuel payments and free television licences, given that more than 11 million pensioners have been helped by those measures, which were introduced by the Labour Government. Eye tests are now free, whereas older people used to have to pay for them. Nursing care is now free for older people; they used to have to pay for that, as well. Breast screening is being extended to women aged over 65. Last year, the number of knee operations on older people rose by 7 per cent., cataract operations by 11 per cent., and heart operations by 13 per cent.
None the less, there is much more to do to provide services that genuinely offer security, promote independence and widen choice for older people. Ours is an ageing society. We should not fear that—in my view, it is something that we should celebrate—but it means that our public services must now rise to the challenge of delivering better, faster care with higher standards for older people. Indeed, securing improvements in older people's care is one of the key priorities of our 10-year NHS plan. Today, I can announce how we intend to take that commitment forward.
Social services have for too long been the poor relation to health services. Between 1992 and 1997, real-terms funding for social services rose by only 0.1 per cent. a year. Today. it is rising by 3 per cent. a year, and from next April that rate of growth will double to an average of 6 per cent. a year above inflation. I can confirm today that older people will be the principal beneficiaries not only of those extra resources, but of the reforms that we are introducing to secure improvements in social care, working with our colleagues in local government, the private sector and the voluntary sector.
By 2006, compared with the resources available today we will provide an extra £1 billion a year in real terms for social services for older people. Reform will be required to get the best from these extra resources. The extra £1 billion—combined with the reforms that we will make—must guarantee for older people not more of the same but faster access to a wider range of services, offering older people greater choice.
870
First, we will guarantee older people faster assessment of their needs. Reforms are already in train to bring local health and social services together and to ensure that they provide a single seamless assessment process. Older people, above all others, need a one-care system, not competing care systems. Older people also need faster assessment. Some councils currently delay assessments for older people for up to nine months. That is completely unacceptable. I can tell the House today that by the end of 2004, all assessments will begin within 48 hours and will be complete within one month. Following assessment, the services to older people in need will be in place within one month. All equipment needed to help people live independently in their own homes will be provided within just one week.
These shorter waiting times will be accompanied by major reforms to ensure that older people are able to leave hospital when they are ready to do so. To accompany these extra financial resources, which will increase capacity in all aspects of older people's care, local authorities will gain the financial responsibility for older people once they are ready to leave hospital. I can tell the House that we intend, subject to legislation, to introduce this reform by April next year.
Secondly, there will be more support to help more people who need care in residential and nursing homes. For many frail or disabled older people, care homes—thanks to the efforts of care home staff—offer the best security and support. The size of the care home market peaked in the mid-1990s. Since then, it is true that the boom in the property market—especially in the south of England—combined with low increases in fee levels paid by local authorities, has led to a fall in the number of care homes beds. Laing and Buisson, perhaps the foremost analyst of the care home market, says that ideally occupancy levels in care homes should be at about 90 per cent. It estimates that occupancy levels are now running at about 91 per cent., suggesting that a modest increase in bed numbers from current levels is what is needed. We will now plan to increase the number of care home places supported by local councils.
Since last November, when we made available an extra £300 million to social services, fee levels have risen—by up to 10 per cent. in some parts of the country. The resources that we are providing from April next year will allow local councils to pay higher fees still if that is what is needed to stabilise their local care home market.
Greater stability must be accompanied by higher standards. That is what care home providers called for and, indeed, it is what the Care Standards Act 2000 enshrines. For the first time, clear national standards are in place, but we always said that we would keep the new standards under review.
The size of rooms and doors, the availability of single rooms and the number of lifts and baths are important, but they should not mean good local care homes having to close. We will therefore shortly issue for consultation an amended set of environmental standards to remove them as a requirement on existing homes, instead making it clear that they are good practice to which all care homes should aspire. We will require care homes to spell out whether they do or do not meet those standards and let those who are choosing homes make an informed choice for themselves.

871
Other standards—for example, those covering qualified staff—make a greater contribution to the quality of care provided for older people. I can therefore tell the House that we will make £70 million available by 2006—ring-fenced—to support training for social care staff, most of whom currently do not have a qualification, and many of whom are employed in the care home sector.
Thirdly, we will guarantee greater choice for older people in the services that they receive. Care homes are a good option for some older people, but not for all. They are not, and must not become, the be all and end all of elderly care services in our country. Our objective is to broaden the spectrum of services available for older people to widen choice and promote independence.
To enable local councils to provide more rehabilitation services, we will earmark resources to ensure an extra 70,000 older people a year get those services to avoid them going into hospital unnecessarily or to help them leave hospital speedily when it is safe for them to do so. I can tell the House today that I intend to legislate to ensure that those and intermediate care services will be free whether they are provided by the health service or, indeed, by social services.
We will also invest in new models of supported care for older people. We will therefore resource a 50 per cent. increase over the 1997 total in the number of extra-care housing places—very sheltered accommodation—available for older people, and we will work with local authorities, housing associations and others to bring that about.
Fourthly, more older people will get the support that they need to continue to live in their own homes if they choose to do so. The choice that too many older people have faced in the past is between going into care homes or struggling on in their own homes. Just like everyone else, older people want to remain as independent as possible for as long as possible. As a result of the investment that I am announcing today, by 2005 there will be twice as many older people receiving the intensive help that they need to live at home than there were in 1995.
Charges are currently made for community equipment, such as hand rails or hoists, which can make the difference between older people becoming dependent or remaining independent in their own homes. So I can tell the House today that—again, subject to legislation—from April next year, I plan to remove those charges altogether. Through ring-fenced funding, up to 500,000 extra pieces of community equipment will be provided free of charge to an estimated 250,000 more older people.
Fifthly, older people will be given a direct choice over their own care. Direct payments have already given younger disabled people the chance to spend for themselves the resources that they are assessed as needing. Now, in line with our manifesto commitment, I can tell the House that we will make it an obligation on every local authority, for the first time, to offer older people access to direct payments. Every older person assessed as being in need of care—whether for rehabilitation after a hip operation, or for a bit of help with household chores—will be given the choice of receiving a service or, instead, receiving a cash payment to purchase care for themselves that better suits their individual needs.
872
We will work with older people's organisations to make that choice a reality for tens of thousands of older people. I believe that that reform will empower older people, their families and their carers in a way that has never been possible before. Direct payments will give older people direct choices over the services that they receive.
Finally, many older people rely on more informal care from their family, their friends or their neighbours. Without the millions of carers in our country the services provided by the NHS or local councils simply could not do their job. In my view, the whole country owes our community of carers an enormous debt of gratitude. They are living proof that there is such a thing as society.
In recent years, we have provided more help to carers. Now we plan to build on that. So I can tell the House that I intend to more than double the carers grant to £185 million by 2006. As a result 130,000 additional carers will get help not just with short breaks through respite care, but with the extended care that they need so that they can continue caring. Carers put so much into the community, so it is right that they should get something back.
That is a major package of investment and reform to the services older people receive. The proposed new independent commission for social care inspection will be responsible for ensuring that councils in every part of the country deliver for older people. I can inform the House that the new commission will start operating in shadow form by the end of this year, so that it can inspect and audit how those extra resources are being used. The councils that do best will get more freedoms and greater rewards. There will be intervention for those that fail.
Those reforms and those resources will increase capacity to make choice a reality for hundreds of thousands of older people. There will be more places in care homes and sheltered housing. There will be more intermediate care services. Crucially, there will be more support for older people to live at home and for their carers. More older people will be able to gain access to more services and exercise more choice.
Increasing choice for older people is possible only because of the choice that this Government have made to put sustained levels of investment into our health and social services. As Labour Members, we know that resources plus reforms deliver results.
Our commitment is to deliver for this generation of older people and future ones. It is for those who oppose both the investment and the reforms to explain now how they would go about delivering dignity and security in old age. For our part, the emphasis must now be on helping more older people to live more independently for more of the time. When these reforms are fully implemented, there will be a greater proportion of older people being cared for at home than there is now.
After all, that is the choice most older people say they would prefer. That is what older people have every right to expect. It is what we intend to deliver. I commend the proposals to the House.
Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement, and for making a copy available in advance. As ever, the statement is strong on rhetoric and well-delivered, but lacking in substance. It is largely a set of re-announcements and U-turns and seems to be timed more to avoid embarrassing headlines

873
generated by tomorrow's report from the Select Committee on Health than anything else. It is more about managing news than managing patients.
The statement is a wish list that rings hollow when compared with the Government's record. It is littered with some real gems. We heard that "Nursing care is now free for older people"; try telling that to our constituents up and down the country. The Government might be making a contribution, but care is anything but free. We were told that "We need to stabilise the care home market"; what an incredible statement from the Secretary of State. We have been telling him that for the past three years. It is his failure to listen not only to the official Opposition and other parties, but to those involved in the care home industry that has led to the loss of more than 60,000 care home places. It is a failure entirely of the Government's own making. As patients are discharged too quickly from our hospitals to relieve the bed-blocking crisis, the number of re-admissions within 28 days is rocketing. It is a revolving-door policy for our elderly people—some dignity or security that provides.
As the number of blocked beds rises, the number of cancelled operations is going up, many of which were intended for elderly patients—some dignity or security. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us how many of the 100,000 extra admissions to accident and emergency departments in the past two quarters have been elderly patients denied dignity and security as a result of the Government's failure.
When the Secretary of State has the gall to stand up and say that the size of rooms and doors is important but should not mean good local care homes having to close, I have to ask where he has been for the past three years. It is too late for many homes, which have already closed as a result of the very legislation and regulations that the Government brought in. They are now telling us that they will have another look at the matter and that they will have a more flexible approach. That is too late for many homes. The damage has been done, just as the damage has been done to the security and dignity of many older people in those homes.
It is wonderful what the Secretary of State believes now, but it was not what he believed when the Care Standards Act 2000 was being rammed through both Houses of Parliament. The only word missing today was sorry. Today, he has talked about the quality of care given by care homes, but only recently he was talking about people being "banged up" in care homes. The rhetoric is different today.
We heard the right hon. Gentleman's interesting pledges on equipment, but we have heard them before. When the Audit Commission produced its report on equipment provision in March 2000, the Secretary of State said:
"It paints a very stark picture of frankly a second-rate service in some parts of the country. What we have to do now is ensure that the Audit Commission's recommendations are actioned in every part of the health service."
Of course, it became "a priority" for the Government to improve the service. We have just had the Audit Commission's follow-up to that report. After the Government making it a priority and such an important part of their programme, the Audit Commission found that users
"continue to report long delays for equipment of dubious quality … many who could benefit from equipment services are excluded by stringent eligibility criteria … waiting times for some equipment is
874
up to six years … a mood of despondency is common among managers running equipment services … no progress has been made in integrating mobility services, leaving the wheelchair and orthotics services marginalised."
[Interruption.] The Government Chief Whip says that there was no money. Why was there no money if it was a Government priority to improve those services? They have been in office for five years and it has been a priority in their programme for two years. They promise so much and deliver so little.
What the Government have said about domiciliary care is unbelievable. Of course, Conservative Members welcome the introduction of what will effectively be care vouchers, which the Secretary of State mentioned today. He has, however, a stark reality to confront. When the Government came to office, 479,000 people were receiving domiciliary care. That figure has now plummeted to fewer than 400,000 in the last year. The number of people receiving care has therefore gone down dramatically under the Government's domiciliary care programme, and the shortage of capacity will limit any plans that the Government may have.
Where are all these extra care workers to come from? How will they be employed? Has the Secretary of State actually tried to find a carer for an elderly relative recently? Has he tried to find respite care? Where are these people to come from? Are they to be plucked from the carers' tree, or bought from the carers' supermarket? How are we going to attract people into these jobs? Who will carry out the assessments that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned? How many extra staff will be required for that? Who will initiate the assessments? How will urgency be accommodated within a guaranteed time?
This is certainly not good enough. The Government are making promises yet again, even though they have not kept them in the past. The good points in the proposals are those that abandon Government policy and make U-turns. This is the initiative du jour, and the elderly will see through it for the sham that it is.
Mr. Milburn: I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman was grateful for getting a copy of the statement in advance. I was even more grateful for getting a copy of his press release in advance. In fact, I got a copy of his press release even before he got a copy of my statement. Perhaps it is not surprising that he has remained on the Tory Front Bench, with such extraordinary powers of extra-sensory perception.
The hon. Gentleman said that this was a wish list for older people. It is actually a delivery list for older people. He said that the number of people being delayed from discharge from hospital was rising. That is not true; it is falling. He said that the number of cancelled operations was rising. It is not; it is falling. He said that the number of people being helped to live at home by social services was falling; it is, in fact, rising.
On the issue of community equipment, the hon. Gentleman continually bleats about the lack of provision of services yet he is never prepared to commit the necessary extra resources and earmark them for the purpose for which they are needed. That is precisely what we are doing with community equipment. One of his hon. Friends asked earlier from a sedentary position whether much of this money was earmarked. Yes, it is. Two thirds of this £1 billion package for older people is ring-fenced and earmarked specifically for the purposes that I have outlined today.

875
The hon. Gentleman is opposed not only to investment but to the earmarking of investment. He wants to see extra resources going in somehow, but I am afraid that the invisible hand of the market will not deliver extra handrails. extra support, extra care home places, more intermediate care, or more domiciliary care. Those are provided only because of the investment that we are making. The hon. Gentleman's problem relates not just to what the Conservatives did when they were in government but to what he is saying while they are in opposition, and to their abject failure to match either our investment or our programme of reform.
Does anyone seriously believe that the Conservatives who landed pensioners with more poverty, VAT on fuel, and charges for eye tests that used to be free, have somehow been regenerated and reborn as today's caring, compassionate Conservatives—the sort of Conservatives you could take home to meet your mother without fear of her being mis-sold a pension? Nobody believes that, not even the hon. Gentleman. We know that public services, social services and elderly care services need both resources and reform, and that is what we are committed to delivering. The problem for the hon. Gentleman is that he cannot commit to either.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: By a strange coincidence, the Health Committee is delivering at midnight a report that has direct relevance to the statement made by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. Obviously, I am precluded from referring to the conclusions of the report, but I can refer to evidence that is in the public arena. I was struck by the evidence from a particular witness, who suggested that the entire debate on the care of older people has been hijacked by the interests of the private care home sector.
I have listened carefully to my right hon, Friend's statement, and he is clearly setting out an agenda to move away from dependence on residential and institutional care. I welcome that, but I would also welcome a commitment that he will work with the private care sector to encourage it to move away from the outdated institutional models of care that countries such as Denmark abandoned many years ago.
Mr. Milburn: As always, I pay heed to what my hon. Friend says—as Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, and as a friend of mine. His comments make perfect sense. It is obvious that, at some point in their lives, some older people may well need residential or nursing care in a care home. Some may require supported or sheltered housing, and others may require intermediate care. However, survey after survey has shown one simple thing about older people's needs and desires: they want to live as independently as possible for as long as possible. Surely, we have got to get the pendulum swinging in the right direction. That means moving away from institutional forms of care, wherever they are provided, towards a new emphasis on more individualised forms of care that support people for as long as possible in their own homes.
A moment or two ago, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) described these measures as a series of re-announcements, but real money backed by
876
real reforms means that, for the first time—certainly since my Department has collected such figures—the number of elderly people supported by social services will rise to more than 1 million. The proportion of older people cared for in their own homes will also rise. That is getting the pendulum swinging in precisely the right direction. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, to deliver these changes and resources, we need to work in concert not just with our friends and colleagues in local government and the voluntary sector, but with the private sector too. That is precisely what we will do, but let there be no doubt: the direction is now firmly towards more individualised care, and less institutionalised care.
Mr. Paul Burstow: I thank the Secretary of State for giving us an advance copy of today's statement. The Liberal Democrats certainly welcome the extension of direct payments, putting cash into people's hands so that they can buy for themselves the care that they think that they need most. However, will he ensure that those who organise the purchasing of their care in the independent sector do not then find that a VAT bill has been slapped on top, and that the money given therefore goes back to the Treasury? Will he also consider ensuring that direct payments are made to those currently in nursing homes or care homes? They expected a reduction in their fees to reflect the fact that they were receiving free nursing care, but that has not happened. Will he therefore create a direct payment scheme to ensure that they get the money themselves, rather than passing it on through care home owners?
In his statement, the Secretary of State described giving councils a financial responsibility for delayed discharge as if it were some form of new privilege. Is there not a danger that, rather than delivering better care, the culture of mutual blame and buck passing between the NHS and social services will be reinforced, with patients being yet further victimised as they become parcels bundled between the two? Does the Secretary of State share the concern that the Government's over-concentration on delayed discharge is leading to a rise in the numbers discharged prematurely, only to be re-admitted as emergencies? Can he confirm that the targets set for emergency re-admissions in the implementation programme for the NHS plan have been comprehensively missed, and that a growing number of elderly people are turning up in accident and emergency departments just days after their discharge?
Carers are the backbone of our care system. Given that the oldest carers tend to have cared for the longest time—and often at the greatest cost to their own health—will the Secretary of State offer carers a direct payment to enable them to purchase respite care for themselves, rather than running the risk of those payments being held up by social services departments that are ill able to pay for such care? Does he accept the findings of the Rowntree report, "Calculating A Fair Price for Care", which points out that there is a £1 billion black hole in the finances of the care home sector? Given that the latest figures from Laing and Buisson show that a further 13,100 beds have been lost in the last year alone, just when will the free fall in the care market end? When will the Government take the actions that are necessary to stop it?
The Secretary of State made much of the extra places that would be available in care homes. His own Department's figures show that 109,900 fewer people are

877
receiving home care today than five years ago. Is that because cash-strapped social service departments have been shifting the goal posts, disqualifying the frail elderly and casting them out because they can no longer afford to provide the care that those people need?
The Secretary of State has told us that there will be real-terms growth in the future, but in the first three years of the Labour Administration there was a real-terms reduction in funds for social care. There is a huge legacy of underfunding to be made good. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the baseline for his spending plans? Is he assuming that the extra services he has announced today will receive funds on top of the £1 billion that local authorities already spend in excess of what the Government consider necessary for social services?
The Conservative party has rightly identified over-regulation in the care homes sector as an issue, but the key issue was underfunding of the sector, and today's statement did not address that. What the Government have done is say that they are prepared to trade off the vulnerable young—not to give them the resources necessary for their protection—in return for looking after the elderly better, and giving them dignity. Such a trade-off should not be accepted.
Mr. Milburn: I suppose that that counts as a warm welcome for the package of measures for older people.
It is nonsense to suggest that just because we provide extra support for older people, we cannot provide extra support for working-age adults or indeed children. As I said at the outset, we will announce further measures in due course, and further resources for precisely those groups who need help from social services. The hon. Gentleman will find that for them, too, extra investment is being made and reforms are being introduced. I know that he opposes those reforms, but he will note that the overall volume of care is increasing dramatically.
When the hon. Gentleman spoke of the number of older people being helped to live at home, he was counting a partial figure. He was counting people who receive some form of home help and some form of personal care. He was not counting those who receive, for instance, meals on wheels or community equipment assistance. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) smiles, but for literally tens of thousands of older people, that means the difference between independence and dependence. The number of people receiving support of that kind from local authorities is not falling but rising, and it is set to go on rising as a consequence of the extra resources being provided.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) asked whether direct payments would be made to carers. Yes, they will. We will consult in August on changes to regulations on such payments, and we intend the new regulations to be in place by the end of the year. He is welcome to respond to the consultation, and of course we shall listen to what he has to say.
The hon. Gentleman commented on the reform contained in the package. I know what he wants: he wants to snaffle the resources, but he does not want any reform. For older people, that will mean more of the same. Not a single older person whom I have met—and probably not a single older person whom the hon. Gentleman has met—wants more of the same. Older people want change in the
878
services delivered to them. They want more power, more say, more direct control and a wider spectrum of choice. Of course they want a working partnership between the health service and social services, but partnership is a fudge unless it is clear who takes responsibility for each aspect of an older person's care, and that is precisely what we will make clear.
As always, the Liberals bleat nationally about shortages of resources, but the story is rather different when it comes to the position locally. When, before the last local election, I visited Liverpool—whose council was controlled by the Liberal Democrats—what was planned then was not increases in services or resources for vulnerable older people, but cuts in those services and resources.
As always, the Liberal Democrats tell one group of people one thing, and another audience another. In fact, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) says different things to the same audience. That is the Liberal Democrats—no more believable than their friends on the Conservative Front Bench.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I warmly welcome today's statement by my right hon. Friend, and especially those measures that will enable elderly people to stay in their homes longer. However, will he look carefully at areas such as mine, where housing costs are high and unemployment is low? The supermarkets can always afford to pay more than social services departments, which is causing real recruitment problems. That will not change if people try to recruit help through direct payments. Will my right hon. Friend see whether extra help can be made available for areas such as mine?
Mr. Milburn: It is very important to get the resources to the right parts of the country. As my hon. Friend knows, proposals already exist for redistributing resources within local government, and there will soon be proposals for redistributing resources in the NHS. However, pay rates are not a matter for me but for negotiation between local authorities and the trade unions.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I have difficulty in understanding how any hon. Member can disagree with the spirit and sentiments of what the Secretary of State has announced. Problems of detail remain, and it is right for my Front-Bench colleagues to mention matters of concern, but the general spirit of the statement must be right.
I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the problem in Devon. There, elderly and frail people who are homebound have a supply of deep-frozen food delivered every month, which they cook in a microwave supplied by the authority. They are like homebound Boy Scouts, or participants in an outward bound scheme. Every 28 days, another crate of deep-frozen food arrives. The idea of hot meals on wheels is disappearing, as are chiropody or home help services. The elderly people involved are going into residential care prematurely.
The Secretary of State says that he will ring-fence the package that he is offering, but is he aware that the Government have ring-fenced rumble strips, road widening and traffic humps, but not social services? As a result, money is going to pay for humps and road widening, but not for hot meals.
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to the announcement. The £1 billion that will

879
go into social services for older people is a real-terms figure, not just a cash figure. I think that I am right in saying that, of that, some £650 million will be ring-fenced for specific purposes, with a strong emphasis on ensuring that there are appropriate home-care services for older people. I cannot comment on the position in Devon, but in general it must be right that older people being cared for at home get an appropriate range of services. I hope that the package of measures that I have announced will help people to receive precisely that.
Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Gentleman has announced a very welcome package this afternoon, but severe problems can arise when elderly disabled people living in two-tier counties—where there are both shire and district councils—need adaptations made to their homes. Can we iron out such problems? In Lancashire, there has been a major consultation exercise about care homes, and a decision is imminent. Should not that decision, which is for the county council to finalise, be deferred, so that close consideration can be given to the many important announcements that my right hon. Friend has made today?
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is tempting me astray, and I want to avoid that at all costs. As he said, the decision is the county council's responsibility, but the Minister of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), is keeping a close eye on the situation in Lancashire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) makes an important point about the relationship between district councils and county councils. I understand the problem, as my area of Darlington suffered from precisely those difficulties before it became a unitary authority. It is incumbent on all parties involved, especially when they are of the same political persuasion—and I do not know whether that is the case in Lancashire—to sit around a table with their partners in the private and voluntary sectors and work the problems through. In that way they can ensure that no institutional barriers, of any size or shape, stand in the way of older people getting precisely those seamless services that they need.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The Secretary of State has announced a range of measures today relating to, for example, equipment, support for carers, support for people at home and for those going into residential care. What plans has he to make any changes to the means-testing that affects all those measures?
Mr. Milburn: As I said in my statement, overall there will not be changes to the means test. I think that the hon. Lady is aware that we issued guidance in November last year about domiciliary care services, suggesting new guidance to local authorities. However, one aspect of the means test is about to disappear altogether—again, subject to legislation—and that is charging for community equipment. The hon. Lady will be aware from her constituency, as I am from mine, that as well as having a long wait for assessment and for getting equipment, older people often face a charge for it. The equipment can be simple, like a pressure mattress, a hoist, a minor ramp or
880
even help with toileting. If imposing those charges deters more older people from being cared for at home, we must address that.
Let me give the hon. Lady a gentle warning. It is all very well and good for Conservative Back-Bench Members to give long wish lists of improvements they want to see. They cannot have the wish lists unless they are prepared to commit the necessary investment.
Glenda Jackson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and warmly welcome his statement. On direct payments, will individuals be precluded from selecting from whom they wish to buy services? Many of my constituents from the ethnic minorities live in extended families where no one person cares for elderly parents and no one is registered as a carer as such. Will it be possible for them to obtain the direct payment, which would be of enormous benefit?
Mr. Milburn: Yes, in those circumstances, they can. We know that where the direct payment system has been implemented, it has worked. It has not meant that local authorities incur more costs than they do in providing a mainstream service. Disabled people who have a direct payment have chosen to appoint a personal helper from a variety of places and have been able to tailor the care that they need to their own circumstances. That seems to be the right principle.
We are moving towards a care system, I hope in both health and social services, in which the needs of the individual come first. The system is designed around the needs and comforts of the individual rather than the individual always having to fit around the needs of the service.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Since it is essential to maintain public confidence in private care homes, can the Secretary of State explain why his Department is blocking the release of an independent inquiry into Lynde house in my constituency, which is owned by the leading private provider, Westminster Health Care? Given that I wrote to him about that six weeks ago as a matter of urgency, why have I still not had a reply?
Mr. Milburn: I do not know about the individual details but I am informed by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that she intends to write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend has said. The majority of elderly people do not want to go into care if they can manage to stay at home, because home is where their memories and friends are. From what I have seen of my own relatives, sometimes when an elderly person is released from hospital, a care package is set up. Unfortunately, however, social services departments often do not have the time to check that the arrangements are carried out satisfactorily. The service provided could be the delivery of meals or it could be someone getting an elderly person up in the morning and putting her to bed in the evening, doing the cleaning, ironing or laundry. No check is carried out on such arrangements until someone such as myself telephones and moans about something.
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It often happens, day in, day out, that there are good intentions on the part of those concerned, but unfortunately those intentions are not always carried through. That means that we need a better system for assessing need and then implementing the services that arise from that assessment.
None of this stuff is glamorous, but it is hugely important to literally hundreds of thousands of older people. We do not want to have an endless procession of professionals—the health visitor, the GP, the district nurse, followed by the social worker and others—trailing to the older person's door. We need one single assessment process, so that the older person's needs are assessed holistically at the point at which they enter the care system, a clear decision is taken as fast as possible, and then the services are put in place. That is what we intend to do.
As my hon. Friend well knows, none of that comes for free. It is useless to pretend that we can reform the system without investing in it, and that is the problem for Conservative Members. What they want, if they would—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I have let the right hon. Gentleman go on to subjects that Mr. Speaker has taken a restrictive view on in the past. The right hon. Gentleman is also lengthening his answers when other hon. Members are trying to speak.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement this afternoon will have been listened to with particular interest in Birmingham, and that there is huge cross-party concern that Birmingham's social services are in chaos? Will he give the House an undertaking that he and his Ministers will follow very closely what Birmingham social services do to pursue the laudable objectives that he has set out tonight? If he finds that they do not pursue them in the way that all of us would expect them to, will he and his Ministers intervene directly, either by using the powers that they already have from this House or by taking the additional powers that they need to ensure that Birmingham social services deliver a decent service to elderly and vulnerable people, which they are not doing at the moment?
Mr. Milburn: Yes, of course we will keep under active review our monitoring of social services in Birmingham. That is what we are doing and we shall continue to do it. I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, as a consequence of that active monitoring, extra resources have been found for the social services in Birmingham, which I am sure that he will welcome. I do not want to incur your wrath any further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the problem for the hon. Gentleman is that he cannot commit to the resources.
James Purnell: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the efforts that have been made in Tameside, where the hospital, the social services and the mental health trust agreed a long time ago to pool staff and resources so as to create a one-stop shop for older people? Will he consider the fact that that has increased and improved services available to older people? Is not that the type of bottom-up reform that we should be trying to encourage, and will he reassure me
882
that this money, which is very welcome, will be aimed at the reformers and not just at bailing out the under-performers?
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Throughout the country, the examples are now legion of much-improved co-operation between the health service and social services. That has come about because we have provided the legal vehicles to enable the local authorities that want to co-operate and the health services that want to co-operate to do so, whether they are pooling budgets or establishing care trusts.
My hon. Friend is right that we must ensure that we get the best use of the money by ensuring that there is greater, not less, co-operation between health and social care. Why? For the very simple reason that the older person who by and large needs the health service will very often also need the support of social services or indeed housing services, and we need to see all these public services working together.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will be aware that South and East Belfast HSS trust has developed a very fine partnership, which allows both domiciliary care and respite care for the elderly. I welcome the further advance in his statement today, because I remember the days when a young woman whom I can think of, who worked in the city hospital laboratory, had to pay superannuation while she went out to look after her mother. Caring for carers is important.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned assessment. Can he assure the House that there are enough occupational therapists in the country to do the assessments in adequate time, thus encouraging the providers of the equipment and those who make adjustments to houses to get on with the work much earlier than they have been doing?
Mr. Milburn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on both counts. On the model of care, Northern Ireland has had the distinct advantage for many years of combined health and social services. As he is aware, we are moving towards that in England and we need much more of it. He rightly made a point about the number of people needed to staff social care services for older people. There too, there is good news. For example, the number of physiotherapists entering training has increased by 62 per cent. since 1997 and the number of occupational therapists has increased by 63 per cent. and there are increases in the number of staff employed. As he is aware, that is partly about ensuring attractive careers for those people, but also about ensuring that there are adequate resources for the services that they provide.
Ms Meg Munn: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which set out a range of services that will ensure that most elderly people can stay at home, where they want to be, rather than go into residential or nursing care. I welcome in particular the statement on the speed of assessments for equipment and the provision of equipment. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether that includes minor adaptations to people's homes, which can often be crucial to ensuring that they get home quickly?
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend speaks with real knowledge of these issues from her previous occupation

883
outside the House. As she is aware, there are basically two strands of resources: community equipment grants, which we are going to enhance as I described and, for larger adaptations such as ramps or walk-in showers, the disabled facilities grant, which is operated by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. There too, there is good news, because the resources committed to the disabled facilities grant are, or will be, 50 per cent. higher, I think, in the next financial year than they were in 1998–99. She is right to issue a note of caution that we need a greater alignment between the resources available for small pieces of equipment and more major adaptations to housing. I can assure her that my hon. Friend the Minister and I will discuss those issues with colleagues.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Secretary of State said that one care system was required, not competing systems, and I welcome what he said about intermediate care services being free, whether they are provided by the health service or social services. That principle being established, will some thought be given to those people who require long-term care?
Mr. Milburn: I know the hon. Gentleman's position and that of the Welsh National party on this matter. We studied the issues around personal care at the time of the Sutherland commission and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I did so again in the lead-up to the Budget. In the end, we decided that that was not the right way forward for a simple reason: if we went down the personal care route, it would involve spending substantial extra public resources on the minority of better-off pensioners. Perhaps that is what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) want to achieve; I want to commit those resources to more services for more older people, in particular for poorer older people.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I commend my right hon. Friend for the good sense and compassion of his statement—allied to investment and modernisation, that is four ways in which the Labour party differs from the Opposition. In welcoming his response to the question about Lancashire, will he agree that this statement offers the opportunity for the private sector to develop services creatively in partnership with local authorities? It certainly gives organisations such as the Lancashire Care Association the opportunity to refrain from the very destructive industrial action that they have in effect been taking over their care home fees and to come together to create a much better service for elderly people.
Mr. Milburn: I think that I had better keep out of that particular local dispute. In general, my hon. Friend is
884
right. As he is aware, it is a condition of the building capacity grant that we issued in November 2001 not only that this money should be spent wisely—the £300 million—but that in addition it should foster much closer co-operation between local authorities and between those authorities and the independent sector, including the private and the voluntary sectors. That is precisely what we would expect to see, not only in his part of the country, but in every part of it.
Mr. James Paice: The Secretary of State has bandied about a number of figures: thousands of people will gain; 70,000 would receive some free services and tens of thousands more would receive direct payments. Can he be more specific? Precisely who will receive that assistance, particularly direct payments? If he is not going to alter means-testing levels, can he be more precise? Who will not be entitled to direct payments?
Mr. Milburn: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was here when I made my statement but that might have been in body rather than in spirit. I said that henceforth every single elderly person who is assessed as part of the reformed, faster assessment process that I described will be offered the choice of a direct payment. In terms of the number of people offered that choice, that is liable to run into many hundreds of thousands.
I personally think that that is a good thing, not a bad thing. I want to empower older people. People should not be just passive recipients of services. They should have the choice and ability to shape services for themselves. I cannot think of a better way in social care services than direct payments. There will be direct payments on offer for all. Of course it is for the elderly person, their carers and families to decide whether to take advantage of that.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many other people would benefit from the package of measures that I have outlined. In terms of the number of households receiving intensive home care support, an extra 30,000 will benefit. In terms of extra rehabilitation services, an extra 70,000 will benefit. In terms of the number of people who are supported in residential and nursing care homes, it will run into several thousands.
Overall, this package of measures will benefit approximately 440,000 people. On top of that, it will benefit the 230,000 old people who are currently supported in the care homes sector. That is because we have committed the investment. The issue for the hon. Gentleman is whether he or his Front-Bench team are prepared to match it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

Points of Order
5.42 pm
Mr. Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you will be aware of the correspondence between the Speaker and me on Rhondda Cynon Taff county borough council's practice of circulating letters to councillors that I had written confidentially on behalf of my constituents and addressed directly to council officers. I am grateful to the Speaker for his robust written correspondence with me on the matter but for further clarification can I check whether you feel that that practice is right and proper? It is a clear breach of the confidentiality that a Member of Parliament should be able to expect in relation to correspondence on behalf of his constituents. Do you hope that the chief executive of Rhondda Cynon Taff will ensure that that practice will end as soon as possible?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his intention to raise the point of order this afternoon. Mr. Speaker has asked me to say that constituents who approach their Member of Parliament are entitled to expect that the issues raised will be dealt with in a confidential manner. Where the Member considers it appropriate to refer the issue to a local government officer, it is Mr. Speaker's view that the correspondence should remain confidential between the constituent, the Member and the local government officer to whom the case has been referred, unless specific permission to make it available to other parties has been granted by the constituent. I hope that that makes the position clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.
Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just come from another place, where I was observing proceedings on the Education Bill from behind the Bar. I was surprised to hear in a response given by the Minister, Baroness Ashton, reference to a written answer supposedly given to me following a question that I tabled on Thursday—I have not yet received the answer to that question.
I make no complaint about Baroness Ashton, who gave a courteous apology in another place for the breach of courtesy, but I want to raise with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I think is a gross breach of courtesy. Members in another place were given information contained in a written answer for my attention before that information had been provided to me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not in a position to give him an instant answer to that point. I am sure, however, that Mr. Speaker will examine the matter, and I hope that, if an omission has taken place, it can be put right as soon as possible.

BILL PRESENTED
  LOCAL SUSTAINABILITY
  Sue Doughty presented a Bill to require the drawing up and implementation of strategies for promoting and increasing local or regional sustainability; to require the setting of targets for the implementation of those strategies; to specify the functions of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 14 November, and to be printed [Bill 188].

Redundancy Payments
5.45 pm
Mr. David Crausby: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove the maximum amount of a week's pay for the purpose of calculating redundancy payments.
When the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 was introduced, the Government restricted the amount of statutory redundancy pay per week and the maximum number of weeks to 30. The cap on redundancy payment currently stands at £250 a week, and I am delighted to be given the opportunity to introduce this Bill, which is designed to eliminate the injustice faced by those who suffer the pain and anguish of redundancy, many of whom have previously earned above the £250 a week cap only to find that their redundancy pay entitlement is limited to £250 a week.
I am grateful that the Employment Relations Act 1999 ensured that a limit on a week's pay would increase in line with inflation. In a growing economy, however, wages inflation will inevitably run higher than the retail prices index, and the relative value of a week's pay calculation will fall further and further behind. I am not, of course, asking for a limitless amount, as that would be ridiculous in the case of those who are in receipt of tens of thousands of pounds per week. The cap should, however, be aimed at the level of average earnings, and it should be linked to increases in the average wage.
The Redundancy Payments Act 1965 was introduced to compensate workers who had lost their jobs. It was set up with a maximum payment of 30 weeks' pay after 20 years' employment. The effect of the maximum weekly payment is to limit the level of compensation to £7,500 to an employee who, for example, is aged 60 and has worked for the company concerned for as many as 45 years. With five years to wait for a pension, £7,500 is little enough on which to exist. When the earnings of the individual concerned have previously been above the £250 cap, however—say £500 a week—the redundancy compensation would consequently be reduced to 15 weeks' pay instead of 30 weeks' pay.
It should be obvious that, for elderly workers with little chance of further employment, those levels of redundancy compensation are derisory. A maximum weekly payment cap was included in the 1965 legislation, when employers received a rebate of 40 per cent. from the Government, and the Government of the day undoubtedly wanted to restrict the Treasury's exposure to such claims. That has now changed, with the rebate that employers received being reduced initially and then removed entirely. Employers were properly compensated for the removal of the rebate by a reduction in national insurance contributions at the time. That was done because some people considered that it was too easy for certain employers to use redundancy as a first option and to claim a rebate from the Government subsequently.
In its day, the Redundancy Payments Act was an important and welcome step forward for workers' rights. It has barely changed in nearly 40 years, however, and advances in employees' rights in other countries have passed by the British worker. To be fair, whenever there are major high-profile redundancies in this country, political pressure is inevitably exerted to provide help for
888
those affected. However, the problem comes with small-scale redundancies. When added together, they are just as damaging to the community. As with a large-scale factory closure, they are just as traumatic to the individual who suffers the loss of his or her job. The time has come for the working people of this country to be paid by right simply in relation to what they have lost. They should be compensated at least at the levels that their counterparts in Europe enjoy.
I argue that point not just from the standpoint of more financial compensation, but as much in the cause of deterring multinational employers from selecting British workers simply because it is cheaper and easier to make redundancies in the UK than it is elsewhere. For example, in the Netherlands and Spain, regional employment offices must authorise redundancies. In France, Germany, Austria and Luxembourg, employers are required to fund a social plan that may cover both financial compensation and measures to alleviate the impact of redundancies.
In France, employers must consult works councils or staff representatives and send a note of the consultative meeting to the labour inspectorate. They must consider retraining, shorter or reorganised hours and two consultation meetings are required with a gap of 14 to 28 days. In Italy, employers must inform workers and, within seven days, a joint review of proposals that can last 45 days must consider alternatives to the redundancies. Individual notice is then governed by collective agreement, which involves a two-stage procedure whereby workers are covered by lay-off provisions and then by mobility provisions. Faulty procedure can mean reinstatement. The House of Commons Select Committee on Trade and Industry considered the relative UK position in January 2001. Its report said:
"The suggestion that it is easier and cheaper to dispose of employees in the UK than elsewhere seems to us to have been shown to be factually correct."
I do not want to put excessive burdens on British employers, especially those in manufacturing industry. They need all the help that they can get in the current circumstances. However, the truth is that UK law gives poor protection in comparison with legislation in other countries. The French courts clearly demonstrated the difference, to the cost of Marks and Spencer when the company announced the attempted closure of its continental branches in March 2001. Our colleagues and competitors in Europe are unlikely to allow employers to make redundancy easier, and neither should they. It is therefore intolerable that, in the event of a need for a reduction in the number of employees, the burden should be disproportionately shouldered by the British working man and woman.
We could, of course, pursue justice through European legislation so as to level the playing field, but our Government argue that subsidiarity should apply and that such matters should be left to national Governments. That is fine just as long as we do not allow British employees to miss out and remain the poor, redundant employees of Europe.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Crausby, Jim Dobbin, Syd Rapson, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Geraldine Smith, Mr. Kevan Jones, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. George Howarth, David Wright, Mr. Anthony D. Wright and John Mann.

Redundancy Payments
  REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS
  Mr. David Crausby accordingly presented a Bill to remove the maximum amount of a week's pay for the purpose of calculating redundancy payments: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 November, and to be printed [Bill 189].
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 106) (HC 1019) on Special Grants for Performance Pay Progression for Teachers on any Qualified Teacher Pay Scale, for Performance Pay Progression for Teachers on the Leadership Group Pay Spine, and for Threshold Payments for Teachers Employed by Local Authorities in Children's Homes, which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  Question agreed to

Public Expenditure
[Relevant documents: Minutes of Evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on 17th and 18th July on the Spending Review 2002, HC 1092-i and U.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
5.55 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): At the heart of this spending review is a passionate belief in the value of public services and in the potential of the British people. It also shows a passionate belief in the value of education in achieving that potential and of health in maintaining it. It recognises the need always to drive forward, with an emphasis on science, the creation of a competitive and productive economy with enterprise at its base. It also recognises, however, that common sense demands that, to deliver the outcomes that we desire for our country, there must be new investment. Common sense, too, dictates that this investment will not be enough without reform. Passion and common sense, investment and reform are the linchpins of this spending review.
Compare and contrast that with the approach of Conservative Members, a dispirited and lacklustre bunch still reeling after the letting of much blood. By the look on their faces, I fear that some of them are a little crazed by it all. The chairman of the Conservative party has gone; the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury has gone. Both have apparently been promoted. However, let me send my felicitations to the former shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). We will miss him; they do not often make them like that. That at any rate was clearly the view of one of the shadow Chancellors, but I will come to him in a minute. I genuinely want to congratulate the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on what is a genuine promotion. He has worked hard for it, and I hope that he lasts a little longer than his predecessor.
There is something of the night about recent events. For instance, why is the shadow Chief Secretary, whoever it was to be, not opening for the Opposition in this debate? That is the precedent in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Opposition Members must get their facts right. The previous debate on the spending review, the one before that and the one before that were all led by the Chief Secretary and the shadow Chief Secretary. A week ago, why did we discover that the shadow Chief Secretary, whoever it was to be, would not lead for the Opposition? The shadow Chancellor was going to lead, so could it be that he was absolutely determined that, whoever was to be made shadow Chief Secretary, there was no way that person would lead for the Opposition?
Mr. Michael Howard: Since the Chief Secretary asks the question, I will give him the answer. We were told that, if I opened in the debate, the Chancellor might speak in it. It is a matter of great regret that he is not coming to the Dispatch Box to defend his spending review.
Mr. Boateng: They were never told any such thing. Let me suggest a reason—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It would be a good idea if Members settled down. This is an important debate that is unfortunately taking place in restricted time.
Mr. Boateng: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The reason why the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs was not allowed to speak for the Opposition on this matter—
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you rightly said, this is an important debate. The Minister has been speaking for five minutes, yet so far he has not begun the debate. Do you not think that that is an abuse of the House and, more to the point, an abuse of Back Benchers?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Fortunately, the Chair has no responsibility for the content of the speech of any right hon. or hon. Member. I was merely suggesting that the debate on public expenditure can occupy only just over four hours, so Members should quieten down so that we can listen to the arguments.
Mr. Boateng: It was the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, who rather gave the game away as regards the Conservative approach to the spending review. In a memo to the shadow Chancellor, he said that the reforms that the Tories would be proposing would end the NHS monopoly and entail those who can afford it making some payment for health care services. That is the view of the new shadow Chief Secretary about the NHS and about charges. That is the truth of the matter.
Mr. Howard Flight: Will the Minister add that the Government came by that confidential memo by improper means?
Mr. Boateng: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman deny the accuracy of the quote. I shall give him the opportunity to deny either that that was his view then or that it is his view now. He is not doing so. We know, then, that when Conservative Members talk about reform, they mean charging.
Gregory Barker: Have the Government ever put up prescription charges? Do you charge for spectacles, dental checks or dental care, or are there no charges in your NHS?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are none in mine.
Mr. Boateng: The reality is that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs was talking about private insurance, which is the reform that the Conservative party has in store for this country should it ever again have the opportunity to exercise power.
The spending review is focused around four key objectives: raising productivity so that Britain can be more prosperous; extending opportunity by investing in education; creating strong and secure communities
892
matching rights with responsibilities; and, in relation to Britain and the wider world, maximising the opportunities for our country and for managing globalisation and minimising the insecurities of the world in which we live. Economic stability and sound public finances are the basis upon which better public services can be delivered.
Difficult decisions had to be taken in the first term—the independence of the Bank of England, tough fiscal rules and strict control of the public finances. No one could pretend for one moment that any of that was easy, but it worked and it provided the basis on which to build. Five years on, the state of our public finances is sound and, despite uncertainties in the global economy, inflation is under control, interest rates have been low and stable, and employment and growth continue to rise. Over the economic cycle, we will meet our fiscal rules even on the most cautious case. We are saving £20 billion a year on debt interest and a further £10 billion through cutting the cost of unemployment. Those extra resources have made it possible to recruit more nurses, doctors, teachers and police officers than at any time in the past two decades.
Mr. John Redwood: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Boateng: In due course.
We have never entered a period of global uncertainty in a stronger position than we do now. We will steer a steady course with the strength to make decisions for the long term. That is what the spending review is about. Holding strictly to the total spending envelope that the Chancellor set out in the Budget, we are raising departmental spending from £240 billion this year to £263 billion next year, to £280 billion in 2004–05, and to £301 billion in 2005–06—in total, by 2006, that will be £61 billion a year more for improved public services. That is what Conservative Members cannot bear to hear.
Mr. Redwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to my constituents in Wokingham why our primary care trust has just received a letter saying that instead of the 76 general practitioners that we currently have, we should have only 63, and that funding is to be adjusted on that basis? Is not that a cut rather than an increase?
Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Gentleman is calling for more, not fewer, resources. He and his right hon. and hon. Friends must answer these questions. If they oppose our spending plans, what are theirs? What are their priorities and policies? What would they cut? How would they raise the money? They say absolutely nothing about that. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in supporting the money that we are passporting directly to schools on the front line, he is opposing the policies, such as they are, of his Front Benchers. He should have the honesty to say as much.
The increased investment must be matched by real and radical reform. In each area of service delivery, we will ensure that new resources are tied to reform and results. We are setting demanding national targets; introducing independent and open audit and inspection; giving frontline staff the power and flexibility to deliver; extending choice; and rewarding success and turning round failing services.
Mr. George Osborne: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Boateng: In due course.
In the Budget, we set out our programme for the NHS. None of us can know when we might need the NHS. All of us are entitled to use it without fear of charges and without having to worry about the consequences for our loved ones when we do. That is the great success of the NHS. It is an act of collective will on the part of the British people that we will all take responsibility one for the other to relieve us all of the fear and pressure of growing ill and growing poor at the same time. That is what we owe to the founding fathers and mothers of the NHS. That is the legacy that we inherited and are determined to take forward, and that is what Conservatives opposed in 1945 and would wreck now if given half a chance.
In April, there was a Budget for the NHS. Now, there is a spending review for education. That is as we promised: schools and hospitals first. The only guarantee of prosperity in an uncertain world is the skills that are needed to cope with change. Investment in education and skills—investment that was neglected by the Conservative party—is the best guarantee of families' future prosperity, and that is the guarantee that we give to the people of this country. However, resources must be tied to reform. Reform of the primary school system has helped teachers and children to achieve a step change in standards. Today, 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieve the expected literacy standards, compared with just 57 per cent five years before. The work goes on. Our next task is to extend those improvements to secondary schools. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills has announced her reforms to raise standards, to enhance choice and diversity and to tackle poor pupil behaviour in our secondary schools, so that schools can develop the talents of all.
We are already delivering real results. There are more teachers, class sizes have fallen, more than 125,000 adults have been helped to improve their basic skills, and the number of students in our universities has increased by 87,000. However, there is no room for complacency. We want a culture of continual improvement. We want more children to achieve higher standards of literacy and numeracy, more teenagers to get five good GCSEs, and more young adults to stay in education and training—50 per cent. of them with experience of university by 2010.
Education is the best defence against changing circumstances; it is the best hope of future prosperity. Investing in the children of today is investing in the productive potential of tomorrow. This spending review not only divides up the cake within closed national boundaries, but seeks to make the cake bigger in an open, global economy. That is true in education, science, competition, planning, knowledge transfer, enterprise and regional development.
In each of those areas we are providing increased resources: a 10 per cent. real-terms rise in the science budget each year; and an increase in the budget of the Office of Fair Trading. from £34 million this year to £55 million by 2005–06. We are promoting independence and delegating responsibility; there are independent competition authorities, and new powers for regional
894
development agencies over planning, transport and tourism. This is about the enterprise-driven economy—one in which competition and productivity go hand in hand.
There is investment in each of those areas and in housing, neighbourhood renewal, transport, the countryside, and resources to assist the implementation of the Curry report. There are resources to assist the voluntary and community sector, and the police and the Prison Service. There is investment in defence to combat the insecurity of an interconnected world, and in development as we take up arms in the war against want. That is investment that must be matched by reform.
Mr. Osborne: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for allowing me to interrupt his pocket-book sloganising to answer my question. While he is talking about spending increases, will he put this debate in context and tell us which taxes have gone up to pay for them—and where those tax increases were spelled out in Labour's manifesto?
Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman normally does better than that. There were many of us who were glad that he was not on holiday and hoped for his preferment. [Interruption.] Let me answer his question. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor laid out our policies for taxation in the Budget. As a result of the decisions that he has taken, our rates of company taxation are lower than those of all but 12 of our partners and competitors in Europe. It is because of his decisions that this country is now a preferred destination for inward investment, second only to the United States. That is because of his fiscal policies. They are the envy of the world, and the hon. Gentleman ought to have the grace to accept that.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
Mr. Boateng: No, not at the moment.
It is important that we ensure that investment is linked to reform. That is the significance of the public service agreements. There has been much interest in the past few weeks in PSAs, and it is right that there should be. It is important that we have a proper debate, but there should not be any great party political difference on the subject. PSAs are about transparency, accountability and good governance—an agenda to which we can surely all sign up.
The charge is that PSAs are in some way a manifestation of this Government's supposed centralising tendencies, but in fact the reverse is true. By setting clear and measurable targets, publishing information on those targets, and collating the information in one easily accessible location, we empower not the Government but the people who elected us and who can use the information to hold Departments to account.
The National Audit Office has said:
"the introduction of Public Service Agreement targets, and in particular the move to outcome-focused targets, is an ambitious programme of change which puts the United Kingdom among the leaders in performance measurement practice."
Even right hon. and hon. Members who represent the Liberal Democrat tendency ought to recognise and welcome that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] At least one of them is present, and that is more than enough. [Interruption.] Good, another one has joined us.

895
We must take this debate forward on a clear understanding of PSAs. They set out a Department's plans to deliver results in return for the investment that it receives. They are focused on outputs and not inputs. They provide a clear statement of priorities and a clear sense of direction around which all those involved in delivering can focus. They are part of a culture of transparency and accountability, but require an attitudinal shift: that all of us engage and recognise the need for continued improvement.
Mr. David Cameron: Will the Minister explain why the Lord Chancellor's Department's PSA target of paying small businesses within 30 days had to be dropped after conversations with the Treasury?
Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the inclusion of such a target is designed to drive forward performance.
Mr. Cameron: So why was it dropped?
Mr. Boateng: If the hon. Gentleman examined the Department's performance, he would see that it is the Lord Chancellor's Department's intention and practice—it has delivered on that intention and practice—to provide a better service to small businesses. The whole point of such a target—[Interruption.] Opposition Members who question the need for targets and their value should give some credit where there has been achievement. They need also to understand that the whole point of the targets is not that they should run in perpetuity. It is rather that they should provide a focus for improvement and that that improvement should be delivered. That is the case for the example that the hon. Gentleman has cited.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Boateng: No, not at the moment.
As part of the spending review process, Departments set out alongside their bids their proposed PSAs. They are discussed along with the Departments' track record of delivering against existing targets, and once agreed, Departments are then responsible for reporting progress and delivering on their PSAs. The advantage of that approach is that it addresses precisely the question on Departments' performance that hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised on behalf of their constituents: they provide the opportunity to examine whether there has been progress.
Mr. Edward Davey: While the Chief Secretary is on the subject of PSAs, will he explain how the Foreign Office will meet its top PSA, which includes a target of reducing poppy cultivation in Afghanistan by 70 per cent. within five years?
Mr. Boateng: The reason why such a target exists ought to be self-evident to anybody who is concerned about drugs on our streets. When we are applying large sums of public money in order to enable the Foreign Office, the MOD and agencies that have responsibility in
896
this area to take forward our anti-drugs policy, it is absolutely right that we should be able to demonstrate at the end of a prescribed period that that has made a difference.
Mr. Davey: That is stupid.
Mr. Boateng: There is nothing stupid about it. It is clearly important that Departments understand that they need to work in ways that deliver results and that those results should be measurable. Those who cry out against such targets have to explain how they intend to ensure that value for money is secured and that Departments respond in a way that is capable of demonstrating that they are making best use of the money available to them.
Mr. Bercow: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
Mr. Boateng: No, I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene at the moment.
This is our responsibility, and it is ultimately for the House, on the basis of the evidence approved by the National Audit Office and the Office for National Statistics, to judge whether targets have been met and to hold Ministers and Departments to account for their successful delivery. That is about transparency and accountability, and it is a vital part of good governance.
Roger Casale: My right hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of public service agreements, which will help the public, above all, to see that the extra money that the Government are putting into public services is being wisely spent. Under the Conservative Government, public service agreements—had they existed then—would have helped the public to register the fact that no investment was being made.
Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Alongside PSAs lie independent audit and statutory inspection. Departments and agents are fully accountable for their performance against those targets.
Mr. Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the Chief Secretary for giving way to me. Unfortunately, his rhetorical overload cannot camouflage the Government's dismal record of underperformance. Can he answer this very straightforward question: why did the Treasury set itself a public service agreement target and guarantee to measure the level of Treasury output, only to announce now that
"it has not proved possible to measure aggregate Treasury output"?
Why should we have any confidence in the Government's performance on other public service targets if the Treasury cannot even identify and meet its own?
Mr. Boateng: Because we have met our other targets, and because 90 per cent. of all the targets set by the Government for delivery in 2002 have been met or are on the way to being met. The reality is that all the huff and puff in the world cannot hide the fact that we need to make sure that resource delivers improved performance. We have to have a transparent and accountable system, and PSAs are the best way to achieve that.
PSAs are also about devolving responsibility from Whitehall. They are about empowering primary care trusts, head teachers and governors in schools, police

897
commanders and local service providers—all people to whom the Opposition would deny resources and who saw the very infrastructure within which they work eroded under 18 years of successive Conservative Administrations. We are about ensuring that by working with new partners in the private, voluntary and community sectors we create a system of public service delivery that is focused on outputs and reform and which delivers a better quality of service to all our people. We want a strong, vital and independent voluntary and community sector delivering public services in a way that promotes choice, flexibility and consumer focus, reaching out to disadvantaged groups and tailoring services to their needs. Sure start and the children's fund demonstrate how much the public and voluntary sectors working together can achieve.
It is no use the Opposition describing partnership as cliché. We have made available a significant increase in child care provision. Our approach has created and is in the process of delivering 250,000 child care places by 2006, targeted on the most disadvantaged areas. That is not only about ensuring that children get a good start in life, but about bringing women back into the workplace and enhancing and improving productivity—all things that the Conservatives failed to do when they had stewardship of our economy.
We want to build on the partnerships that have been created between the voluntary and community sectors and Government. In the course of the cross-cutting review of the delivery of public services by the voluntary sector, it became clear that there were still areas in which improvement was needed and that barriers needed to be removed. As a result, I can announce that there is to be a new one-off three-year fund worth £125 million to help such organisations in their public service work. Called futurebuilders—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh dear."]—the aim of the fund is to increase the scope and scale of voluntary sector service delivery, to remove obstacles in the path of organisations that want to deliver services, and to provide the means to modernise operations in the long term.
It is no use the Opposition saying, "Oh dear," because as we speak voluntary organisations such as the Leonard Cheshire fund are out there, working with local authorities—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) that that is the second time his phone has gone off in the Chamber? As far as I am concerned, that is one of the most serious crimes that an hon. Member can commit.
Mr. Boateng: Voluntary organisations are out there, working with local authorities and community groups, to deliver a better quality of service to some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable sections of our society. We are about making sure that such organisations have at their disposal the means to deliver and take forward their plans, thus empowering and enabling local communities to take responsibility for the vulnerable, the disabled and the disadvantaged in ways that enable better delivery of public services than has hitherto been provided.
Public services exist to serve the public. When they are underfunded, as they were under the Conservatives, the people are the poorer. When they underperforrn, as they
898
do when management is weak and the right systems are not in place, the people are let down. High performance must be rewarded with more responsibility and more resources. Failure cannot and will not be tolerated, so in the present review, for the first time, Departments are to introduce effective sanctions against failing institutions—not withdrawing resources and so punishing the public, but bringing about that attitudinal, cultural and systematic shift to focus attention on performance and deliver against targets of continual improvement.
That is not something to be rubbished or decried. Failing schools, education authorities, colleges, social services, local authorities, police forces and prisons—all will be enabled and empowered to deliver, but all will understand that if they fail to do so, there will be consequences. We cannot allow resources to be wasted.
We have set out a framework for progress—a framework in which resources are tied to reform in order to deliver results. It is a vision for public services that has at its heart the concrete steps that it is necessary to take to enhance opportunity and security for all in this changing world. Above all, it is about bringing together people in partnership for change—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The Conservatives do not like the notion of partnership—they do not accept that there needs to be a change in the way in which we deliver services. They do not accept that because they do not trust the people and they were never prepared to make the resources available. They do not accept that because, fundamentally, they do not like public services.
We believe in public services. We believe in the values and ethos of public service. Only the Labour Government can be trusted to protect that and take it forward. That is why we are sitting over here, and the Conservatives are condemned to remain over there.
6.29 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: Unlike the Chief Secretary, who took eight minutes—almost a quarter of his speech—before he got round to the spending review, I want to talk about the review. Last week, the Chancellor had the opportunity to signal real improvements in public services to end the crisis in the national health service, to bring order to classrooms where, too often, disruptive children prevent standards from rising for all and to get the police back on the streets fighting crime. Our public services can and must be improved, but to improve them requires vision, leadership and real reform. These things the Government have constantly promised, but last Monday the Chancellor once again failed to deliver them. Today, despite the fact that he has taken personal charge of delivery in this area, he has not even come to the Dispatch Box to defend the Government's record.
Perhaps that is no surprise. Last week—
James Purnell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard: No. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait.
Last week was not the Chancellor's first spending review, but his third. The country can be forgiven for a sense of deja vu because his recipe is always the same. First, he announces record amounts of money. We have his word for that. In 1998, the extra money was said to

899
be the biggest ever investment in health and education. In 2000, it was record investment. Last Monday, it was more of the same.
Then comes the spin. With the Chancellor, not everything is what it seems. [Interruption.] It is no good the Chancellor chuntering away like a man possessed on the Government Front Bench. He should listen.
The Chancellor refuses to update his growth forecasts, even though most commentators think that they are optimistic. However, he is quick to take credit for changes in forecasts of unemployment and interest rates. If new forecasts help his presentation of public finances, he does not hesitate to use them. If they do not, he ignores them. Why did the Chief Secretary not explain why the Chancellor has ducked repeated requests to say whether he envisages yet further tax rises, even in this Parliament? He avoided the question six times on "Today" and he did so again last week in response to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Despite repeated questions, he did so yet again before the Treasury Select Committee. Why cannot the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary come clean on that?
Secondly, there are questions about the way in which the public debt is classified. Both the National Audit Office and the Statistics Commission have queried the way in which the Chancellor proposes to deal with the £21 billion borrowing of Network Rail. Why are not the Government including that borrowing in their accounts? Why is it being taken off-balance sheet? Is that not a classic case of Enron-style accounting?
The third ingredient in the Chancellor's recipe, after more money and more spin, is that he flunks real reform. Real reform means allowing teachers to restore discipline in the classroom, police officers to get back on the streets to fight crime, and doctors to treat patients without constant diktats from Whitehall. It means trusting professionals to get on with their jobs. It also means being willing to learn from success in other countries. Measured against those benchmarks, real reform of our public services has not taken place, is not taking place, and never will take place under this Government.
Mr. Tom Harris: The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly says that reform is key. Does he agree that new funding is key? Will he commit himself to matching the extra funding that has been provided by the Government?
Mr. Howard: We will not be bound by the spending commitments that derive from policies that are failing. In due course, we shall bring forward our own spending commitments, which will derive from our policies, which will succeed. That is the difference.
David Wright: Since 1996–97, spending per pupil in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency has risen by 18.9 per cent. Will he be writing to every head teacher in his constituency to say that that cash will disappear?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked this, but we are talking about the Chancellor's
900
spending review and his plans for the future, not about what has happened since 1996–97. We are concerned with the future, rather than the past.
The truth is that Ministers want to improve public services. Of course they do. I understand that and I give them credit for it, but they simply do not know how to. As a result, they can only spend more money each year. However, more money without real reform will not work.
The Chancellor's substitute for reform is targets, about which the Chief Secretary waxed—I cannot say that he did so eloquently, but he waxed. Last week, the Chancellor gave us a new batch of public service agreements, and they are worth looking at in a little detail. For the past four years, we have been told that they lie at the heart of the Chancellor's strategy, that they are central to his drive to improve public services, and that they form the very bedrock of his agenda. He announced them in his very first spending review in a fanfare of publicity, saying that they were an "essential change", helping to ensure that the Government would do what they did "to the highest standard".
What has happened since? One independent analysis found that no fewer than 44 per cent. of the targets set by the Chancellor had not been met by the required deadline.
Four years ago, the Chancellor placed particular emphasis on targets for efficiency improvements. The purpose of these, he said, was to
"ensure that more resources go directly to front-line services."—[Official Report, 14 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 188.]
If the Chancellor places such great emphasis on these targets, why was he unable to tell me last week why the 3 per cent. health efficiency target was first failed and then cut? Will not that lead to £890 million less in resources for patient care in the health service?
What about the Chancellor's own target for efficiency gains? The Treasury efficiency target has itself been dropped altogether. The reason given is that the Treasury could not measure its own output. Was it not possible for the Chancellor to think about that before setting the target in the first place? How can he lecture other Departments about meeting efficiency targets when he cannot meet his own?
The efficiency targets are not the only targets to be dropped or cut as a result of the Government's failure to deliver. The Home Office target on the removal of failed asylum seekers has been cut. The measurable target on fear of crime has been dropped. Instead, the Home Office will aim to increase to 1.2 million the number of crimes for which offenders are brought to justice. Presumably, the latest rise in crime will help the Home Office to achieve that goal.
In education, the failed targets on truancy have been cut, and so has the national vocational qualification target for 19-year-olds. The Government say that both were subject to "slippage" or "increased room for catch-up", as, according to the Chancellor's advisers, that should now be known.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: What are the right hon. and learned Gentleman's targets for the national health service charges to which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary referred?
Mr. Howard: I am astonished at the extent to which Labour Members constantly refer to charges in the health

901
service. In the Chancellor's speech last month, he said that it is entirely unacceptable for the sick to pay for being sick. Are he and other Government Members completely unaware that, last year alone, about 250,000 people who had no sort of insurance cover had to pay for their own operations because they could not face the delays that they would have experienced with the national health service, which is in crisis under the Government's stewardship?
Mr. Boateng rose—
Mr. Howard: No, not at the moment. The Chief Secretary will have to wait.
Gone is the work and pensions target for promoting security and independence in retirement for tomorrow's pensioners. After the Chancellor's pensions tax, the crisis in pensions and the lowest ever savings ratio, it is not hard to see why.
What became of the Chancellor's promises over the past five years—there have been enough of them—to provide "skills for work" to invest
"heavily in education and skills"?—[Official Report, 14 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 785.]
What happened to the right hon. Gentleman's promise to provide "new support for skills"? Does he agree with the Government's better regulation taskforce, which said last week that Government delivery of local economic development and skills training is a bureaucratic nightmare involving a maze of more than 50 Government agencies, Departments and other organisations, and 52 funding streams? Why does a training co-ordinator have to fill in up to 26 pieces of paper before starting a trainee on a work-based programme? Is that the way to encourage skills?
What of the targets that remain? The Government describe them as SMART—specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed—so let us see how smart they are. The Department of Trade and Industry has the target of bringing United Kingdom levels of competition and consumer empowerment and protection up to those of the best by 2006, but the level of the best is not defined, so how will the DTI or anyone else know whether consumer empowerment has reached the required level by 2006?
Roger Casale: On the subject of "how smart you are", may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question? Does he believe that it is possible for public service reforms to be successful if those reforms are not supported by appropriate financial resources? How does he imagine that those financial resources can be released if the share of Government spending were reduced to 35 per cent. of gross national product, as he wishes to do?
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman attends these debates, he will know perfectly well that I do not wish to do that. [Interruption.] Does the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wish to intervene? I do not wish to do as the hon. Gentleman suggested, and I have answered that question many times before.
James Purnell: I have attended many of these debates, and I find it impossible to find out what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position is on tax and spending because he will not tell us, so I have had to read articles
902
in which he has discussed his position. When asked whether he would match our NHS spending in the last Budget, he told The Scotsman:
"There are times when other things have to take priority over tax cuts. The crisis in the public services in this country means that this is such a time."
That was six months ago; now he will not even say whether he will match our NHS spending increases. What has happened? Have our reforms been so successful that the NHS is not now in crisis, or is his agenda really about tax cuts and reducing public spending to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product? He will not admit that because all he is interested in is spin.
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that the Government's attempts to reform the NHS have been successful, he must be living on a different planet. What I said in the article that he quoted is entirely consistent with what I am saying now. Our spending plans for the NHS will be derived not from the Government's failed policies on the NHS but from our policies on health care, which will deliver the ideals of the NHS and succeed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Howard: I want to return to the Government's targets. I quite understand why Government Members do not want to talk about the targets, but I do.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred to the targets set by the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office is meant to contribute to a 70 per cent. reduction in opium production in Afghanistan within five years. Is achieving that really within the power of the Foreign Office? If not, how on earth can it be judged to have succeeded or failed?
What of the framework the Chancellor established for his targets? He solemnly told the House in 1998 that public service agreements were a contract for the renewal of public services and that results would be demanded. He said:
"Money will be released only if Departments keep to their plans."—[Official Report, 14 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 188.]
So how many Departments have not had money released because they did not keep to their plans? After all, the then Chief Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Transport, said:
"in both health and education, money will be released only if the Government are satisfied that we are getting the returns that we want."—[Official Report, 16 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 597.]
Last week, the Chancellor made no reference to the possibility of funds not being released. Treasury officials at a sitting of the Select Committee could not think of a single example of a departmental budget that would be different if that Department had performed better or worse against its PSA targets.
When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was asked by the BBC whether any Department had yet had money withheld as a penalty for not meeting its targets, he replied:
"We are not in the business of holding money back in that way."
Not only has that policy been dropped, but the current Chief Secretary does not even know about it. He has been at the Treasury for more than a year and no one troubled

903
to inform him of that policy, which was meant to be at the heart of the Chancellor's strategy to improve the public services.
It is little wonder that the Chief Secretary, in his Financial Times interview this morning, said:
"Gordon called for a debate about targets and PSAs, and I think we should have one, because people often don't understand what they are there for."
Andy Burnham: A moment ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to Conservative health policies. To my knowledge, the only one that has been explained to us so far was the four-phase policy that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) outlined a few months ago. Phase 1 is to persuade the public that the NHS is not working. Phase 2 is to convince people that the NHS will not work. Phase 3 is to introduce themes on learning from other countries. Phase 4 is to produce policy detail—ultimately the most difficult phase. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us which phase the Conservative party has reached?
Mr. Howard: May I give the hon. Gentleman a little advice? Next time, he should ask his Whips for better material. He and they need to do rather better than that.
I know that Labour Members do not want us to talk about their targets, but I do. What other sanctions are in place when the targets are not achieved? How are Ministers held to account for results? We have looked at the fate of some of the Cabinet Ministers from 1998 whose Departments now have the fewest targets described as "met", "met and ongoing", or "on course". What has happened to the Cabinet Ministers with the worst records in meeting their targets?
It is true that one of them—the then Secretary of State for Health—was indeed punished for his failure. He became Labour candidate for Mayor of London. Another Minister who achieved fewer than seven in 10 of his own targets was the Chancellor himself. As far as we know, he is still in post. The third, the Minister who achieved one of the worst results of all, was promoted to his current post of Home Secretary.
Meanwhile, one Cabinet Minister achieved in full more than nine out of 10 of the targets set. He had the best record of the lot, so surely he must have been promoted. Well, actually he was not—he was sacked. The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) now sits on the Back Benches—a permanent reminder to his colleagues of the danger of over-achieving on the Chancellor's targets. So there we have it. So much for the Prime Minister taking the Chancellor's PSAs seriously. So much for their claim to reform.
Is it any wonder that Professor Colin Talbot, in evidence to the Treasury Committee, described the PSA mechanism as deeply flawed and as "a topdown, opaque process"; or that Tony Travers of the London School of Economics says that the targets represent "rigid centralisation"? Is it any wonder that even the BBC, on the night of his spending review statement, compared the Chancellor's approach with the 10-year plans of the Soviet Union?
Is the Chancellor aware that the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury has said that there are so many targets that it reminds some people of Stalin's Gosplan?
904
Is the Chancellor proud of the fact that he is becoming known as Gosplan Gordon? Why does he not understand that the result of that ever-tightening leash is that innovation and improvement are being strangled?
In today's NHS, doctors cannot treat patients in pain because they are not in the right Government category to fill empty hospital beds. Instead of recruiting an extra 2,000 GPs by 2004, as the Government promised, in each of the last two years, they have managed just 18.
Mr. Boateng rose—
Mr. Howard: I shall certainly give way to the Chief Secretary. I hope that he will explain why the Government have managed to recruit just 18 GPs in each of the past two years, instead of the extra 2,000 that they promised.
Mr. Boateng: Talking of GPs, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman still adhere to the view that the NHS is "a Stalinist, centralised, monolithic, bureaucratic creation, which is failing the nation"?
Mr. Howard: We are going to find a better way of living up to the ideals of the national health service. The Chief Secretary ought to pause here. Does he really think that the best way to deliver health care to the people of this country is through a centralised organisation that employs 1.3 million people, the biggest employer in the world outside China, with the possible exception of the Indian state railway? The Chief Secretary ought to reflect on the implications of his question.
In today's schools, teacher vacancies have more than doubled and more than one in two trainee teachers walk away in their first three years because they do not have enough classroom time with children. What does the Chancellor fall back on? No longer able to offer hope, the Labour party now tries to win votes through fear. The Chancellor and his colleagues try to scaremonger, based on our refusal to be bound by their figures. Yet that, of course, was precisely the position that he took in opposition: it was not until January 1997 that he described his party's spending plans.
We, too, will outline our policies before the next general election. But one thing is certain: we are determined to move away from the Chancellor's policy of money without real reform. It does not mean that we are against spending more on health, education and other services but that we are determined to break with the Chancellor's legacy of failed promises and dashed expectations. We are determined to offer something better.
Gregory Barker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that after five years of increased Labour spending on health, and 53 tax rises to pay for it, bed blocking at the Conquest hospital in Hastings over the last 12 months has risen by 130 per cent., so that now one in nine beds have elderly people trapped in hospital? In East Sussex, the waiting time for women with breast cancer to receive radiotherapy—the Chancellor should be interested in this because he has been confronted on television by one of my constituents, since when the situation has got a lot worse—has risen from 12 weeks 12 months ago to 23 weeks? Where has the money gone? That is what my constituents want to know.
Mr. Howard: I am not astonished by my hon. Friend's figures. I was not aware of the precise figures for East

905
Sussex, but I fear that they are typical. But that, I am afraid, is what counts as success for Labour Members. That is what they mean when they talk about the success of their policies to reform the health service. Those are the kind of figures that they have in mind.
Hugh Bayley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House an assurance that his party's plans for improving the national health service will not include levying any charges on services that are currently available to patients free at the point of use?
Mr. Howard: I know that the hon. Gentleman is impatient to see our plans for the health service, and they will be worth waiting for. He will just have to wait a little longer and contain his impatience until we produce them. I am sure that if he is entirely objective when they are produced, he might even like them. We will have to wait and see.
The Chancellor promised the country in the run-up to the 1997 election:
"We have an instinct to serve the public interest, which is not the same as an instinct to spend."
But now the country is all too painfully aware of the instincts of this Chancellor and his party: an instinct to spend, an instinct to centralise and an instinct to interfere. It is as a result of those instincts that they have failed to deliver on the public services.
There is a better way. There is a way to achieve safer streets and better hospitals and schools. But it will not come about through more of the same. It will come about through leadership, imagination, vision, and real reform. That is what the Government had the opportunity to offer, but they have failed. That is precisely where we intend to succeed.
6.54 pm
Mr. John McFall: The shadow Chancellor made himself politically infamous when, on "Newsnight", he refused 14 times to answer a question from Jeremy Paxman about Derek Lewis. He has now refused to answer about 14,000 times questions about where he will get the money from for his plans. The question I have for the right hon. and learned Gentleman is this: how can he maintain the present level of public services without spending any money? Credibility and honesty in politics is all and, sadly, the shadow Chancellor is a sham because he gives no indication of how his party would govern this country. Until he does, he has no credibility whatever.
Mr. Howard: Can the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury explain why my party should produce its spending plans now when his party did not produce its spending plans until four months before the 1997 election?
Mr. McFall: I have a simple explanation. The shadow Chancellor has stood up and, for half an hour, criticised the Government's policies rotten. If he is going to do that, he must give us an alternative vision. All we have at the moment is a blank sheet; frankly, that is not good enough for this debate.
Mr. Tom Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that, even before the 1997 election and before the Labour party
906
had published its specific spending plans, our values and core aims were well known, which is the complete opposite of the Conservative party's position?
Mr. McFall: I agree. In my position as Chairman of the Select Committee, it is important for me and the Committee to analyse the Government's spending targets and plans and, as the shadow Chancellor has said, we did that in the past week.
I thank the Chancellor for his appearance at the Select Committee last week and for the extra money provided. However, I have to say that six days' notice of an event of such significance at the end of the parliamentary Session is not good enough. If we are to take the comprehensive spending review seriously as part of a transparent and well-managed process, we have to ensure that there is more time for discussion.
I suggest also that given that the envelope for public services was announced in the Budget some time ago, it might be a good idea to have a White Paper on the draft proposals so that the Government could consult on the issues and so that we knew where the money was going to be spent. There is a two-year process associated with the review, so there is no reason why we should not have the issues up for public discussion. After all, the United States federal Government do that annually. The British Government have a way to go on that.
I welcome the substantial increase in public spending. As has been mentioned, the total level of public spending will be £51 1 billion by 2005–06. That is £61 billion extra for public services over the next three years and, in cash terms, it is the biggest rise ever. It is reassuring to know that 75 per cent. of that spending will be focused on the key areas of education and health. It is the biggest rise in spending that we have witnessed and the annual rate of spending will be 4.3 per cent. over this year's forecast.
Mr. Mark Francois: Is there not a massive irony in all of this? When new Labour came to power in 1997, we were told repeatedly that they would never be a tax-and-spend Government because that had been the failure of all previous Labour Governments since the war. Now, that is exactly what they have become.
Mr. McFall: I shall answer that in two steps. The Treasury Select Committee had a number of experts before us last week, one of whom—David Walton, the chief economist of Goldman Sachs—said that, on the average growth trend of 2.5 per cent., the Government's projections looked very reasonable and their fiscal rules would be met comfortably.
A further issue for the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who go on about tax and spend is that, as a share of national income, public sector spending is set to grow from 39.8 per cent. to 41.8 per cent. in 2005. That is still lower than the average of 44 per cent. of national income spent over the 18 years of Conservative Government from 1979 to 1997. The figure is also low by international standards. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that his heroine, now Baroness Thatcher, presided over public spending of 48 per cent. of national income in 1982–83, three years after the previous Labour Government. So this is far from tax and spend—indeed, I would refer to it as fiscally conservative.
Mr. Bercow: I am sure that all democrats share one goal, which is to increase the engagement of the public

907
with the democratic process. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the question of the share of national income spent by the state is very important, but that it is not much discussed in the Dog and Duck. Will he tell me how, in practical terms, the increase in expenditure on education will either reduce the appalling truancy levels from which we suffer or counter the 300 per cent. rise in assaults by pupils on teachers?
Mr. McFall: I speak from experience here, after a lifetime in teaching. We have to progress the priorities. I do not know about the hon. Gentleman, but I have visited every primary school in my constituency since 1997. Without exception, every head teacher has told me that they have extra resources and that they are happy with them. The step change is taking place in primary schools, and I urge the Government to ensure that it also takes place in the secondary schools and elsewhere.
Mr. Salmond: Public spending as a proportion of gross national product might not be discussed in the Dog and Duck, but the hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly correct in what he is saying. I am not altogether sure, however, whether it places a Labour Member in a comfortable position to say that Baroness Thatcher was spending a higher percentage of GNP on public spending. The hon. Gentleman also talked about the trend growth rate of 2.5 per cent. being met. Is he saying that the bulk of the evidence before his Committee suggests that, in the current international environment, that trend growth rate is likely to be met in the next three years?
Mr. McFall: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about the previous Conservative Government's spending, this Government have increased employment by 1.5 million and cut the national debt, giving us the opportunity to spend on things that were previously a burden. On his point about the 2.5 per cent. growth trend, the Chancellor has historically always underachieved in his growth targets. This is the first occasion on which people have said that he is getting near his target. Certainly, from a macro-economic point of view, the economists who have come to the Treasury Committee have said that that target represents a reasonable proposition. We are aware that the global situation is not favourable but, as one of the economists said to us, the money is in the books until 2006; that is reassuring.
James Purnell: Does the Chairman of the Select Committee agree that the key difference between spending under Margaret Thatcher and spending now is that, under Margaret Thatcher, the money was being spent on 3 million unemployed people? Does he remember the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) writing in The Guardian that he accepted that it was desirable to underspend on welfare payments so that more money could be spent on hospitals and schools? That is exactly what we have done.
Mr. McFall: Those points have been well made.
Tony Cunningham: I have listened to all this and reached the conclusion that many people on the Front Bench just do not live in the real world—
908
[Interruption.] I meant people on the Conservative Front Bench, not that there are very many of them there at the moment. I visited a primary school recently, and the headmistress told me that, five years ago, the only extra resources that they had were felt tip pens. She said that they now had new buildings, new computers and nine classroom assistants, and that standards were rising all the time. She said, "If that's spin, can we have more of it?"
Mr. McFall: That is a very good anecdote. And talking of felt tip pens, I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for giving way; he has been extremely generous. I am glad that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) reads my articles in The Guardian. That is flattering, but I do not think that it greatly advances the debate. I asked the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) what the effect of increased education expenditure would be on the truancy problem and on the problem of assaults on staff. Asked what the effect would be, he said that the spending was welcome. I hope that he will forgive me, but I want to ask him the question again, because this is important. How will the increased expenditure serve to reduce truancy or assaults by pupils on staff? Those two matters are of pre-eminent concern to thousands of teachers and parents.
Mr. McFall: Speaking of The Guardian, I read about the hon. Gentleman in that newspaper, and about his fiancée who has different political views from him. Perhaps she will balance him from here on, and perhaps that will help him with his new portfolio.
I shall refer again to my own experience. For a while, I was in charge of a truancy unit in a Glasgow school, and it was very hard keep the kids in school. One way of doing so was to enhance the status of the truancy unit, and to get more resources, teachers and classroom assistants into it. The only way to achieve that was through extra resources. The hon. Gentleman asks me how the extra resources will help. They will help in modifying behaviour by providing adequate staffing for young people; that is a good way forward.
David Wright: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Buckinghamshire, about 220 more teachers have been employed under this Government since 1997?
Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think that that must be the last intervention that I take. It is not often that someone from the Back Benches says that, but I shall say it just in case. Other hon. Members want to speak tonight and it is important that they should be able to do so.
I welcome a number of aspects of the Government's commitment. One relates to the aid budget. I know that some of my colleagues will devote a large part of their speeches to that subject tonight. It is reassuring to find that the aid budget will be increased by £1.5 billion to reach the target of 0.4 per cent. of GNP by 2005. I am one of those who wish to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent., but we will have to do that in stages. To come from 0.2 per cent. to 0.4 per cent. in seven or eight years is a welcome development.

909
The shadow Chancellor and other Members referred to targets. The Treasury Committee has looked at that issue, and I want to ask the Government whether the services will improve, now that we have the funding. Vast sums of money have been mentioned in the spending review. The individual in the local pub might not recognise those sums, but they will want to see the improvement in their services at local level. They will want to see a transformation involving shorter waiting lists, better education for young people, criminals being locked up and social nuisances on housing estates being eliminated. That is the key for the Government. Targets are extremely important.
If I have one criticism of the Government, it is that they have perhaps inflated expectations, and that the end result has been less than it was expected to be. These processes will be undertaken using targets. I note that, when the Chancellor introduced his spending review, he introduced 130 public sector agreements. That is down from 160 in 2000, and from more than 300 in the comprehensive spending review of 1998. I have described the targets as a bit vague and, perhaps, bland. Is the Chancellor satisfied that these targets will allow Parliament properly to monitor Departments' performance? Until we have a clear and unambiguous answer, we will ensure that the monitoring process takes place.
On the Treasury's public service agreements to achieve year-on-year improvements in public services' value for money, the latest Treasury annual report simply states that matters are on course, without providing any measurement. Table A2, on page 67 of the report, merely states:
"These value for money targets are monitored as part of the Treasury's Spending Review 2000".
I suggest to Ministers that we need to do more to ensure that those targets are met. If they are to be of value, they need to be simply expressed, transparent, believable and credible. Some hon. Members have mentioned poppy growing in Afghanistan, but are the Government going to report on progress on making the world a safer place—one of the seven Foreign Office targets—daily, hourly, or every five minutes? Let us ensure that the targets have a wee bit more credibility.
Do centrally determined targets that rely on command and control work? I want the Government to confirm that the targets are not centrally imposed and do not rely on command and control. Central Government must allow local initiatives to engage in diversity, but historically, Governments have not been good at that. I am talking about Whitehall and the associated culture, which must be broken. Devolution of power is essential if we are to ensure that long-term goals and proper accountability arrangements are put in place.
The targets also depend on the credibility of independent audits. We must ensure that the money does not disappear down black holes. One issue is public sector pay increases. Public sector workers have rightly made some demands, but if we allow most of the money to be spent on extra pay, we will not achieve the targets. Let us strike a healthy balance. It is important that we ensure that the money is put in, that we bring about reform, and that we achieve the required outcomes.
The Chancellor also placed a great deal of emphasis on productivity. In the past, productivity has been somewhat disappointing, with a figure of 1.3 per cent for the past
910
four years. Public sector productivity has lagged behind the private sector. Value added per employee in the public sector was almost £30,000, but in the private sector it was £41,000. In the past six years, productivity in the private sector has been running at 25 per cent., compared with only 17 per cent. in the public sector. In transforming the public services, we must be very aware of productivity issues. Otherwise, international competitiveness, profitability and investment will be eroded.
When the Prime Minister appeared before the Liaison Committee, he spoke of three tough long-term issues: transport, housing and pensions. He said that he would like all-party support on those issues, and I echo that sentiment. If we are to bring about improvements in these three crucial areas, there must be some political consensus. On pensions, we have the combination of an ageing population and a trend towards economic growth in future years. However, the clash that will arise between an ageing population and the demands of the public is not peculiar to the United Kingdom.
A few months ago, I was fortunate enough to attend a meeting involving the budget chairman of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in Washington. David Walker, of the general accounting office, said that every country in the world will experience such problems. There are several things that can be done. There could be a reduction in the provision of services, but that is very hard for politicians of whatever party to accept. [Interruption.] I note that Liberal Democrats are nodding furiously. Taxes could be increased—again, that is unpleasant medicine—or growth could be increased, and that is where productivity comes in.
I shall leave Ministers and the House with a sense of the difficulties involved. When I pressed the general accounting officer in Washington for the growth figure that will ensure that American targets will be met within 25 years, he mentioned figures of 8 to 10 per cent. Our current annual growth figure, however, is about 3 per cent., which shows the scale of the problem. This is an issue not merely for the Government, but for the entire political process and the country as a whole. Such tough long-term decisions need cross-party support, and I seek the support of the shadow Chancellor and others. Would he like to respond?
Mr. Howard: I am very happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman. When we see particular proposals for dealing with the crisis in pensions, we will of course consider them. We are prepared to look at all proposals on their merits. We are determined to provide the people of this country with public services of which they can be proud, and which they need and deserve.
Mr. McFall: That is what I call a first step towards partnership, and I welcome it.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned the Government's four main priorities. The first is a sound economy, and we certainly must not do anything to jeopardise long-term stability. The second is good public services, and the country and our constituents deserve no less. The third is the need to recreate communities that, as our daily constituency experience shows, have been shattered. It is extremely important that we build strong communities. The final priority is the United Kingdom's place in the world in the provision of overseas aid, and I am reassured by the Government's commitment to such targets in the spending review.

911
I am also pleased that such means have been provided in handsome measure, but the slogan here should be not education, education, education, but delivery, delivery, delivery. Back Benchers and Treasury Committee members will monitor these developments, and ensure that the Government are held to account for these huge—and hopefully beneficial—sums of public money.
7.18 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said. It is clear that he has been listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), who serves with him on the Treasury Committee. I congratulate them both, along with other members of the Committee, on their work in scrutinising the spending review. However, it is a great shame that, because of the truncated timetable that the Government have instigated, we cannot consult their report in order to enhance our debate.
It is a genuine pleasure for a Liberal Democrat to be able to say in a public expenditure debate, "At last!" [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friend's says I should say "I told you so". I was trying to be gracious at the beginning of my speech. After three successive election manifestos and more than a decade of hard campaigning, key Liberal Democrat demands for investment in education and health at last look like they have begun to be met. The Government have U-turned on public spending, at last. No one in British politics today is in any doubt that the Budget and spending review for 2002 mark historic shifts in public investment, and Liberal Democrats welcome that unreservedly.
At last, the Government have stopped copying the Conservatives—on some things, at least. The days of adopting Conservative spending plans lock, stock and barrel appear to be long gone. At last education is receiving something approaching the scale of funding for which Liberal Democrats have long campaigned.
Of course we will question individual priorities in the education budget. We have huge concerns about the approach, and no doubt my hon. Friends will identify education needs unmet over coming months. Tuition fees are one example. But at last we can begin to shift from a debate about how much to spend to a debate about how best to spend. and that is the debate in which I intend to engage.
First, however, let me make an observation about public expenditure during Labour's first five years in office. It is directly relevant to this debate. For the record, Liberal Democrats believe that Labour made a huge strategic mistake in failing to invest properly in our public services during those first five years. Much of today's extra expenditure is necessary simply to rectify major errors of the past. It would have represented much better value for money had it happened earlier. Labour's bust-boom approach to public spending has been bad for patients, bad for pupils and bad for passengers. In his first five years the Chancellor, far from being an iron Chancellor, has been a corroding Chancellor, allowing our
912
public infrastructure to rust away. Whatever his party political reasons for that, it was a huge financial and social mistake.
Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman reminds us of the Liberal Democrats' pledge to raise income tax, if necessary—their qualification—by one penny, thus raising some £2.5 billion a year. Would the hon. Gentleman have put that drop in the ocean towards the Labour Government's increased investment in education, in health spending, in fighting crime or in transport? It would not have gone very far if he had tried to spread it across the total of Labour's increased spending.
Mr. Davey: Some interventions take one by surprise. That was not one of them.
We have always said in our taxation plans that our spending proposals will be fully costed. Because our proposals were covered by tax increases, they were over and above what the Government were proposing at the time. The cumulative tax rises in the alternative Liberal Democrat Budget of 2002 are very similar to the rises proposed in the Government's Budget, although obviously they would apply to different things. We would therefore have had the same resources at our disposal as the Chancellor had for the purposes of his spending review. The hon. Gentleman's point, therefore, does not take us very far.
To be fair, it must be said that where we had new Labour, now, with this extra spending, we have new Gordon. The problem is that, whereas new Labour promised us that it would not spend anything, new Gordon promises us that he will not allow anyone else to spend anything. The Chancellor must micro-manage everything. New Labour had reviews; new Gordon has regulators. New Labour had taskforces; new Gordon has targets. New Labour had new ambitions; new Gordon has new auditors. New Labour created Tsars; new Gordon is the Tsar.
Some of us here are genuine admirers of the Chancellor. He has done some very good things—establishing an independent Bank, tackling third-world debt and sorting out the Conservatives' debt mountain. All those are great achievements. However accomplished this Chancellor is, however, he simply cannot run Britain's public services from Whitehall. He must learn to let go, and to trust others.
David Wright: During our debates on the Finance Bill, the hon. Gentleman made a number of additional financial commitments on behalf of his party. Does he think that he will have to put another penny on income tax to pay for them?
Mr. Davey: If the hon. Gentleman were being fair, he would also say that I opposed some of the Government's tax reductions because they were very unwise. An example is the reduction in the starting rate of corporation tax to 0p, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies says may lose the Exchequer as much as £2.9 billion. According to the hon. Gentleman's logic, we could pocket that money for our purposes.
The Chancellor talks of a new localism, but it is a new localism that his Whitehall controls. Outside Scotland and Wales, there is precious little new democracy in Labour's

913
new localism. The Chancellor effectively said that himself in his statement. Poor-performing local education authorities would be subject to takeover; poor-performing councils would be subject to new managers, or to takeover.
What happened to local democracy? Does the Chancellor not trust the voters? Does he not see how sensible were the voters of Hull when confronted with the waste of Hull Labour party and the scandal of the failed Gypsyville project? They kicked out the Labour council after 50 years.
The Chancellor should talk to the Deputy Prime Minister. Has he not seen how Islington is being transformed now that the Liberal Democrats are running it? He should also talk to the Prime Minister. Instead of being the man in Whitehall ordering takeovers, he should be empowering voters; but instead of democracy we have a new battery of centralised targets, the new public service agreements.
Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman's personal tirade against the Chancellor is all very interesting, but do the Liberal Democrats now support failing schools?
Mr. Davey: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would do rather better than that. What the Liberal Democrats do in power, having been voted into power by the electors, is tackle such problems with proper investment, making education a priority.
What our party supports is local democracy. We oppose the idea that the man in Whitehall knows best, because so often he does not.
The new public service agreements now contain 130 targets—admittedly fewer than the 300 in 1998 and the 160 in 2000, but there are still plenty of centrally imposed targets. And what a reassuring set of targets this is. The No. 1 PSA of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is "Promote better policy integration". I am not sure how "better policy integration" will be measured, and when we will know that we have reached that nirvana. Perhaps it will be like the "better transport policy integration" provided previously by the Deputy Prime Minister; let us hope not.
The Home Office has a particularly good public service agreement:
"Increase voluntary and community sector activity—including community participation—by 5 per cent. by 2006".
We all look forward to seeing the Chancellor Tsar measure community activity and community participation up and down the country. Perhaps the Chief Secretary to the Treasury can tell us how it will be measured. I have an image of bowler-hatted man with clipboards touring village fetes. Presumably their first question will be "Has the number of stalls gone up this year, vicar?" As for increasing community participation, perhaps the Government have plans to slow hand-clap volunteers into joining the Women's Institute.
I would be fascinated to learn from Treasury Ministers how they plan to increase community sector activity by central diktat. We all agree with the aim—I am sure that scout and guide groups throughout the country are crying with joy at the prospect of having adult volunteers to help them—but the idea that a central Whitehall Department should target an increase in community and voluntary activity across Britain is a sign of the unbelievable hubris of this Government.
914
It does not end there. I discussed this earlier with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Part of objective 1 of the Foreign Office simply does not make sense. It states:
"Contribute to the reduction of opium production in Afghanistan, with poppy cultivation reduced by 70 per cent. within 5 years and elimination within 10 years."
That may be an excellent idea. Indeed, we can all agree that it is a worthy aim. But can Treasury Ministers tell us how they will obtain the data? Is the source, perhaps, the Afghan Ministry of Agriculture? It is an entirely innocent question.
I presume that some of the extra cash given to the Foreign Secretary has been earmarked for the purpose of destroying Afghan poppy fields; but the National Audit Office will want to audit the data that the Government use to calculate their success in approaching that ambitious target. We need to know the answers to such questions.
The key point is that the Treasury wants us to take PSAs of that kind seriously. Page 11 of the spending review White Paper states:
"PSAs are central to the Government's strategy for improving public services."
We as parliamentarians, therefore, are right to ask questions. The problem is that when we do the Treasury does not answer them. Liberal Democrats have asked the Treasury to publish a list of the PSA targets from the 1998 and 2000 spending reviews to show which targets were passed, which were failed, which were revoked and which were amended. The Treasury has refused to answer. How can we hold Ministers to account in regard to PSAs when they do not answer parliamentary questions about them? The Chancellor, when asked about them by the Select Committee on the Treasury, also refused to give a straight answer.
We have therefore conducted our own analysis, which the shadow Chancellor used in his speech. We have consulted departmental annual reports to try to establish what progress has been made on PSAs. Unfortunately, the annual reports are not terribly helpful, but we have managed to make some progress. The record is not very good. The Foreign Office has missed 47 per cent. of its targets, the Department for Transport has missed 57 per cent., the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has missed 83 per cent., and the Home Office has missed a staggering 89 per cent. of its PSA targets. It met only four of the original 37 targets: all the others have been missed, dropped or revised.
We do not know, now, what happens when Departments miss their targets. The Chief Secretary said today that they will not be penalised, but will Ministers be sacked, or—as the Chancellor implied to the Select Committee—will the pay of permanent secretaries be docked? We just do not know.
Mr. Steve Webb: Nothing will happen.
Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is right—nothing will happen. We have heard that the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been penalised. It has been renamed, and is now the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. If that is the sort of penalty that the Government have in mind, the focus of the PSAs will be lost.
Mr. David Laws: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Chancellor, when asked by the Treasury

915
Committee about that point, said that the only sanctions would be those imposed by the Prime Minister or the electorate? Does he think that that will he good enough?
Mr. Davey: On current performance, it clearly will not be good enough. My hon. Friend is right to make the point. The Government's feelings about the purpose of PSAs seems to have changed. When they announced their PSAs in 2000, a press release issued on 3 November of that year stated:
"action will be taken where there is a risk that a Department's performance is off track."
Is that still so? What has changed? Given that so many targets in the 2000 spending review have been missed, will the Chief Secretary say what actions have been taken in the past two years? Why have they failed?
James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman's relatively thoughtful speech should embarrass the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). However, what is his view about targets and objectives? Is he completely opposed to them, or does he agree that they are worth setting? Does he agree that general targets that cannot be measured have to be set for some items, whereas clear measurable targets can be set for others? Is not it slightly foolish to pretend that everything can be measured specifically, as counterproductive targets could be set as a result?
Mr. Davey: I agree that targets are justified in some circumstances. We have argued that output and outcome targets are necessary in many areas, but the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about how targets should be used in different circumstances. The Government's performance should not be determined according to measurable targets, but by the degree to which they look at intangibles that cannot be measured.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and I went to New Zealand to find out how targets were used there. We were told about the dangers that arise when targets are too specific. The police in Wellington had a target for the number of breathalyser tests undertaken. Towards the end of the year, the force realised that it had not performed anywhere near the number of tests that it had contracted to do. As a result, Wellington was brought to a standstill for two days as breath tests were taken by every driver.
Government policy must be sensible and sensitive, and not driven only by targets. That is our concern today, especially as many of the targets are centrally imposed on bodies that are asked to meet them having had no part in deciding what they should be.
David Taylor: Is not the hon. Gentleman trying to have it both ways? He is making fun—perhaps justifiably—of the Treasury's target-setting process. However, he seems to classify quantitative targets as irrelevant, unachievable or capable of being fiddled, yet, if asked, he would no doubt describe qualitative targets as vague, waffly and imprecise.
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is putting words in my mouth. I did not say that there was no case for qualitative targets, or that there was a case only for
916
quantiative ones. Clearly, Government objectives must be scrutinised, and we must try to find a way to ensure that we can "focus minds" on that, to use the Chief Secretary's phrase. However, in this speech I am looking at the Government's published targets and attempting to find out what the Government's intentions are. I am also trying to discover what happens when Departments do not meet their targets.
We are told that the targets are important and crucial to public service reform, but the Government have so far failed to make that case in this debate. The Chancellor was asked about the Treasury's performance in relation to targets, yet he and the Chief Secretary have failed to explain why the key target on efficiency had been missed. The Chancellor set himself a target of delivering efficiency gains of 2.5 per cent. a year. He agreed that target with himself, but he missed it, and has now dropped it.
The Treasury has other targets, such as that for underlying growth. Originally set in the 1998 spending review, that target, we have been told, has been achieved. The Chancellor forecast trend growth at 2.5 per cent. a year, but this year—hey presto!—the estimate is of 2.75 per cent. The Treasury seems to have hit that target, but a closer examination reveals that that has nothing to do with higher productivity. The Treasury has hit the target only because of higher than expected labour force growth, fed by higher than expected immigration.
At least, that is what the relevant Treasury document states, but a deeper inspection shows that the Chancellor has pulled off a nice little trick. In the past, the Treasury used to take the principal forecast of the Government Actuary to determine population growth and labour force growth. This year, for the first time ever, the Treasury has decided to override the Government Actuary. Unilaterally, the Chancellor has decided to forecast labour force growth at a higher rate than the Government Actuary. Miraculously, Britain's trend growth appears to have risen. The Treasury has hit its PSA target because it has fiddled the figures.
We have tried to investigate the matter. We are not obsessed with PSAs, but the matter is critical to the Government's forecast of public finances. By increasing by 0.25 per cent. his trend forecast for growth, the Chancellor has given himself a fiscal windfall of an extra £4 billion a year.
In the interests of fiscal prudence, therefore, we have been asking some questions about the change in the forecast. It turns out that the Treasury has done little work to justify it. It published a report at the time of the Budget entitled "Trend Growth: Recent Developments and Prospects", but a close reading of that document reveals only how little work the Treasury did to justify what was a very significant change.
The formal justification for the change was that the Government Actuary department had underestimated the extent of net immigration, and that increased net immigration has raised the size of the labour force. However, the Treasury has offered no analysis of the longer-term determinants of immigration, and no justification has been given for assuming that a recent

917
upturn of immigration will be sustained in the longer term. After all, the Home Office has a PSA that requires it to enforce
"the immigration laws more effectively."
Even the major driving forces behind recent immigration flows will be cut, according to other PSAs. The Foreign Office has a ludicrous PSA, requiring it to
"reduce tension in South Asia, the middle East, Balkans and elsewhere."
That is not to be achieved through the employment of masseurs, but—presumably—through diplomacy. Yet, if the Foreign Office succeeds in reducing tension in those parts of the world, future immigration flows will presumably fall. Perhaps the Treasury has little faith that the Home Office will reduce immigration, or that the Foreign Office will reduce the tensions that create it. If the Treasury has a target to increase immigration, there is no PSA for that.
Our analysis shows that the targets are nonsense. The key weakness of the PSA system is that Departments are, in effect, judge and jury when it comes to their performance. They decide the targets, and measure performance. The targets are not agreed with Parliament, and there is no discussion with Select Committees about what they should be. They are not agreed with an external body such as the National Audit Office. Of course, Select Committees and the NAO may look at performance against targets, but most PSAs rely on data provided by—guess who—the Government.
After the Sharman report, we were promised that PSAs would be externally validated. The Chief Secretary's predecessor told Parliament on 13 March that he accepted the external validation of PSAs. He said:
"we are taking measures that add to the substantial external validation that is already carried out by the Office for National Statistics and the Audit Commission, the ability of the Comptroller and Auditor General to oversee the data systems as a whole.—[Official Report, 13 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 893.]
That is a very welcome development, but what does it mean in practice? According to the Office for National Statistics, PSA data come from various sources: 43 per cent. of it comes from departmental surveys or statistics. 18 per cent. from agency data, 12 per cent. from local authorities and the NHS, while 13 per cent. comes from other organisations. Only 14 per cent. comes from national statistics. So Ministers retain control, directly or indirectly, of 86 per cent. of the data going into the PSAs. The National Audit Office will have a tough time giving any meaningful external validation to these statistics.
I make just one challenge to Treasury Ministers. If they are so confident that they have their own PSAs right, and, specifically, if they truly believe that underlying growth has increased from 2.5 per cent. to 2.75 per cent., let the Treasury ask either the NAO or the Statistics Commission to review the revised estimate for underlying growth. While they are at it, let them review the analysis that the Treasury has presumably done on long-term immigration determinants. The NAO did neither when it audited the Budget assumptions before the Budget. Will the Minister ask the NAO or the Statistics Commission to do that as one of their first tasks in auditing PSA data? I hope that she will give me that commitment, but I very much doubt it.
My worries in this area are profound and they have got worse as a result of the spending review statement. One of the key elements of that statement, supposedly to
918
ensure that extra cash is well spent, was the development of so-called independent auditing and inspection. New audit arrangements are to be established, according to page 12 of the White Paper, to hold Departments and agencies accountable for performance against the PSA targets. In other words, five new central quangos are to be set up—a commission for health care audit and inspection, a single independent inspectorate for social care services, a single housing inspectorate, a new police standards unit and a modernised inspection regime for the criminal justice system.
These new auditing inspection regimes raise profound questions for the House. First, why do we need these new bodies at all? What was wrong with the Audit Commission? What was wrong with the National Audit Office? Why could not these experienced and well respected bodies have been enhanced and expanded? Both have value for money remits and both have experience auditing the services that the new quangos will audit.
David Wright: Of course, these new bodies are not new. In respect of housing, we are bringing together inspection regimes that are currently in place, so the hon. Gentleman's comment is false.
Mr. Davey: I was quoting what the Government were saying. I am sorry if their spin was new; the hon. Gentleman's spin is not new, but I can only quote from what the Government say in their own press release.
My second point concerns the extent of the independence of the "new"—that is a Government word—quango audit bodies. The status of the NAO and the Audit Commission were carefully debated in this House in the past. The NAO has genuine independence from Government Departments, and while it has independence from this House too, it is, in statute, a creature of Parliament, working for the Public Accounts Committee.
This plethora of new auditors will not be based on the NAO system. They will have a degree of independence but there will be no parliamentary involvement in agreeing who should head them up, as there is for the NAO. They will not report to or work closely with the Public Accounts Committee in the way that the NAO does. These independent bodies will have their budget set by the Treasury, not the House of Commons Commission, in the way that the NAO does. So these independent bodies will not have the independence of the existing audit bodies, which perhaps explains why they have been set up.
There is a third question, which is perhaps more politically profound. Will this panoply of new central auditors make any real difference? Will they not simply soak up many talented individuals who would be better employed in the front line? Will they not soak up large amounts of cash to duplicate controls on auditors elsewhere? Will they not waste the time and efforts of the professionals? We do not have to look far to see their future. Local government is already subject to an equivalent audit exercise through the comprehensive performance assessment. Anyone in local government will say what a waste of time and money that exercise is. It disrupts the work of the Audit Commission, not to mention councils around the country. The exercise looks set to waste more than £100 million. People in local

919
government say that the Audit Commission's increasing concern is simply to avoid the danger of a council judicially reviewing the report made on it because of the link to future freedoms and future cash.
The comprehensive performance assessment is just a taste of things to come. Whitehall regulators, auditors and inspectors will have to be trained in their thousands to do a job best done by existing national bodies and, at regional and local level, through existing and new democratic structures.
James Purnell: The same point applies to the comprehensive review by the Audit Commission, the whole point of which is to bring together previous reviews by different sector-specific auditors in local government such as social services, education and others. In that way, we can reduce the burden of auditing for very good councils and concentrate on those which have problems. That is all about reducing the burden of auditing. Does the hon. Gentleman worry that the Tories appear to be opposing the spending while the Liberal Democrats appear to be opposing reform? Will he make any positive recommendations about reform, which is a good tradition in his party?
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I am about to say. He should talk to local authorities in his area regarding the comprehensive performance assessment. The message that I am getting clearly is that the burdens are being increased, not reduced.
The Government talk about new localism and new local discretion while at the same time setting up new quangos, new central bid funds and new central targets. I think that their approach on new localism lacks credibility.
Liberal Democrats are concerned that far too much of the welcome increase in public spending could be wasted because of how the Government intend to manage that spending. The Government are trying to reassure us that we can trust them to spend this money wisely because they have these PSA targets but the targets are a real cause for concern. The Government also try to reassure us that value for money is guaranteed because they are establishing these new bodies. We do not believe that these bodies are a necessary or sensible way of auditing public services. We do not see how creating a new army of central auditors and regulators will help turn round public services.
Liberal Democrats have a positive alternative to ensure that we get value for money from these welcome billions. Rather than making contorted attempts to win trust for the Treasury, the Government should trust others. They should trust the people on the front line—the professionals; they should trust local communities. Above all, the Government should trust local voters. Huge tracts of public spending need to be devolved, not to quangos, for which the Treasury set a multitude of PSAs, but to democratic bodies responsible to the communities they serve. With the Conservatives against the extra spending, and given their history of destroying local government and opposing regional government, the Liberal Democrats, who welcome the money, will be the only party capable of arguing for the democratic way to better public spending.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I make a plea for shorter contributions to
920
the debate? An awful lot of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and unless contributions are considerably shorter, an awful lot of hon. Members will be disappointed.
7.47 pm
Denzil Davies: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Chancellor's public expenditure review and the extra resources that will be put into public services. I do not think that any sensible person can believe that money alone will reform our public services, but without the money, there would be no hope. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, we must see that reform goes hand in hand with the money that is put into the services. That will not be easy, but I believe that if it happens, the money will eventually find its way into the improved services we all want.
Ever since the Chancellor announced the totals of public expenditure in his Budget, various financial commentators have tried to cast doubt on the Government's ability to fund the totals without, in some cases, hefty increases in taxation. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee pointed out, the Chancellor's forecasts of growth for the next three years, for the purpose of the public expenditure totals, are reasonable and conservative. The forecast is a growth of 2.5 per cent. That is a prudent figure and the Chancellor has probably been more successful in the difficult art of forecasting than many in the private sector, certainly over the past few years. Therefore I believe that there is a good chance of achieving the 2.5 per cent. growth on which the public expenditure totals are based.
However, as the Chief Secretary said, nothing is certain in the kind of global economic system with which we have to live. Growth could still, for external reasons, fall short of that 2.5 per cent., although I hope that it will not. If it were to fall short of 2.5 per cent., the response should certainly not be to put up taxes, as some commentators seem to imply. Nothing could be worse for an economy. One need not be an economist, like the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), to realise that an increase in taxes against the background of a lower growth rate would merely do damage and reduce growth even further.
If there were a funding deficit—I do not believe that it will happen—I suppose that public expenditure could be cut, but that is not easy either. It is not easy in practical terms when one sets out a programme for three years, and cutting public expenditure against a background of reducing growth or a reduced rate of growth would make matters worse. Therefore the point that I wish to make to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is that, as I am sure he is well aware, the only sensible way of funding a shortfall in growth and funding the present public expenditure totals—I have to say it, although perhaps it is not fashionable these days—would be to increase Government borrowing.
The Chancellor, in the Red Book, proceeds on the assumption that what I will call the old PSBR—public sector borrowing requirement—will be about 1.2 per cent. of gross domestic product over the next three years, should the growth rate be 2.5 per cent., the basis of the public expenditure assumptions. There is a new, fashionable phrase for PSBR these days—it is not

921
borrowing but a cash requirement, I believe, but let us just call it the old PSBR. Those of us who have been in this place for a long time, at least, should be allowed to call it the old PSBR.
A PSBR of 1.2 per cent. is not, I suggest, very high, so I would suggest to the Chancellor that if growth were to fall there is plenty of room to increase the PSBR as a percentage of GDP, bearing it in mind that the chances are that, with a lower growth rate, inflation would be very low, so the inflationary consequences of borrowing an increased percentage in respect of a PSBR would not have an inflationary effect.
In my view the main threat to growth, should it come. would be a fall in the rate of inflation into what I would describe as the danger zone of deflation, caused by the relentless pressure of the global economic system—call it global capitalism, if you like—on prices, then on costs, and ultimately on profits. Over the past few years, this pressure has been going on and on. Perhaps we have underestimated it, or perhaps economists prefer to turn a blind eye to it, but those of us who have constituencies where a substantial proportion of the work force—in my case about 30 per cent.—is still employed in manufacturing industry, producing goods, can see clearly. after talking to employers and employees, that the pressure is relentless. Prices cannot be increased; they must be reduced. If prices must be reduced, costs must be cut, but eventually a point comes where they cannot be cut further and profits are squeezed relentlessly. That is what has been happening, and is happening, especially in manufacturing industry.
Recently I read in one of the American newspapers that an American commentator was predicting a profitless growth over the next few years. I am still trying to work out what sort of concept a profitless growth is and I do not suppose that it really means very much. However, talking of the United States, we are obsessed with the scandals of Enron and WorldCom. Now Dr. Alan Greenspan—that wizard of central bankers, apparently—has come up with a new soundbite. A few years ago it was "irrational exuberance" when the stock market was going up. Now that the stock market is going down, it is "infectious greed" that is causing all these problems. Perhaps so; perhaps Enron, WorldCom and some other companies are going into liquidation because of the original sin of human venality, and no doubt that is there.
However, we should not forget—this is not to excuse any of these scandals or any of the people involved—the relentless pressure on profits, because prices are squeezed and costs cannot be reduced any further. The relentless pressure on prices is making people overturn or short-cut what could be called, if this is not a contradiction, the orthodox rules of accountancy. It seems quite easy for central bankers to point to original sin as the reason, but perhaps there is a problem with the system. I do not want to say it too loudly, but perhaps the present capitalist system can no longer cope with capitalism. I do not know. It is a very real difficulty, which we shall have to face.
In Britain in the last month, one of the two inflation rates—I am never quite sure whether it is headline or underlying—was 1.5 per cent. The other was 1 per cent. but let us focus on the 1.5 per cent. While reading American newspapers, I noticed that in the United States in the last two months—this is not an annualised figure—consumer price inflation, or the consumer price index, was increasing by just over 1 per cent. That is a very low
922
level—almost as low as, perhaps lower than, what we have in this country, and of course in Japan it is lower still.
I return to the British figures. Given that private sector services in Britain are very prone to inflation because the service industry—or parts of the service industry—does not have to face the kind of competition that manufacturing has to, it has been estimated that, again taking the annualised figure for last month, private sector services inflation was about 4 per cent. in Britain. Public sector inflation is probably also about 4 per cent. While we have an underlying rate of 1.5 per cent., then clearly, over a whole range of manufactured products, prices must have actually fallen. That creates this enormous pressure, especially on manufacturing industry, but ultimately on the rate of growth if the trend continues, because we could move into the danger zone of deflation.
The Chancellor, when this matter is raised—I make no criticism of my right hon. Friend—tells us that the Bank of England's target is asymmetrical. It is one of those words that I have some difficulty with, but I think I understand what is meant: that if inflation is increasing—getting worse—one increases interest rates, but if inflation is falling, or falling too far, one reduces interest rates. I am not sure whether we are comparing like with like, because I suspect that when an economy moves towards very low inflation, or deflation, cuts in interest rates possibly have very little effect. I do not know how effective interest rates are anyway. I suspect that for certain major, or multinational, companies the cost of money is not a major factor, although I accept that the situation is very different for small companies. In any case, it has been clearly shown that if inflation is falling, and approaching zero, the efficacy of reducing interest rates becomes less and less.
I suspect that in a world of deflation, Dr. Alan Greenspan and many other central bankers would be redundant. The British economy, with its sadly declining manufacturing base, which is producing fewer goods domestically, with a growing—still inflationary, I think—private services sector and with the public expenditure boost that the Chancellor has now given the economy, may be able to withstand that sort of global pressure, which is driving economies towards deflation. Indeed, the Chancellor and our services sector may be able to put enough inflation back into the system to stop us getting to the danger zone of deflation. I do not know.
In that case, however, and I hope that it is the case, the Chancellor will be able, through the measures that we are debating today and his totals, not only to lay the foundation for the improvement in public services but, perhaps as a side effect, to stave off recession and deflation in the British economy.
8.1 pm
Mr. Michael Fallon: I shall begin with the nature of the comprehensive spending review process. The Chancellor often likes to make out that he has pioneered the concept of a long-term rational basis for public spending, but it is not quite like that. This spending review is the third in only four years. It comes just 15 months after the last spending review came into effect. Add to that the constant topping up of public spending programmes in each successive Budget and, indeed, in each successive pre-Budget report and we are a long way away from the sort of three-year fixed programme that the right hon. Gentleman likes to convey.

923
The public spending arrangements that we now have are not, as the Chancellor maintains, so very different from the ones that we did have. Of course, it is true that since Plowden we have had annual reviews, but even those reviews posited figures for years two and three. Now, it is true that the third year of each successive CSR is simply rolled into the first year of the next one. The Chancellor would be more convincing had he started off by saying that he would put this process on to a two-year framework into which much else was added in between.
This review has one odd feature, which is that the Chancellor was boxed in from the start by the enormous hole that emerged from the last review—the need to set up and implement the Wanless report and to yank up health service spending to the European averages. That meant in turn that he became in hock to the Department for Education and Skills and to the Home Office, which looked for similar increases. In turn, that has clearly skewed spending increases elsewhere.
When we get into the detail of the announcements that are following the spending review, it may well be that the increases for defence and for local government are not really as generous as they might at first appear. That would not matter so much—the national health service, schools and crime would be top of anyone's list and, indeed, they would be top of mine—if Ministers had not pretended that this entire process was the result of rigorous, rational review that really did match results with resources and reform with money. In fact, as we discovered in the hearings of the Treasury Committee last week, no Department was penalised and no money withheld. Even the much-disgraced Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food received a substantial increase in funding.
Fundamentally, politics has driven this spending review: how to square the large post-Wanless increases given to the health service with the obvious commitment of the Government to make education a top priority and the equally obvious need to do something about rising public concern about crime. Let us not be under any illusions: this was a very political spending review, driven entirely by new Labour preoccupations.
On the spending programmes, the first and most obvious comment—it has already been made—is that much of the extra spending will go on people. If it goes on front-line people, that is good news, obviously. We are desperately short of nurses. To confirm that, we have only to look at the use of agency nurses and their predominance on night shifts as well as the ridiculous state to which the Government have reduced the health service—flying nurses in at the same time that they are flying patients out.
Of course, every head teacher would like a greater choice of teachers when selecting for a particular post. Every area commander wants more police in his division and out on patrol. If the money goes on those front-line people, I for one will be cheering. I have two great fears, however. First, the extra spending that is already flowing through from the last review seems to be going on the back line—on advisers, liaison people, co-ordinators and systems managers. If our public services really are in the firing line, one only has to pick up the Wednesday jobs section of the Guardian to see that there are some pretty well-staffed chateaux right behind the front lines.
924
Some of those jobs are very worthwhile; others are more dubious. The one thing that we know for certain is that every pound spent on advisers, or administrators—on their cars, conferencing and so forth—is a pound less that is spent in the classroom, the hospital ward or out on police patrol.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has already articulated my second great fear. The Chancellor is overdoing it on inspectors. There are far too many inspectors. Of course, the public services should be accountable, but we will end up destroying any sense of profession—the element of trust that supports the sense of profession—if we over-inspect. The Chancellor set up four new inspectorates. Someone pointed out that they would amalgamate other inspectorates. The Government have already created dozens of new commissions and inspectorates. Far from amalgamating them, I would have liked him to ease off.
Mr. Salmond: I have been looking up the hon. Gentleman's background. Apart from working in the Conservative research department, he was a director of European Consultants Ltd. When he was doing that, was he working in the front line or the back?
Mr. Fallon: I was working in private industry and contributing to the funding of public services. I think that I have as much business experience as the hon. Gentleman, whom I am glad to see back in the Chamber.
On targets, the claim that these are actual programmes rather than simply political decisions rests fundamentally on all those public service targets. There is nothing wrong with performance targets. Any business needs and has performance targets, business plans and personal performance measures in place, as I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree. Here as always, however, the Government blunder along. First, we had more than 600 public service targets, which were introduced a couple of Secretaries of State ago. Just a year later, those were thinned down and now they have been changed again.
What is wrong with those targets? First, they are ludicrously imprecise. Indeed, the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee gave us some examples from the Foreign Office. Some of them are woolly and they are easy to implement or they are incapable of measurement. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, they are not yet properly externally audited. It is by no means clear how the Audit Commission will ensure that that external audit is put in place. That still means that the Treasury can virtually audit itself at the moment. Thirdly, the targets are always being changed. The White Paper that sets out public service agreements for 2003 to 2006 states:
"A small number of headline targets will not be carried forward as either new PSA or SDA targets, where they have … been superseded by new targets or events."
That shows that the targets are simply what the Government say they are. They mean what the Government say they mean. Given that no penalties apply, we are in "Alice in Wonderland" territory. The targets mean only what the Treasury says they mean and at the end of day, no one loses any money—all shall have prizes.
Finally—I know a lot of other hon. Members want to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I want to look at the impact of the public spending programmes in west

925
Kent. We have some of the most expensive housing outside London. It is difficult for us to recruit and house key public sector workers. I welcome the key workers scheme but I would have welcomed it even more if the Government had not in the first five years cut housing association budgets by almost exactly the amount that they have put into the scheme.
The Deputy Prime Minister has announced swathes of new housing for north Kent. The new housing will have to go somewhere. We have to take our share of it but I would have welcomed that announcement if it had been accompanied by a proper recognition that one cannot announce thousands of new houses without first considering the infrastructure. If the Government are going to go down the route of huge new towns, they have to look at the way in which the money is allocated and ensure that the schools, roads and surgeries are put in place first. If there is to be a big increase in housing, they need to look again at the rules governing spending to ensure that the houses are not built and occupied before the infrastructure and support for communities are put in place. At the moment, it is the other way round.
Mr. Tom Harris: I do not want to pre-empt the climax of the hon. Gentleman's speech but would I be right in saying that his argument is leading us implausibly but inexorably to the conclusion that a future Conservative Government—sorry, a hypothetical Conservative Government—will be able to maintain public spending at the levels set by the Chancellor simply by cutting bureaucracy?
Mr. Fallon: It is certainly one of the conclusions that the hon. Gentleman should draw. I have always thought that cutting bureaucracy is important. It is important for central Government above all to keep bearing down on bureaucracy if we are going to get the money into the front line.
The next example from west Kent is law and order. We need more police on patrol. Last Saturday evening, I was in West Kingsdown, a village on the A20; some hon. Members may know it. The village was delighted that a new rural warden had been appointed to help with community safety, but that warden was paid for by Kent county council. The police authority does not have sufficient funding. We need more police locally, not just rural wardens, and more police on patrol.
The impact on council funding is perhaps the biggest threat of all to the successful implementation of some of the spending programmes in my part of west Kent. As hon. Members will know, particularly those representing southern England, another review was slipped out just a few days before the spending review: the formula grant review, under which—the Government are honest enough to put the figures in the illustrative tables at the back of the document—southern shire counties such as Kent and Essex could lose substantial funding. Indeed, the Government recognise that to the extent that they have already proposed damping mechanisms to ensure our councils in the south do not lose more than a specific amount in any particular year.
Mr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fallon: No, I must be fair to other hon. Members who want to speak.
926
There is a best case, there is a worst case, but Kent county council, for example, has estimated that in mid case it will lose around £62.4 million—a budget cut of around 6 per cent., a loss for Kent schools of around £20 million, a loss for social services in Kent of around £5 million. These are the examples set out in the illustrative tables for the formula grant review. I do not want funding for Kent to be cut, as it is being cut at the moment. I make it clear that I will oppose those particular cuts.
It is odd for the Government, at the same time as announcing all this spending nationally and having taken the political credit for it, to be consulting on options for transferring that spending from the south to our friends in the north. It is particularly odd to be doing it now, before we have the results of the census next year.
The spending review clearly is not just about more money. It is driven fundamentally by politics rather than economics. It is unaccompanied by serious reform of public services. It is based on made-up, moving targets. Nothing in it convinces me that public services in west Kent will get any better.
8.15 pm
Alan Howarth: The spending review, with its focus on education and research, promises well for our country. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his announcement about funding for science has provided an excellent first instalment. We must now wait and see what improvement the Government make in their support for the university system as a whole.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and other right hon. and hon. Members have ranged broadly and fascinatingly. I would like to concentrate on one particular issue: public expenditure on university museums and galleries and—the other side of the coin—their liability to value added tax.
The university museums deserve the Government's support, benefiting as they do so many aspects of the public good. The university museums are custodians of the oldest legacy of publicly accessible collections. They have a long and distinguished history of public engagement as well as being repositories of scholarly expertise.
The nation's first museum education service was established 90 years ago in the Manchester museum, part of the university of Manchester, a service that is now provided to 25,000 children each year and reaches out into a culturally diverse local community. University museums are particularly well placed to help to widen access to higher education. They contribute to economic regeneration as important elements in regional tourism and cultural strategies.
I refer those who wish to know something of the history of the university collections to various excellent studies by Ms Kate Arnold-Forster, who was once a pupil of mine. The Ashmolean was the first museum in England to be opened to the public, in 1683. Colleges, universities and learned societies were institutional recipients of gifts of collections from an early date. The Hunterian museum of the university of Glasgow is based on the bequest of William Hunter in 1783, and is Scotland's oldest museum. The Fitzwilliam museum derives from the legacy of Viscount Fitzwilliam, who died in 1816. Other magnificent benefactions were the Courtauld Institute of

927
Art collection, established in 1931, and the Percival David collection of Chinese art, presented to the university of London in 1951. Other collections were developed by the universities over centuries as resources for teaching and research, particularly in the natural sciences.
The Sedgwick museum of geology, for example, stems from the collection of Dr. John Woodward, bequeathed to the university of Cambridge in 1727, together with detailed instructions for its preservation and educational use. Important anthropological and archaeological collections came from great scholar collectors—for example, W. M. Flinders Petrie, whose Egyptology collection belongs to University college, London.
The movement to create new public museums, national and municipal, in the 19th century did not displace the tradition of university collections. In 1868, Owen's college, later the Victoria university of Manchester, accepted the collection of the Manchester Society of Natural History, which had been rejected by the city of Manchester.
What should the Government's responsibility be in regard to the university collections? We look to Government to do their best to ensure that the universities have, all in all, sufficient funding to fulfil their and society's expectations of them. Guardianship of our cultural heritage, and the provision of access to learning about it, are among those expectations.
Some university collections are admirably managed and presented; others have been sadly neglected, with their parent universities unable to provide the necessary resources, and survival of the collections effectively depending on the devotion of volunteers. We read recently, in The Guardian of 16 July, of admirable efforts at the university of Leeds to rescue and display collections in the fields of chemistry, biology. Arabic and textiles.
The old University Grants Committee used to provide so-called "non-departmental special factor" funding to universities in recognition of their collections, but as that came through the general block grant it is not clear that it achieved any more than to stabilise existing levels of funding. To the credit of the current Government and the Arts and Humanities Research Board, a substantial proportion of the AHRB's resources—almost £8.5 million in 2001–02, rising to nearly £9.15 million in the present year—is now channelled to 52 university museums and collections. Resource, funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, also contributed just over £3,850,000, to 16 university museums with collections designated as outstanding between 1999 and 2002. I very much hope that we will shortly hear of further grants through the designation challenge fund to this group of university museums containing pre-eminent collections.
The number of visits to the university museums with designated collections in 1999–2000 was almost 1.5 million. They are an important and much valued source of pleasure and instruction for the public. My own passion for museums began with childhood visits to the Barber Institute of the university of Birmingham. The recent study, "Renaissance in the Regions", commissioned by the DCMS, made it clear that the university museums should play an enhanced role in strengthening the cultural life of the regions, as well as in support of tourism and the creative economy.
928
There is one particular anomaly in the financial regime for university museums to which I want to draw attention. As long as the university museums refrain from charging the public for access to their collections, they, alone among museums, cannot recover input VAT. As the House knows, other national museums and galleries were, until last year, in an invidious position. Those museums that wished to retain free access found that the VAT rules gave them a perverse incentive to introduce entry charges, since by doing so they were able to recover the VAT that they paid on expenditure incurred in providing services. By contrast, the museums that did not charge for admission were unable to recover the VAT on any associated expenditure, resulting in considerable additional cost, simply because they were not charging admission fees.
That presented an impediment to the fulfilment of the Government's policy to secure free entry to the national museums and galleries, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and I, as Minister for the Arts, were pursuing. It took us a long time, between 1998 and 2001, to achieve what we sought. We were stalwartly supported by the directors of the non-charging national museums and galleries. We had endless discussions with Customs and Excise and the Treasury, which did not want any chipping away at the splendid edifice of VAT and, as always, prided themselves on their resilience in the face of lobbying. I was closely in touch also with some of the great benefactors of our public collections, the National Art Collections Fund and Sir Denis Mahon, who felt very strongly about this and added their voices to the cause.
The Treasury adduced a variety of objections, both general and technical. I was particularly indebted to Ms Helen Donoghue, whose help we enlisted and who found a solution which was technically sound and at the same time protected the Exchequer's interest against a proliferation of concessions. I was even more grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for agreeing that the Finance Act 2001 should, at section 98, amend the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to include a new section 33A. That empowered the Government to specify, by statutory instrument, individual museums which, while not "engaged in economic activity," should none the less be able to recover all the previously irrecoverable VAT that they incurred. The Government duly, by order, relieved the national museums and galleries of this burden and disincentive to maintain or create free entry. I was delighted to note that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in his announcement of the outcome of the spending review last week, stated with satisfaction that
"since museums were opened free to the public, attendances have risen by 75 per cent."—[Official Report, 15 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 27.]
We have the anomaly, however, following the order, that the university museums that offer free entry are the only remaining category of public museums liable for irrecoverable VAT. I should explain to the House that the term "national", as applied to museums and galleries, is an administrative term of art referring to a limited group of some 13 institutions that, for reasons of history, fall within the category. The group does not include the university museums. I should also explain that there has not been a similar problem in relation to local authority museums and galleries, as they already enjoyed VAT

929
relief under section 33 of the 1994 Act, and have therefore suffered no tax penalty should they offer free entry. The rationale for the concession to local authorities was that it did not make sense for Government to fund bodies to pay tax—a rationale that applies equally to university museums. Again, private museums, which are independent of public funding, do not have a problem in this respect because they need the income that they receive from charging and can recover their input VAT.
I had argued that the university museums should be included within the scope of the new concession, and I discussed the problem with the AHRB. However, lead responsibility in Whitehall for the universities, including their museums, rests not with the DCMS, but with the Department for Education and Skills, and the university museums were not included in the order. I would ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, together with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, to reconsider their position on the matter.
I do not propose that the relief should apply to every university collection. Because of the manner in which some of them are housed, it would, in practice, be impossible to separate the costs associated with them from other costs of their institutions. My proposal is that, in England, the concession should be extended, by order, under the powers already established in last year's Finance Act, to those university museums that have collections that are formally designated by Resource, the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, as outstanding. There are 16 of those. In addition, the Sainsbury centre at the university of East Anglia, which receives AHRB funding in recognition of its quality, should be included, making it possible to abolish its entry charge.
Although there are no equivalent schemes of designation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a limited number of university museums of appropriate quality in these territories should also be selected for relief. In Scotland, those might be among the six distinguished museums and collections, most notably the Hunterian, in receipt of funding from the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council's minor recurrent grant stream of nearly £1 million for museums, galleries and collections. In Wales, significant collections at the universities of Swansea, Aberystwyth and Glamorgan are for consideration. The forthcoming survey by the Northern Ireland Museums Council of the university collections in Northern Ireland will provide a basis on which to judge eligibility there. The Government would wish to agree the list with the devolved administrations.
I do not see any significant objections to my proposal, which, of course, is along the same lines as recommendations that have also been made by the universities. Representations to the Government have, I know, been made by Professor Sir Martin Harris, vice-chancellor of the university of Manchester, on behalf of Universities UK, by Professor Paul Slack, pro-vice-chancellor of the university of Oxford, and, jointly, by Dr. Christopher Brown, director of the Ashmolean museum, and by Dr. Duncan Robinson, director of the Fitzwilliam museum.
There is no technical difficulty. The Government have the statutory power to extend the list by order. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary
930
to the Treasury, when he was Financial Secretary, met Sir Martin Harris, and in uttering a charming but categoric "no" to Sir Martin's plea, said that the European Union might have difficulties with the proposal. In fact, we have the words of the President of the European Commission, in a letter to Sir Denis Mahon:
"As to the question of bodies that qualify under Section 33 of the 1994 VAT Act, this is, of course, a purely national matter to be decided by the UK authorities."
Very recently, Mr. Stephen Bill, the head of indirect taxation in the European Commission, has confirmed that there is no technical objection to the original scheme or to its extension to university museums.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) also wrote to Dr. Brown on 9 May. He did his duty in devising arguments to oppose our case, but he was in some difficulty. My right hon. Friend said that extending the concession beyond the national museums and galleries would
"undermine the stated rationale for the scheme and be unfair to other cultural and heritage bodies."
I submit that the rationale could not be undermined by admitting to the list specific bodies that provide identical services and which, like the national museums and galleries, are substantially funded by the Government. No other cultural or heritage bodies are analogous.
My right hon. Friend's letter went on to say:
"it is not for the Government to dictate to these independent institutions whether or not they should charge for admission. That is ultimately a decision for them to make, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to interfere in that decision, because it has made no commitment to ensure universal free access to these institutions."
Of course, it is not for the Government to dictate, but they should cease to discriminate against these institutions and they should remove from them the pressure to charge for entry.
It has riot been suggested that the Government ever committed themselves to ensuring free entry. There have, however, been endless statements from Ministers about the desirability of matching excellence with access. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts wrote to me on 8 May saying:
"DCMS and Resource are working in partnership with the Arts and Humanities Research Board to encourage university museums to deliver increased public access at the same time as achieving high standards of scholarship and collections care."
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor himself said plainly in his Budget statement last year:
"The Government's policy is for free museums".—[Official Report, 7 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 301.]
The Government need not fear the cost, either. The combined turnover of the 16 university museums with designated collections in 1999–2000 was just over £18 million. The Treasury was unable to tell me, in answer to a parliamentary question, how much irrecoverable VAT was paid in respect of these museums in the past three years, but the best estimates from university sources that I have been able to obtain indicate that, setting aside any exceptional building costs, the annual aggregate is unlikely to have been much more than £500,000. Occasionally, if it was lucky, a university museum might find itself in a position to undertake a substantial new building project or refurbishment that would produce an exceptional increase in the VAT figure.

931
We are looking, however, at costs affordable to the Exchequer by any standard, yet truly significant as relief for the university museums.
There is no danger that universities would seek to smuggle in other items of spending to exploit the concession. The accounts are entirely distinguishable, and Customs and Excise officials have recently made it clear that they regard the activities of university museums as being sufficiently removed from the main educational activities of the university not to be caught by the university exemption.
Nor is the designation scheme a Trojan horse. The chair of Resource, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, has assured the Treasury that, after a minimal addition to the list in 2003, it will be closed. In any event, the Government have the safeguard that they nominate individual institutions to be added to those given relief from VAT under section 33A.
The VAT concession that I seek for university museums is feasible within existing legislation; it is affordable; it is consonant with the policy and values of the Government; and it would put an end to an injustice. My proposal provides an opportunity that should always be welcome to a tax authority—to get rid of an anomaly.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor once fought a notable battle in the cause of free access to a university collection. As rector of the university of Edinburgh in 1972, when the then Government proposed to bring in charges for entry to museums, he insisted that the university should require that its paintings on long-term loan to the national gallery of Scotland should continue to be shown free to the people of Scotland. I hope that he, recalling that spirit in these no less heroic days, will once again raise the banner.
8.32 pm
Mr. David Ruffley: It is impossible to have an efficient economy if the biggest single spender in that economy is itself grossly inefficient. Last week's comprehensive spending review will pour billions of pounds into an unreformed leaky public sector bucket. It will pour an extra £10 per household in real terms per day, or £3,650 a year. in extra money. Spending as a share of national income in this country is rising at precisely the time that it is falling in other European Union countries. If the Chancellor carries on in the way that he is doing, within 10 years, the share of national income taken up by public spending will converge with the EU average. That is not in the national interest.
I want to show that, behind the tiresome rhetoric of money for modernisation and investment tied to reform, lies an old Labour model, not a new one. The Chancellor's model is, in fact, about 50 years out of date. I also want to suggest a modest and positive Conservative proposal as an alternative, in which the state remains the key funder—although not on the incontinent new Labour levels that we saw last week—but not the central provider chasing ever-illusory national targets. The Conservative vision will demand more genuine competition and choice for the citizen and the reform that is essential for a more responsible civil society and a wealth-creating economy. Above all, it will produce a set of reforms that never forgets that those most let down by failing public services are often the poorest in society, who have the least opportunity to opt out, unlike the middle classes.
932
The great public services were designed in the decade after the second world war, when resources were very scarce. For practical and moral reasons, a consensus arose across society whereby the state would be the prime funder and intervene to ensure that rationing was delivered equitably across all sections of society. That consensus was of its time, and it has broken down and been overtaken by the realities of modern life. With increasing prosperity—driven, I am delighted to say, from 1979 onwards by the necessary supply-side reforms of Mrs. Thatcher—living standards rose. That brought a rise in consumer culture, which is desirable, and a rise in voters' demands for more responsiveness and flexibility from the great public services. Those voters now know that those services are failing.
In his statement last week, the Chancellor invited us to believe that the wants of our citizens can be met by huge public spending increases. Sadly, that logic is hideously flawed. The Chancellor is shifting the balance of the economy in favour of public sector activity at the expense of private sector activity, and in so doing he is going against international trends.
The International Monetary Fund's economic outlook report, published in May 2001, states:
"on average general government expenditure in the advanced economies (excluding Japan) declined by close to 6 per cent. of GDP during 1993–2000 with the sharpest reduction in the northern European countries."
In the 1990s, the gap between the United Kingdom and other European Union countries in terms of the share of GDP accounted for by public expenditure was high, peaking at 9 per cent. at the end of the 1990s. Now that virtuous gap is closing, and closing fast. Between 1998 and 2003, our public spending ratio rises by 1.3 per cent., but for the EU as a whole, it falls by nearly 2 per cent. Between 2000 and 2003, the gap between the UK ratio and the EU spending ratio will fall from 9 per cent. to just over 5 per cent. On current trends, British public spending will grow by 1 per cent. of GDP every five years, while the EU ratio will fall by 2 per cent of GDP every five years. If those trends continue, spending at this rate will mean that the EU's and the UK's share of GDP accounted for by public expenditure will converge by 2013. I contend that that is the Chancellor's secret agenda.
Mr. Salmond: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, can he tell us whether the current percentage of public expenditure in relation to GDP is higher or lower than it was in 1983 during the golden age of Baroness Thatcher?
Mr. Ruffley: It is roughly the same, or perhaps even slightly lower, than in 1983. The hon. Gentleman must stop picking convenient dates. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) left office after his hugely distinguished tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer, with record low levels of unemployment and inflation, falling debt and growing employment, the share of GDP was just under 40 per cent. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, but he must stop being selective about his dates. He is getting like Government Front Benchers in that respect, and I do wish that he would grow up.
The Chancellor's secret agenda in the medium to long term is to move the share of GDP accounted for by public expenditure up to EU levels. Moreover, there is more

933
spending in the pipeline for this Parliament over and above that which was announced in the comprehensive spending review. We know that for one simple reason. Next year, the increase for transport, schools and hospitals is a whacking 7 per cent., but it is front-end loaded. We are invited to believe that, in the second and third years of the spending review, the rate of spending will decelerate.
Unfortunately, most commentators—and I am included in this list—look at what the Chancellor did in his two preceding comprehensive spending reviews. What has he done? In the middle of the so-called three-year fixed period, he has added more money to the totals that were allegedly fixed. No one believes that this Chancellor will stick to the same figures for 2004–05 and 2005–06 that were published in his documents last week. Why should anyone believe him this time when he has bust the limits in the past two spending reviews? As Andrew Dilnot of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:
"The three year expenditure plans are supposed to set fixed and firm limits but so far they have been floors."
This spending review is not about catch-up; it is more of a first downpayment, with more spending to follow.
It is also regrettable that this Chancellor publishes no assessment of the benefits of increased spending as against the full economic cost of that spending in lost output caused by the higher taxation that he has had to levy to finance the high spending. The United States Joint Economic Committee of Congress has done some interesting work that the Government choose not to do for this country. It notes that, in the United States, the economy loses 40 per cent. in economic welfare per tax dollar levied at current levels. The Centre for Economics and Business Research in this country has done a similar calculation, and argues that each pound raised in tax in the UK reduces national income in the medium term by more than £1.
That defect is compounded by the knowledge that the extra spending announced last week is to go into state monopoly enterprises, where, as we know, competition and proper price transparency do not exist. Instead of real reform to address those problems, the Chancellor offers us more centralised command and control state planning, which frankly owes more to eastern bloc ideas before the wall came down than to the marketised disciplines of the United States to which the Chancellor so noisily and disingenuously pays homage whenever he talks to City audiences—but not to anyone else.
The subtitle of last week's spending review should have been, "Welcome to Gordon's Gosplan", where we will have more auditors to audit and more inspectors to inspect, we will have more targets, commissions and delivery units worrying about more OPAs, PSAs, SDAs, more general targets and a hundred more pen-pushing, paper-chasing initiatives—a public spending inspector perched on the shoulder of every hospital manager, school head teacher and police inspector and every manager of our prisons and transport systems.
Unfortunately, the Government are obsessed with national standards and national targets. They think that that is the answer. The problem, as we all know, is that national standards eliminate diversity; they are its enemy. New Labour national standards are code for, "Here is what you must deliver because we say so, if you want Government funding."
Private sector disciplines set minimum quality requirements. Those standards are a safeguard and are not used to create norms and standardised products.
934
Individuals choose from a wide range of different products. Choice is the mechanism that they use to satisfy their needs. They set their own standards by what they choose to buy and what they do not want to buy.
A state-led, national standard—a one-size-fits-all approach—is convenient for central Government but less good for local head teachers, NHS hospital trust managers and police inspectors, because funding is allocated to them on the basis of a centralised decision. The standards that they are told to implement are not local. Their activity will be continuously monitored centrally in a way that will undermine their freedom to innovate. Talk of devolution is therefore a cruel and empty deceit.
As evidence for that proposition, we have only to look at the wise words of Sir Steve Robson, who until recently was the second permanent secretary at Her Majesty's Treasury and, I understand, a man who thanks the Chancellor for his knighthood. A moderately dispassionate observer, he said that the forest of new targets creates
"a blame culture which stifles local initiative. Central directions are no substitute for empowerment of individual consumers which would create real incentives to create better services."
That is the comment of a highly distinguished figure—an adviser to the Chancellor, who left but 18 months ago.
What is truly astonishing is the Government's apparent belief that this year's—the 2002—model of public sector reform should be taken any more seriously than the 1998 version, or the 2000 version. In 1998, at the time of the first review, the Prime Minister stated:
"'Money for modernisation' is a contract."
In the 2000 version, the Chancellor said:
"it is by tying new resources to reform and to results and by locking in incentives, penalties, inspection and information that we ensure that … investment goes to the front-line services … At every stage, money will be tied to output and to performance."—[Official Report, 18 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 220.]
Finally—and my personal favourite—the Chancellor, with even more breathtaking hyperbole, said in The Sun on 13 November 2001:
"There is not going to be one penny more until we get the changes."
The use of the word "contract" in those contexts must have some metaphorical significance. It certainly has no purchase on the way in which public services have been managed since 1997, under the current Chancellor. That is because the main existing set of so-called contracts—public service agreements—remain largely unenforced and unenforceable. Take the Department for Education and Skills, whose first PSA objective is to
"ensure that all young people reach 16 with skills, attitudes and personal qualities that will give them a secure foundation for life long learning, work and citizenship in a rapidly changing world."
As far as I am aware, no Minister has resigned as a result of that objective not being met. The Department failed to reach its target of reducing by one third by 2002 the number of half-days lost to truancy, even though a budget had been specifically allocated to that purpose. The only result of the failure to hit that target was—wait for it—the reduction of the target by 10 per cent. and the date being moved to 2004. Moving the goalposts in that fashion has been a deplorable feature of the wretched and useless PSA target regime.
Some of the targets are rather arbitrary. No one seems to understand where the percentages come from or what cost-benefit analysis has been carried out to produce the

935
figures. Suicides are to be reduced by 20 per cent. by 2010, cancer deaths by the same percentage, and deaths from heart disease by 40 per cent. Desirable though those objectives are, what is not clear is how they were arrived at.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is offering a penetrating dissection of the failures and absurdities of the Government's performance. Does he agree that the Government are guilty of the targets they have not met, the targets they will not set, and the targets that are meaningless? Does he also agree that if Government Departments have public service agreement targets simply to publish White Papers when they have obviously already decided to publish them, it is no great achievement when they do so?
Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point that I was about to make. Let me remind him of a figure that he brilliantly exposed: 43 per cent. of the 1998 PSA targets were not met in full by June 2002. I am grateful to him for disclosing such interesting facts, which were buried away in all sorts of annual reports; clearly, the Government hoped that we would not unearth them.
Were any of the funding allocation decisions in this year's spending review the result of PSA failures? In other words, did failure inform any of the allocations? Were financial penalties imposed on under-performing and offending Departments? Professor Colin Talbot, in evidence to the Select Committee last week, said no, there were not. I thought that I would go to the horse's mouth, and I put the question to the Chancellor last Thursday. He was typically evasive and would not give a straight answer. However, we know that he was unable to name one Department that had had its spending allocation adversely affected in the new spending review as a result of failure to hit any of the PSA targets. That is eloquent testimony to the futility and utter uselessness of the Chief Secretary, his predecessors and the Chancellor. So much for the tough talk of the martinet grinning on the Government Front Bench and his predecessors.
It is clear that the present regime, which has attempted to raise productivity and activity rates in the public services, has got virtually nowhere, despite the Herculean efforts of many of the dedicated public servants in our schools and hospitals, for example. I include the nurses, doctors and support staff and everyone else in the caring professions. Has the money that the Government have devolved been properly spent so far? Have funding increases for the NHS worked? I fear that the answer is a resounding no.
Between 1997–98 and 2001–02, the total health budget in England has risen by nearly one third. However, the number of patients treated in hospitals rose by an amazing 5 per cent., from 1,211,000 per quarter to 1,267,000. The failure in productivity means that waiting lists remain above 1 million. They have remained at that level since 1993 despite a public spending increase over that period, over two Governments, of two thirds.
What about the new money promised in the spending review? No one would doubt that some earnings catch-up is important if we are to recruit and retain good quality
936
public sector workers. However, the evidence suggests already that the well-being of providers, and that of the unions at the forefront, is ranked ahead of increasing capacity and activity. In the year to last March, earnings grew, according to the Office for National Statistics, by more than 5 per cent. in the public sector, outstripping private sector earnings growth for the first time in nine years.
In the NHS, during 2001–02, 40 per cent. of the budget increase went on higher pay for existing staff while only 11 per cent. went to pay for new health workers. It is not immediately obvious to anyone that this is merely a one-off catch-up for past losses. Presumably, that is why the respected and independent director of health systems at the King's Fund, Mr. John Appleby, says that a similar proportion of the new NHS spending increases will also be consumed in higher salaries.
The other problem with public sector pay is that managers in the health service and elsewhere have not been given the necessary freedom by the Government to set pay according to local conditions and to chip away—indeed, abolish—national pay bargaining. Higher salaries are, of course, necessary in certain parts of London and the south-east to ensure that workers are recruited in areas where housing costs especially are very high. However, it is madness, under national pay bargaining rules, that such increases must be reflected in other parts of the country where the cost of living, especially in terms of housing costs, is much lower.
The Secretary of State for Health trumpets his new foundation hospitals. He says that these are the best performing hospitals that will be given greater autonomy. He does not tell us whether the hospital managers involved will have responsibility for staff working practices and the setting of staff remuneration levels. The answer is almost certainly not. That is why the Government have got it all wrong. We know in advance what the results will be.
What about failing schools? In his statement, the Chancellor seems to believe that local authorities or nearby more successful schools will be able to take over failing state schools. He seems to think that that is the way to improve productivity. We have heard that for five years now, but what is really required is the threat—the stick—of private sector providers being allowed to take over the management of a failed school. However, under the review last week, private providers will have no such freedom to come in, sack, put in their own management and remove failing teachers, without the unions invoking employment law. That is a bar to innovation and to increasing productivity, but the Chancellor did absolutely zero about it in his spending review last week.
An alternative to Gordon's Gosplan form of government could begin with reforming Whitehall. I worked in Whitehall for five years before 1997, with a very distinguished Secretary of State—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). In those years, I saw that career civil servants could do things a lot better. They need to change, and they need to change fast.
I suggest that we as a country urgently consider the lessons that can be learned from the fantastically successful public sector reforms in New Zealand, where Ministers are chiefly responsible for the strategic direction of policy, but they have contracts with new-style chief

937
executives, who are responsible for achieving the outputs and for the financial performance of the Departments. That involves removing the financial control from the Treasury and giving it to those chief executives.
The chief executive has control over departmental inputs. He can employ whom he likes. He can hire and fire. He can determine the procurement policy. He can even buy and sell departmental assets, provided that that is within the capital limits as described by the departmental balance sheet. Better chief executives are employed. There are fixed-term contracts, good bonuses and remuneration.
All those things are supplemented by the complete abolition of any requirement—implicit, or otherwise—that Departments have to procure services from central, monopoly providers. That is where we should start. That is what I believe the Opposition should, and will, be considering. We need a route map of the New Zealand kind to begin a long march through the public sector culture, which so desperately needs revolutionary change.
I conclude by saying that the Chancellor's brazen tossing of taxpayers' money into what too often seems like a bottomless pit, or even a leaky bucket, is behaviour that in the private sector would put him in breach of fiduciary duty at best, or put up on a charge with a court appearance next week at worst. He has tried to bamboozle the country in saying that money will be tied to reform when it patently has not been—not this year, not the year before and not the year before that.
The Chancellor has no concrete proposals for raising productivity in the public sector, and that is why many of those services will remain in relative crisis. He is reheating failed Labour polices from yesteryear, with some new Labour topspin added for good measure, as a substitute for the serious debate about the practical solutions that this country's public services are crying out for. Someone obviously told the Chancellor that he could be the new Nye Bevan. Unfortunately, he has believed it.
8.58 pm
Paul Goggins: May I begin, as other hon. Members have done, by acknowledging the importance and timeliness of this debate? Five years ago, we had an election dominated by tax pledges, which resulted in a new Government committed to keeping within inherited spending limits. I would be the last to hide from the fact that that involved very tough discipline during the first two years, but, unlike the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), I can identify the benefits that that policy created.
In particular, the policy helped to bring about financial stability, together with the reductions in debt interest, to which the Chief Secretary referred in his speech, that are now worth £20 billion a year and an economy in which 1.5 million more people are now working and dole queues are shorter than they have been for 25 years.
During that Parliament and, indeed, in the first year of this Parliament, it has become clear that, after years of underinvestment in education, health and transport, many of our public services are failing to keep pace with the capacity demands and the expectations of quality that are placed on them. People, rightly, want better services and—this is every bit as important—there is increasing evidence that people are prepared to pay for them. It is
938
this shift in public attitudes that has assisted the Chancellor in allocating the £61 billion extra for spending on our hospitals, schools and public transport by 2006. This is not funny money, or double counted; it is real and people do not want it back in tax cuts. But both the public and the Chancellor demand that the money is accompanied by real reform and change.
Over a fifth of the new money is to be allocated to education. I was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) of a visit I made 10 years ago to a school in Germany, where I looked enviously at the state-of-the-art classrooms, computers and other modern equipment in the school. With this new money, and the money allocated by the Government in previous Budgets, classrooms like that are becoming a reality in my constituency and in those of all hon. Members. That is happening not only in the leafy suburbs, but in some of the least advantaged communities in the country.
I also welcome the £1.5 billion invested in the complete roll-out of Jobcentre Plus, not least its introduction in my constituency from next April. At the moment, the Benefits Agency deals with benefits in an office that is close to the town centre, but the Employment Service runs the jobcentre two miles away from the town centre on the periphery of our community—frankly, in the place where the Tories put it in the 1980s when their policy was to get jobcentres off the high street and out of the town centre.
From next year, Jobcentre Plus will operate in the town centre. It will provide an integrated service and will use the best of new technology to transform not just the way in which the job is done, but the life chances and opportunities of those in my constituency who are still looking for work. That is a real example of investment accompanied by reform and change in the way in which we deliver services.
I welcome also the extra money for housing, an area that has been neglected too often over the past 20 years. I welcome the money for transport and for law and order, which will deliver more police officers and speed up the criminal justice system. There can hardly be a more important issue for our constituents.
One aspect of public expenditure announced last week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that has been welcomed on both sides of the House—it was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)—was the increase in development assistance. In the early 1970s, the UK and others signed up to the UN pledge that 0.7 per cent. of gross national product would be spent on development aid. The original idea was that that target should be reached by the end of the decade. By 1979, we had not fulfilled that pledge, but we had at least got spending up to 0.52 per cent. Since then, countries such as Sweden, Norway and Denmark have met the target and, in some cases, exceeded it.
By 1997, our contribution had fallen to a miserable 0.26 per cent. This subject has been a priority, I am proud to say, for Labour in government. The proportion is now 0.34 per cent and the announcement made by the Chancellor last Monday was of a figure of 0.4 per cent. by 2006. That will be just above the European average, which was promised at Monterrey. In real terms, that means a doubling of the amount that we spend in this country on development assistance since 1997.

939
Again, it is investment accompanied by reform. Untying of aid, which began in April last year, is critical in getting better value for money out of what we spend on development assistance. Of course the stronger focus on poverty is moving us closer to the millennium development goals to which the Government are committed. Of course, 0.4 per cent is still not the 0.7 per cent. level that we need and there are still many problems in the world to overcome—the conflicts in Africa, the problem of HIV/AIDS and the continuing difficulties faced by heavily indebted poor countries as a result of the collapse in commodity prices.
If the rate of increase announced by my right hon. Friend last Monday can be sustained, however, it would bring us to 0.7 per cent. by 2012. That would fulfil the hopes of the 240 Members who have signed early-day motion 386, and it should evoke support and welcome on both sides of the House. I say in all sincerity that, despite the neglect in the 1980s and 1990s, this ought to be an area of policy on which there is no division across the House.
There is a great deal to be optimistic about, but we also face three significant challenges. The first, to which other hon. Members have referred, is the need for an open and honest debate about the balance of benefits to be gained from the extra money going in. How much will go in extra pay for existing staff? How much will go in higher charges to private sector suppliers and contractors? And how much will go in extra and improved services for our constituents?
I do not hide from the fact that those questions are complex, or that they overlap. Nor, indeed, should we hide from the tough questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), when he spoke of the global economic pressures that are building up. I am very clear, however, that the biggest winners must be our constituents, who, of course, fund public services through their taxes. I am not against public sector workers having a decent living wage. I am in favour of a campaign to try to eradicate low pay from our public services and elsewhere. Frankly, however, we need to ensure that a disproportionate amount of cash does not go to middle and higher earners in our public services who already benefit from the low-interest mortgages on offer and have the prospect of decent pensions in retirement. They cannot have the first call on the extra money.
David Taylor: My hon. Friend rightly details some areas of expenditure that might well soak up some of the Chancellor's good intentions. Does he accept that the private finance initiative and public-private partnerships fit exactly into that category, and that, as the years roll by, they will absorb greater and greater sums of money and crowd out the ability to expand infrastructure and up the rate of activity in the public sector? Does he recognise that as a real risk?
Paul Goggins: I suspect that my hon. Friend and I have slightly different views about public-private partnerships. He has, however, anticipated my next point, which is that a strong message needs to be sent to the private sector that we are not prepared to pass on the extra money in the form of higher charges for medicines, for example, or
940
more expensive contracts, to which I am sure my hon. Friend was referring. We have a three-year time frame for improvement and, over that period, all those who are engaged in or supportive of public services must fight for the principle of public services funded by taxes rather than fees, and for the practical improvements that will justify that principle. That is a fight that we have to win.
The second challenge is to change the way in which our public services are delivered. Developing capacity alone is not enough; more of the same is not enough. We have to do things differently. For example, older people often need better physiotherapy in a primary care centre rather than a long wait to see a consultant who might not be able to do very much to help them. Doing things differently also means introducing neighbourhood wardens and community support officers to complement the vital work of the police. It also means introducing better intermediate and community care for older people, to avoid delayed discharges or lengthy residential care placements that are not always appropriate. We must encourage those who run our public services to be innovative and to ensure that those services are accessible and user-friendly. We do not just need more services; we need more effective services.
The third challenge is nothing less than to bring about a change in the culture of our public services, particularly in the way in which they are planned and delivered. It was right that, in the first term of this Government, there was a huge push from the centre to bring about the kind of rapid and dramatic changes that were required in certain areas. That meant that more patients were treated and, as the Chief Secretary pointed out earlier, that primary school pupils were leaving schools with better levels of numeracy and literacy.
For long-term change to be sustainable, however, we have to have a different approach. We have to match rising national standards with a greater sense of local ownership and control. Unusually—I hope that I do not vex my right hon. and hon. Friends in saying this—I agree with the words, at least, of the shadow Chancellor. In a speech last Monday, he said that we should be
"moving decision making closer to the people, the families and communities affected. It means trusting people to know what is best for their area".—[Official Report, 15 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 32.]
Those are noble sentiments, and as I say, I agree with the words, but there are two reasons why I doubt the spirit behind what the right hon. Gentleman said, the first of which is the small matter of the 18 years in which the Conservatives were in power. During that time, they did precisely the opposite, centralising a great deal of power and doing much to undermine local democracy. The second reason is my strong suspicion that, in the shadow Chancellor's view, "local" means cheap. It does not.
For example, in my constituency we are about to introduce a demand-responsive bus service. Minibuses and people carriers will help to get people from home to hospital, the shops, transport links, and so on. That good and effective local initiative has come about only because central Government are providing £750,000 to make it happen. A local housing trust, Willow Park, is encouraging greater tenant participation at board level, but it began with £20 million of public funding from the Government. It is assisted with funds for closed circuit television schemes and for neighbourhood warden schemes. Another example is the panel of 300 local people who are helping to set local health priorities in the

941
South Manchester primary care trust. Indeed, primary care trusts are another example of Labour reforms. We need to push power and decision making downwards, but let nobody be mistaken—it is not a cheap option.
If we achieve that greater sense of local and public participation, this Government will have created a distinctive feel-good factor; not the so-called feel-good factor of the 1980s, which was based on narrow self-centredness and the exclusion of the poorest in our society, but a feel-good sense based on communities that meet needs and foster inclusion and cohesion. I believe that the money is now in the system to give us real hope that we can achieve such a society.
9.12 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me at the climax of this debate. I have sat here for some four hours plus, and I have listened to the debate ebb and flow, although I should say that it has mostly ebbed. [Interruption.] It is going to get better. At times, the Scottish Grand Committee has taken on a new and attractive light. If I followed the example of some hon. Members, I would leave precious little time for the Front-Bench spokesmen to sum up. I do not intend to do that, but I am strongly tempted, given the length of some of the contributions, particularly from those who discussed "productivity" in the public sector. I found that somewhat amusing.
One of the "flows" in this debate was the first class contribution from the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). His was the most thoughtful speech by a mile. He argued that the Treasury forecasts are believable because public investment is very low as a percentage of gross domestic product—much lower than in the glorious reign of Baroness Thatcher, some 20 years ago. When asked whether that is a good thing for a Labour Member of Parliament, in particular, to be saying, the hon. Gentleman said that, in the Thatcher years, public investment was wasted on unemployment, but now it is diverted towards much more useful things. To some extent that is correct, but it is not the only point about the decline of public investment in the economy.
One example is gross public investment—investment in capital infrastructure in the public sector. In 1975, gross public investment in the UK was 8.9 per cent. of GDP; by 2000, it was 1.7 per cent. Even if we include private finance initiative schemes, that figure increases to only 2.1 per cent. The Wanless report was predicated on the argument that there had been £200 billion of underinvestment in the national health service over a generation. One difficulty that I have with the Treasury team's credibility as they deal with such points is that, for the past five years, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has argued that public investment and public spending has increased when it has not, and that taxation has not increased when in fact it has.
Mr. Tom Harris: I will keep this brief. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to a low percentage of gross national product. Is he claiming that that represents a real-terms decrease? A percentage of a pie that is becoming bigger is not the same as a real-terms decrease. I hope that Hansard gets that right.
Mr. Salmond: Which is more than the hon. Gentleman did, but never mind.
942
What I am saying is that by double-counting, triple-counting and quadruple-counting the Chancellor pretended that public spending increases were greater than they were over the past five years. Now we have reached a point at which there really are substantial increases in public spending, of which I approve. Indeed, I fought an election in Scotland on the principle of direct taxation leading to direct increases in public spending. I approve of the policy. I am merely saying that this Treasury team, and the Chancellor in particular, have a track record that does not necessarily lead us to believe everything that they say, given the experience of the past five years.
The hon. Gentleman put his finger on one important point, however. The argument relating to the credibility of these figures is not to do with the balance between the public and private sectors; it is to do with whether the rate of growth will hit the Chancellor's targets and make the public spending increases affordable, or whether the international situation and other factors will crowd in and cause difficulties.
One of my reasons for being critical of the Chancellor and the Treasury team for missing the boat is that over the past five years the international economic environment has been much more benign than it is likely to be over the next few years. It will be much more difficult to sustain substantial increases in public spending in that difficult and uncertain environment.
The Chairman of the Select Committee spoke of a trend growth rate of 2.5 per cent. That is not a fancy figure in international terms. In the past 10 years the Irish economy has grown at a rate of 7 per cent., the Norwegian economy at a rate of 4 per cent., the United States economy at a rate of 3.3 per cent. and the Dutch economy at a rate of 2.7 per cent. As for the revised figure of 2.5 per cent. over the past 10 years, there was a higher average growth rate during the last five Tory years than in the past five years under the present Chancellor. The trend figure is already modest; if it is "crowded in" further, the public spending increases will be extremely difficult to meet. However, I approve of the Chancellor's conversion to the notion of honest direct taxation—a "Penny for Britain" in national insurance—as a means of financing such increases.
I am glad that the Chief Secretary has returned. He made an uncharacteristically rude, windy, feart, faint-heart, evasive and thoroughly disreputable speech, during which he refused to give way to me. I must confess that that contributed to my interpretation of his speech. I wanted to ask him a very simple question: is a review of the Barnett formula under way in the Treasury or not? Three Treasury Ministers are present, including the Chancellor. I merely ask for a reasonable "yes or no" answer, rather than an impassive scrutiny of papers.
I am tempted to say that when three people are silent a number of possibilities come to mind. Certainly silence speaks volumes on this occasion.
In the Western Mail of 10 July the Deputy Prime Minister clarified matters, saying that no review was in progress, but he conceded that information-gathering might lead to changes. Let me ask the Treasury team this: what is the difference between a review and information-gathering that may lead to changes? That is a perfectly legitimate question—one that a Chancellor of the Exchequer should be able to answer, and one that any member of the Treasury team should be able to answer. I hope that the Financial Secretary will manage to answer it when she winds up the debate.

943
The importance of the question is obvious when one compares the comparable Barnett-affected figures for Scotland and the increases announced by the Chancellor. The review includes a 6.5 per cent. increase in money for health, education and transport, whereas the comparable Scottish figures show an increase of 4.5 per cent. That is the reality behind the spending review, and of the Barnett squeeze.
The irony is that many hon. Members believe that the Barnett formula protects Scottish public spending. However, at a time of increased public spending, the formula will result in rapid convergence to the average. The same thing happens in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) knows. It happens in Wales too, as hon. Members from that country know.
The Chancellor will have been following closely the evidence on identifiable public spending that has been given to the Treasury Committee. I was interested to note that, according to the analysis by Professor Ian Maclean—and leaving aside the unidentified spending going to huge Government Departments, to transport infrastructure and elsewhere—even identified public expenditure per head in London is almost identical with that in Scotland.
If that is regarded as unfair, why is there not a Barnett formula for London? Why is there a Barnett formula to converge spending in Scotland with the rest of the UK? The questions are not inconsequential. If the Scottish increases were on a par with the UK total that the Chancellor has announced, there would be additional spending in Scotland of £1.5 billion over the next three years. That would be worth £300 for every man, woman and child in the country.
The question therefore requires an answer. I do not favour having the Barnett formula squeeze Scottish spending, but neither do I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, who wants to squeeze Scottish spending further and faster.
I see that the Chancellor himself is informing the Financial Secretary about what to say in her reply. I look forward to hearing it.
I do not approve of the argument that Barnett should be replaced by something even worse. That would have serious consequences for Scottish spending levels.
Many hon. Members might approve of a solution that made the Scottish Parliament responsible for raising its own revenue, and for making its own expenditure decisions. The most recent Conservative Member to adopt that position was the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). Perhaps his fate today would render inauspicious any attempt to convince independent-minded Conservative Members about that solution, but a growing number of Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament can see the sense of not being at the mercy of a convergence formula such as Barnett. They do not want to be at the mercy of the Deputy Prime Minister either, but want a Scottish Parliament robust and responsible enough to make its own expenditure decisions.
That might not be the most popular notion with the Chancellor, who does not believe that any Government Department—or school, or hospital—should have real discretion. However, such a power would be good for the
944
Scottish Parliament and for Scottish spending decisions. It would be good also for the growth rate in the Scottish economy—the key economic variable determining whether increases in public expenditure can be sustained in the long term, or whether this Chancellor is offering, in this spending review, a boom and a bust in public expenditure.
9.23 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: I welcome the spending review and the overall spending allocations announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I especially welcome the increased spending on education and health, which are two of the Government's priorities. In the short time available, I shall dwell briefly on those two areas.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his bold commitments and on his stewardship of the economy which, despite the current economic climate and the uncertainty in the stock exchange, has made the spending increases possible. However, my main question with regard to the spending review has to do with how money is allocated and distributed to areas such as mine. The failure of some of our distribution formulae and systems has meant that some of my constituents will not benefit from the total amount announced by the Chancellor in the review. We will continue to struggle to provide better standards of education, an improved health service and better public services administered by local government simply because the distribution mechanisms are unfair in my area. The funding mechanisms for health, local government and education are biased against my constituency and other metropolitan areas.
Areas such as mine are receiving less money for health this year than they were last year, and we must address that anomaly. In 2001–02, Barnsley health authority was funded at 98 per cent. of its target. This year, it will be funded at 97.2 per cent. of its target, so technically, the money available to my local health authority is decreasing because it is funded below that target. Unfortunately, no one has an answer to this; it is not just this Government who have consistently underfunded Barnsley health authority. There was a long period under previous Governments, especially the Tories, when the funding received was considerably less than our funding target.
In its franchise plan, the strategic health authority for South Yorkshire gives the figures for the funding targets for my local health authority. As I said, funding at 97.2 per cent. means that we are 2.92 per cent. short of our funding target. Our two neighbouring authorities, Rotherham and Doncaster, are funded at 99.8 per cent. and 99.1 per cent. Even local authorities close by get more money than we do—there is no rationale behind that funding structure.
In reply to a questions that I asked the Secretary of State for Health recently, he said that Barnsley received an uplift of something like 10 per cent. at the last funding allocation. That money is going to fund that gap between 97.2 per cent. and the 100 per cent. target. The funding gap equates to something of the order of £6 million. The 2002 settlement of 10 per cent. was generous, but my health authority has had to use the increases awarded to fund the year on year gap in health funding.
The initiatives and targets placed on my health authority make up part of the problem. It cannot meet those targets because the funding is ring-fenced and has

945
to go to initiative targets when the authority needs to spend money on closing the funding gap. Simply as a consequence of the lack of funding to cover that gap, my health authority is likely to be described as a failing health authority and have restrictions imposed on it. Yet a further new target has been imposed by the comprehensive spending review to cut accident and emergency admission waiting times to no more than four hours by 2004, and other targets have been reaffirmed.
My health authority, struggling as it is, 3 per cent. short of its funding target, is still already close to meeting even the new targets that my right hon. Friend has imposed because of the effort and hard work of its staff. It is not that the health authority is badly administered but that the funding is being diverted into meeting the historical underfunding in my area. My health authority will not have the money to reach the new targets, however, because it cannot keep using scarce resources to bridge the funding gap while still trying to meet the targets imposed on it.
Why is my health authority historically funded at such a low level? Why cannot the money be made available under the distribution formula to bridge that gap to give us the funding that we require in Barnsley?
On education, I welcome the increase of 6 per cent. in overall funding and the direct payment to schools. My local authority has consistently passported the extra money on education standard spending assessments through to schools and made sure that education is a local priority. Once again, funding is largely ring-fenced in terms of education initiatives and other initiatives, whereas the other services block—for example, to provide a range of other services apart from education and social services—is squeezed, again because the distribution formula does not work for my area.
I know that the local government review has been announced, but the material issued with that review says:
"Since the system can only distribute the available resources, it must be based on comparisons between authorities rather than absolute measurements of need to spend."
My local authority requires an assessment based on its needs. It requires a distribution formula based on the needs of the area; otherwise, it will simply lose out again and again. Again I ask, why is it that my local authority can get 70 per cent. less funding than other authorities, such as Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool? There is absolutely no reason for such a shortfall in funding.
I shall bring my remarks to an end, because unfortunately, in this short debate, some hon. Members have probably been less considerate than others in taking such a long time over their speeches. My message is that unless we get the distribution formulae correct and address historical underfunding anomalies, the welcome news of the extra money for all our public services will not be recognised by the wider public.
9.31 pm
Mr. John Bercow: It has been an excellent and sometimes highly charged debate, to which there have been several first-class contributions.
My starting point is simple. In the year 2005–06, the Government anticipate spending £511.4 billion; we need to know what that means. It means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to spend no less than £16,216.39
946
for every second. Translated into a meaningful statistic—on the strength of the lamentable speech by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury tonight, I think that the House and people outside will want to know what it means—it means that for the 34 minutes for which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury expected us to listen to him, we were charged a bill in public expenditure of £33,081,435.60. So when 34 minutes is taken up by the Chief Secretary, that is what the Government are spending, supposedly on the public services of this country.
The central thrust of the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor was that simply to boast about the level of expenditure without securing the detailed constructive and effective reforms of the way in which public services are delivered will not produce the results on which the people of this country depend, and which they are entitled to expect from a Government who have had two landslides and enjoy an impregnable parliamentary majority.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said on Monday 15 July, we have heard it all before; we have heard what the Government say and seen what they fail to achieve. The truth of the matter is simply stated. In 1998, the Government promised improved public services to renew Britain. In the year 2000 spending review, the Chancellor committed himself to achieve—I quote, so as not in any way to be unfair to him—service improvements, key reforms and much-needed modernisation. No amount of flannel, no amount of rhetorical verbiage, no amount of typically aggressive and meaningless posturing from the Chief Secretary can conceal the reality that in terms of the quality of services, the Government have not delivered.
It really will not do for the Chief Secretary to fail to answer the central challenge: why have the Government now decided that the Treasury itself, which is the architect and arbiter of public service agreements, cannot measure whether it has achieved its own? To bluff, to bluster and to disdain criticism, but to fail to respond to that central challenge was a searing indictment of the generally poor speech that we heard from the Chief Secretary.
Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman is very generous in the number of times that he gives way. At the start of this debate, his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Chancellor, told the House that he could not commit a future Conservative Government to matching the spending committed by this Government because he was not confident that the reforms presented were adequate. Last Thursday, however, his hon. Friend the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) not only committed a future Conservative Government to matching defence spending, but to improving on that spending. What reforms have been implemented at the Ministry of Defence that have so impressed the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman?
Mr. Bercow: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has totally misunderstood and misquoted what my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said. The shadow Secretary of State for Defence has certainly not committed himself to increased resources beyond those that the Government have already pledged. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I know the facts, I have seen the evidence, I have read the speeches and I have had the

947
discussions. I know the position of my hon. Friend: it is a commitment to secure the quality of protection for the people of this country that we need. We are not pledged to increase resources but to devise a new, credible, effective and attractive alternative to Government failures for the delivery of public services. We are not prepared to be hidebound and narrow in our approach or to be restricted to the low-level terms of debate on which the Government insist.
The Government are stuck in an old-fashioned mindset, which says that all that matters is money. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he spurs me to invest my speech with additional vigour. The people of this country are interested not in words but in deeds. They are interested not in inputs, but in outputs—not in promises, but in performance. When the people of this country make a judgment about the effective use of public expenditure, the question in their minds will simply be this: are we getting the three things that we want from the money that the Government spend, which we have given them in our taxes? The three things that the people of this country will tell the hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they want are: results, results, and results.
In the past five years, the people have heard the promises, seen the spin, observed the misrepresentation and, above all, they have been disappointed by not merely the gap but the gaping chasm between the words that Ministers utter and the deeds that they do.
Roger Casale rose—
Mr. Bercow: I will not give way at the moment.
The conflict that exists now between the rhetoric and the reality is so stark that it ought even to embarrass the normally unembarrassable hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale).
Warming to my theme, I will deal with the specific public services. Frankly, the Chief Secretary, who is an intelligent and often an amiable man, debauched the currency of this debate from the outset. The right hon. Gentleman, who is justifiably proud of his recent promotion, seemed to forget that we are here to identify ways to improve the quality of the lives of our constituents and our fellow citizens as a whole. The reality of the Government's performance is a dismal catalogue of under-performance: of hopes destroyed, promises broken and trust betrayed.
Let us take the example of the national health service. I do not need to misrepresent the Government's position because the track record is poor enough studied according to its own lights. The Government have increased public expenditure on health since they took office by approximately 30 per cent. During that time, we had nearly 78,000 cancelled operations last year and we have witnessed that, on average, it takes four months to get an in-patient hospital appointment compared with a maximum wait of four weeks in France. As anyone who studies the situation should be appalled to discover, in today's national health service, under a benighted Labour Government who have taken more and more of our money in taxation since they took office, there are more administrators than there are beds.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, made a potent contribution. He drew attention to the danger of
948
wage demands. He recognised the need for local involvement in the delivery of public service agreement targets. He was chary, and with good reason, of some of the rhetoric of Ministers, but the one thing that he did not appear to recognise was that, in Scotland, a constituency within which he ably represents, we see evidence of the mismatch between money spent and improvement delivered. He knows that since his party took office expenditure in real terms on health in Scotland has risen by 28 per cent., but simultaneously the average waiting time for treatment in Scotland has risen by 25 per cent.—more money spent but not a better performance delivered. That deals with health.
Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: No. The hon. Gentleman may tempt me in a moment or two if he is patient but there were other contributions. I might want to refer particularly to the excellent contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who was rightly sceptical of the Government's position, and the truly devastating critique of Government performance that came from the lips of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley). Not for nothing are they the twin terrors of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Treasury Committee.
Let us talk about the quality of the education system. The Government have increased expenditure on education since they came to office by about a quarter. What do we see in terms of Government performance? We see that on a typical day 50,000 children play truant from our schools. We know that there has been a 300 per cent. rise in the number of assaults by pupils on staff. We observe a doubling of teacher vacancies in our state schools. We recognise the appalling burden on teachers, who have to put up with 17 pages of paper spewing forth from the Department for Education and Skills every day, amounting to no fewer than 4,440 pages a year. That is the reality of Government performance in education. Last year, fewer people achieved the Government's numeracy target than the year before.
It is no good the Chief Secretary saying that all is well and dandy when the truth is that 43 per cent. of the Government's own public service agreement targets have not been met. As I have had reason many times to observe, for the Government to fail to achieve public service targets set by independent experts would be disappointing. To fail, however, to achieve the targets that the Government have themselves set requires incompetence on a truly spectacular scale.
Of course, it is true in relation not just to health and education but to transport. Last year, one in five trains failed to arrive on time. People who experience the public transport system at the grass roots know that delay, congestion, cancellation, danger and vandalism is the regular diet. It is the normal state of affairs. It is not the exception; it is all too commonplace.
Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: I want briefly to point out the serious failings in Government performance in relation to law and order but if the hon. Gentleman is that keen, I shall be my normal indulgent self.
Roger Casale: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment. His contributions to debates on

949
public expenditure will be greatly missed on the Labour Benches. Before he takes up his new appointment and shuts down his Treasury brief, perhaps he can tell the House whether there are any aspects of public expenditure other than defence and international development where a future Conservative Government would match the increases that the Labour Government announced last week.
Mr. Bercow: That was very disappointing. I blame myself. My natural generosity of spirit got the better of me. It is a pretty rum individual who expects the Conservative party to produce the details of its manifesto for the next election precisely 13 months after its devastating defeat at the last.
David Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: I recognise the impatience of the hon. Gentleman. He will have to be patient.
In relation to law and order, the Government have spent more, trying, honourably and decently but unsuccessfully, to fight crime. They have increased resources by 25 per cent. in real terms. Now, crime is rising by 7 per cent., violent crime is rising by 11 per cent., robbery is rising by 28 per cent.—
Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: No, I will not. Street crime is rising by 31 per cent. The central proposition that the Government have not been able to answer is this: for the last five years, they have spent more money, promised reform, failed to deliver it, and presided over a continuing deterioration in the quality of public services on which the citizens of the United Kingdom depend. We are not going to be trapped in that discredited gobbledegook that says more money alone will solve the public service ills from which this country suffers. We are determined instead to listen, to look and to learn. Labour Members may be all in favour of giving power to people in European Union institutions whom we do not elect and whom we cannot remove. What a pity that they do not want to learn from the practical experience of countries that are more successful, in their public services, at translating care from a word to a deed. They have failed to do it. They have closed minds, closed ears and closed intellects. We have opened minds, opened ears and opened intellects.
We will fashion a credible policy. We will communicate it honestly. We will subject it to the scrutiny of the electorate. We are determined to get rid of the highest-taxing, heaviest-regulating, most pompous, sanctimonious, politically correct sisterhood called new Labour, and to get a Conservative Government in office led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who will promise less and deliver better in the interests of people who have suffered too much too long from a Government who have nothing left to offer.
9.47 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): We have had an interesting debate this evening, with useful and—may I say?—measured contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton
950
(Mr. McFall), my right hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) and for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), and my hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley).
We have talked about choices—political choices. We have made ours. In our election manifesto, we promised to put schools and hospitals first. In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the largest sustained increase in spending on the NHS since it was founded in 1948. We now have an unprecedented opportunity to re-establish the historic consensus in favour of the NHS: free at the point of use to all who need it. The Tories oppose our funding and seek to unravel that national consensus, which has endured for 50 years, in favour of charges and cuts.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) appealed to our compassion this evening. Why should he set out his spending plans for our scrutiny? Why, indeed. We learned two important and interesting facts this evening. First, we found out from his answer to one of my hon. Friends that he stands by his earlier comments that the NHS is a Stalinist creation. We also found out that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), the new shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, does not deny that he wrote in a memo to the shadow Chancellor:
"The reforms which we will be proposing will end the NHS monopoly and will entail those who can afford it making some payment for health care services".
No wonder he is hiding behind the camouflage of reform. They talk about reform; instead, they mean cuts. They talk about learning from abroad; instead, they mean charges. They talk about consultation; instead, they mean forcing the sick to pay for being sick. Let them explain why they do not support our health service reforms and our money, and why they are considering charges for visits to hospitals and GPs.
In the spending review, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary set out their commitments to education. Over the next three years, there will be a 6 per cent. real rise in education in England—the biggest sustained rise in a generation. That will include £165,000 direct to secondary school heads, rising to £180,000, and £50,000 direct to primary schools. There will be more resources for further and higher education. That is what we mean when we say "education, education, education".
I defy Conservative Members to go back to their constituencies to tell head teachers why they do not support the extra money that we are giving to secondary schools and directly to primary schools, or the 6 per cent. real terms increase in education spending. Why did the Conservatives say in their manifesto at the last election that they would support our education and health spending and our reforms, and why have they turned away from that now? What has changed? Do they believe that they were being too generous just a year ago?
Five years ago, when we came to power, we inherited a legacy of economic failure and social decay. Money was being wasted on debt and debt interest, and high unemployment was a further drain on the Exchequer. Public services were starved of resources and public servants were starved of support. Because we have cut public sector debt from 44 per cent. of national income to

951
30.4 per cent. last year, and have cut unemployment by more than 700,000 and created a new framework for monetary policy and tough new fiscal rules, we are now in a position to build on the successful reforms of our first term and to introduce the investment and the reform that the public sector desperately needs.
Debt interest is at its lowest as a proportion of gross domestic product since the first world war. Debt interest payments have fallen by more than £6.5 billion since 1997, so more money has been freed up for investment every single year. Britain's debt has been reduced to the lowest level of national income in the G7 and to the lowest of all our major European competitors.
Within that framework, we have the strength to invest for the long term and to reverse the chronic underinvestment of the 18 years under the previous Conservative Government. The investment has already started to go in and we have already seen the results. Instead of 500,000 children in classes of more than 30, there are none today. There are 20,000 more teachers in schools, and 100,000 more students in universities. We have 10,000 more doctors and 39,000 more nurses, but there is still a lot to do.
Holding strictly to the public spending totals that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in the Budget, we are raising departmental spending from £240 billion this year to £263 billion next year, to £280 billion in 2004–05 and to £301 billion in 2005–06. By 2006, we will have increased public spending by £61 billion, and that is £61 billion a year more for improved public services.
In each area of service delivery, we are tying new resources to reform and results, developing a modern method for running efficient public services, setting national targets with performance monitored by independent and open audit and inspection. Front-line staff will be given the power and flexibility to deliver, thereby extending choice, rewarding success and turning around failure.
There has been much discussion in the debate, not least from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), about the new inspection regime. We as a Government are determined that the extra £61 billion allocated to public services will deliver results. We are tying the resources to reform and results through streamlined arrangements for accountability and audit. I would have thought that the Opposition would welcome our new inspection regime.
Those of us who believe in public services know that we have a special duty to make sure that public money is well spent and spent efficiently. We are as determined to secure value for money as we are to secure money for services. [Interruption.] I hear jibes from those on the Opposition Front Bench, but this Government want value for money, whereas the Opposition seem to want value without money.
Points have been raised about the inspection regime, but I must point out that the National Audit Office's responsibilities are completely unaltered by the new inspection arrangements. The new bodies will amalgamate and streamline existing performance and value-for-money work, so the National Audit Office will continue to have an important and valuable role in monitoring the new arrangements.
952
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton made some interesting comments about public service agreements. I am extremely pleased to hear that the Treasury Select Committee will continue to take an active interest in monitoring the Government's performance against our performance targets. By setting clear, measurable targets, publishing information on each of them and collating that information in one easily accessible location, we empower not the Government, nor even the Treasury, but the people who elected us and who can use that information to hold Departments to account. The National Audit Office has said:
"the introduction of Public Service Agreement targets, and in particular the move to outcome-focused targets, is an ambitious programme of change which puts the United Kingdom among the leaders in performance measurement practice."
This is about transparency and accountability as a necessary component of good governance. We are learning from best practice in the private sector and applying it for the first time to the process of government.
Alongside the new performance targets, each Department will publish separately detailed implementation plans as to how they intend to meet those targets. They will be open to public scrutiny and debate, and I am sure that they will monitored by many hon. Members, not just those on the Select Committee. I look forward to that.
We heard several interesting contributions. I am sorry to have missed the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East, who gave a passionate and erudite exposition of the case for university museums and collections and for making a change to the VAT regime. I remind him that the impact of tax changes is already included in spending allocations, although I take his point as an early representation on the next Budget.
I also enjoyed the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East, who agreed that money has to be accompanied by reform, and gave specific examples of reforms that are making a real difference in his constituency and others.
On the comments of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), with whom we have had some dealings in the House over the past few weeks and months, I may say that they might have had more credibility had he not opposed the extra money that is coming through the taxation of the North sea oil regime. He cannot stand up in the House and argue for more resources for Scotland if he does not back the revenue-raising measures that go alongside that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central made an impassioned plea for his local authority and for others in the north of England. The options are currently being discussed and I look forward to his active participation in those consultations. I am sure that my ministerial colleagues with responsibility for local government will take that into account.
As for Liberal Democrat Members who suggested that in the comprehensive spending review we have succumbed to the demands of the Liberal party for extra resources to be put into our public services, I should like to point out a couple of facts. By comparison with what the Liberals promised at the last election, by 2006 we

953
will be spending £9 billion more than they promised on education, £25 billion more on health, £6 billion more on transport and an extra £1 billion on international development. From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton refers to the trend rate of growth. I know that he made that point during his contribution. We base our fiscal forecasts on cautious estimates for the trend rate of growth, and all those estimates have been audited by the National Audit Office.
By 2006, we will be investing a total of £61 billion a year in public services. We have established testing targets, independent audit, new powers, new flexibilities, new responsibilities for front-line agencies and systems of sanctions for those who fail to deliver. We are building on the successful reforms of our first term to deliver improvements in education, housing, defence, development and productivity. Resources matched by reform to deliver results—that is what the spending review sets out. I commend it to the House.
Mr. John Heppell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITIONS

  Ian Stillman
  10 pm
  Hugh Bayley: As I rise to present a petition calling for the release of Ian Stillman from prison in India, I notice in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who have played a prominent part in pressing for his release. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) and for Reading. West (Mr. Salter), who have also taken up the case of Mr. Stillman.
  The petition is addressed to the House of Commons and comes from readers of the Yorkshire Evening Press, which ran a campaign pressing for Ian Stillman's release. It notes that Ian Stillman is an inspirational aid worker who has given 27 years of his life to working with the deaf of India. It declares that he has been wrongfully imprisoned in India, and expresses concern that no provision was made for his own profound deafness at his trial—a fundamental abuse of his human rights. It also expresses great concern about his health and the fact that he has been denied appropriate treatment while in prison.
  The petition is signed by Liz Page, editor of the Evening Press, Monica Stillman, my constituent and Ian Stillman's mother, Roy Stillman, my constituent and Ian Stillman's father, and a further 5,474 people from York and surrounding areas.
  The petition states:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Foreign Secretary to make representations to the Government of India to arrange for Ian Stillman's immediate release.
  To lie upon the Table.

Carlisle United
10.2 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: I rise to present a petition signed by 14,991 supporters of Carlisle United football club. The petition was drawn up because the owner of Carlisle United declared that he was to withdraw the club from the football league. Since that statement has been made, however, it appears that there could be a change of ownership of Carlisle United—and we hope for that.
The petition states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons make strong representations to the Football League to ensure that Carlisle has a club with a place in the League. If the Football League fail to do this, the Petitioners request the House of Commons to consider legislation to change the rules regarding ownership of football clubs to ensure that they recognise they are a community asset that cannot be extinguished by the wishes of an individual owner.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Manslaughter (Sentencing)
10.3 pm
Linda Gilroy: I have the petition of Mrs. Pat Cager and some 4,451 others. It states:
The Petition of Mrs. Pat Cager and others declares that her husband Tony Cager was kicked to death at their thirtieth wedding anniversary party; that Tony Cager's killer also kicked the son in the face and rendered their daughter unconscious as they went to his assistance; that the killer had thirty-two previous convictions and was out of custody on bail at the time of the killing; that the killer was convicted of manslaughter but, despite the circumstances, only received a prison sentence of four years four months; and that the Petitioners believe that this is a travesty of justice.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to review the criminal law of manslaughter and the principles relating to sentencing to ensure that manslaughter sentences adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence.
And your Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Pensioners (Free Travel)
10.5 pm
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: In presenting this petition to the House, let me give its background. The people of Chorley and old-age pensioners in my constituency, and people in other constituencies whose pensioners suffer the same fate as those of Chorley, feel disadvantaged by comparison with pensioners in London, Wales and other places where there is free travel for old-age pensioners. That should not be, which is why I bring this petition to the House.
My hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) also support the petition. In common with hon. Members on both sides of the House, they have campaigned strongly in support of the petition's aim of ensuring a level playing field for all old-age pensioners.

955
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Chorley and others,
Declares that all old age pensioners should have free off-peak travel on buses and trains.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Transport to make it his policy to allow all pensioners to travel on buses and trains free of charge after 9.30 am.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Lockerbie Disaster
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
10.6 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I start my 17th Adjournment debate on the appalling crime that was Lockerbie with a personal word of explanation? Alongside some British relatives dedicated to truth and justice. and other people, not least Nelson Mandela, I helped to persuade the Libyans to surrender Mr. Fhimah and Mr. Megrahi for a trial under the Scottish judicial system in a third country. In good faith, we believed and hoped that the trial at Zeist would be satisfactory and convincing. Alas, it was not.
For an adversarial system of justice to arrive at the truth requires both of the adversaries to place before the court all information available to them. In the Lockerbie trial, the defence team of Abdel Bassett al Megrahi chose not to do so. In such circumstances, the adversarial system does not work if we want to arrive at the truth. I therefore ask the following questions.
Does the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have any knowledge of an $11 million payment having been received by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—General Command on or about 23 December 1988, evidenced by a credit to a bank in Lausanne, and moved from there to an account at the Banque Nationale de Paris, and thence to the Hungarian development bank?
Or does it have knowledge of a payment of $500,000 made on or about 25 April 1989 to the Degussa bank of Frankfurt and Mohammed Abu Talb, a convicted murderer, incriminee of the Lockerbie trial and a long-term suspect in the Pan-Am 103 bombing?
Secondly, if the Security Service had any knowledge of either payment, did it communicate that knowledge, in whole or in part, to any police force in the United Kingdom and/or to the Crown Office in Edinburgh? If such knowledge was imparted, when was it imparted?
Thirdly, did the intelligence services discover the identity of "Abu Elias", which is believed to be the nom de guerre of the person who, according to the Goben memorandum, conspired to place a bomb aboard a plane in Frankfurt on 21 December 1988, and who, according to Marwan Khreesat, was part of the Autumn Leaves conspiracy uncovered in Germany in October 1988? If so, what is believed to be the name of that individual, and were his movements between October and December 1988 detected?
Fourthly, when Mr. Alan Turnbull and Mr. Norman McFadyen went to the US embassy in The Hague on the Lord Advocate's behalf on or about 1 June 2000 to view unredacted CIA cables—recording meetings with the prosecution witness, Jiacha—was an assurance or undertaking, whether written or verbal, given by them to British intelligence or to the US authorities that they would not disclose what they had been shown?
Fifthly, on what date did the Crown witness, Mohammed Abu Talb, arrive at Zeist, and on what date did he depart? During the period he was incarcerated at Zeist prison, was he visited by Crown-listed witness Jamilla Mougrabi, his former wife, or any representatives of the prosecution, or the US Department of Justice?

957
If so, who authorised such visits, when were they made and what was their approximate duration? What was the purpose of any such visits, by either the prosecution or the US Department of Justice, and was there any record in audio, video or in writing of them?
Sixthly, was the Crown witness Jiacha interviewed by, or did he meet, any representatives of the prosecution or the US Department of Justice, outwith the witness box during the period when he was a sworn witness? If so, who authorised such meetings or interviews, when and where did they take place, and who was present?
Seventhly, did the UK know of any inducements or undertakings given to Crown witness Mohammed Abu Talb to encourage him to give evidence for the Crown at the Zeist trial? If so, what is that knowledge?
Eighthly, was Crown witness Tony Gauchi, the Maltese shopkeeper, taken to the USA or to the UK at any time before he gave evidence at the Zeist trial? If so, when did such visits take place, who instigated them and what was their purpose?
I believe that there has been a catastrophic miscarriage of justice and that an innocent man is in Barlinnie tonight and every night for more than 19 years.
10.11 pm
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I support the Father of the House and congratulate him on securing the debate. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will respond to a principal issue that concerns one of my constituents, Dr. Jim Swire, who, I believe, is listening to these proceedings. His daughter, Flora, was murdered on the night of Lockerbie in the aeroplane. He has been campaigning for a long time for a public inquiry into the circumstances of that night.
I agree with Dr. Swire that, of the many incidents that have occurred in the UK, Lockerbie is the biggest mass killing that has ever taken place. There have been public inquiries into other incidents, but there has still to be a public inquiry on Lockerbie. Successive Governments have said that there should not be such an inquiry due to the legal proceedings that were taking place against suspects. Irrespective of the guilt or innocence of the individual who has been found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing, judicial proceedings are now completed and there is no prospect of anyone else facing charges. The view of the Foreign Office that there should not be a public inquiry because it might prejudice the judicial proceedings now lapses.
When the Minister answers the points raised by the Father of the House, I should be grateful if he would take up the issue of the Government holding a public inquiry into this important issue, not least in the light of the circumstances of 11 September. There is a greater need for people to feel reassured by airport security. The lessons that might have been learned from the Lockerbie incident might well be relevant a decade later. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
10.13 pm
Mr. Russell Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on securing the debate. I was a local councillor in the area when the tragedy happened. As time progressed and we moved towards trying to secure the arrest of two
958
individuals who were suspected at that time, I was heavily involved as chair of the police authority in my area. I did not receive regular information about how the case was proceeding or evidence was being drawn together. I was fairly confident that the process of pulling together evidence and pursuing the case was fairly straightforward and above board. We have been dealing with probably the worst terrorist tragedy that this country has ever seen. Heaven forbid that that tragedy is ever exceeded in any shape or form.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow had the confidence at the time to plead the case for a trial to be heard under Scottish law. That trial has been heard. An appeal on behalf of al Megrahi has also been heard. If the defence team representing that individual chose not to put forward an appropriate defence, little can be done about that. I am not convinced, however, that those in his defence team did not advance the appropriate defence to try to secure the release of their client.
Having said that, there are a considerable number of unanswered questions, to which the families need answers—only time will tell whether they will be as detailed as some of the questions that my hon. Friend has asked this evening.
I, like others, have asked about the possibility of holding a public inquiry into the incident. I have met the Foreign Secretary. On a further occasion, I met him and some of the relatives, and he clearly explained that, although a public inquiry is being called for, there is sometimes more than one way to get answers. Sometimes, public inquiries have not delivered what people have sought: truth and justice into a number of incidents that have tragically befallen families.
I hope that the Minister can give us an indication at least about whether we are moving towards a public inquiry and—if not a public inquiry—about how families in this country, America and other countries who lost loved ones can, at the end of the day, get answers to some of the basic questions that arose on the evening of that tragic event.
10.17 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) rightly points out, what the families want above all else is the truth. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), I represent a couple of constituents—Martin and Rita Cadman—who lost their beloved son in this appalling murder, and what they want above all else is the truth.
There are a number of loose ends, and we have not had answers to our questions. There will be many excuses as to why they have not been investigated hitherto, but the time has now come to have a proper, full public inquiry. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to answer the questions posed by the Father of the House.
This is the first time for some months that we have discussed this subject. Obviously, until fairly recently much of what has been said tonight would have been considered sub judice because of the ongoing legal action. I congratulate the Father of the House on this debate, and we must have answers to those questions.
I wish to put a couple of other questions to the Minister. First, we know that the hangar in which the luggage that was in transit was being transferred on to the fatal flight

959
was broken into, but we have not yet had an explanation of why there has not been a proper investigation into what happened that evening during that break-in.
Secondly, the scene of the appalling crash obviously covered many square miles, but it is common knowledge that, within hours of daylight, dozens of CIA agents were crawling over the site. We have not yet had an explanation of what they were doing there, who had liaised with them, who had given them the authority to go on to the site and exactly what they were doing.
I would just add those two questions to those posed by the Father of the House. We must have answers to those questions, but, above all else, we need a full public inquiry into this appalling murder—the worst in the country's history.
10.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), on obtaining this debate on an enormously serious issue.
The destruction of Pan-Am 103 at Lockerbie, with the loss of 270 lives, was the most horrendous terrorist attack ever carried out in the United Kingdom. For everyone involved in the attack, particularly those whose loved ones were murdered, the horror and tragedy of what happened on 21 December 1988 can never go away. Dr. Jim Swire wrote to the Foreign Secretary this week:
"Fourteen years ago I looked into the dead eyes of my dearest eldest daughter."
Confronted with such a savage attack on its citizens, the British Government have a moral and practical imperative to answer key questions. Who was responsible? How did they do it? Could we have stopped them? How can we make sure that it never happens again?
Despite the cynicism of those who thought we would never make progress, the Government have responded to these imperatives and these questions with an unprecedented police, diplomatic and legal mobilisation. Those efforts have produced results. Last year, the unique format of a Scottish court sitting at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands convicted Abdel Basset al Megrahi, an agent of the Libyan intelligence services, of conspiracy to bomb the plane. The conviction was upheld on appeal in March.
I am assured that the conviction answers many of the key questions. How did it happen? A bomb was loaded on to a plane at Frankfurt, concealed inside a cassette recorder. The bomb was set to explode while the plane was en route from Heathrow to New York
Who did it? One or more officers of the Libyan intelligence services, including Megrahi. We know a good deal about why. The court established that the murders were carried out:
"In furtherance of the purposes of the Libyan Intelligence Services."
I do not know what motivated the Libyan intelligence services to carry out such an attack, nor whether the attack was carried out with high-level authorisation. But we are clear that for a number of years in the 1980s, Libya used terrorism as a foreign policy lever. The destruction of Pan-Am 103 was followed by equally savage attacks on
960
UTA flight 772 and the La Belle disco. The international community showed its detestation of those attacks by applying a comprehensive sanctions regime to Libya for much of the 1990s. Those sanctions demonstrated Libya's separation from the civilised world and were intended to penalise Libya economically.
In response to those sanctions, Libya has, since the early 1990s, radically changed the basis of its foreign policy. It no longer uses terror as a tool. The UK has responded to this—and particularly Libya's surrender of Megrahi and another suspect for the Lockerbie bombing—by re-establishing diplomatic relations and agreeing to the suspension of the UN sanctions regime.
However, it remains essential that Libya makes amends for Lockerbie by satisfying the requirements that the United Nations Security Council has set out. Libya took a crucial step by releasing two suspects for trial, but only when all the requirements have been met will we support the final lifting of sanctions.
The four requirements are that Libya should renounce terrorism, agree to co-operate with further police inquiries into Lockerbie, pay compensation and accept responsibility for the actions of its official. We are talking diplomatically, at senior official level, with the Libyan and American Governments about those requirements. Our discussions are progressing well, but are not yet finished.
We wish to see our relations with Libya improve and to see United Nations sanctions lifted as soon as possible. However, realising these benefits will be possible only once Libya has wholly satisfied the requirements. We will, of course, keep the relatives and this House informed of future progress on the diplomatic track.
That is our current approach to Lockerbie. I now turn to the two specific questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow asked during Foreign Office questions this afternoon. First, he asked whether British security and intelligence services have any knowledge of an $11 million payment, having been received by the PFLP-GC on 23 December 1988.
Various reports of PFLP-GC funding emerged after the bombing of Pan-Am flight 103. The intelligence agencies investigated all those reports and found none to have any relevance to the attack. I am informed that there is no connection between the payments and Lockerbie. Indeed, I have been told that the intelligence services are not aware of any payment that corresponds with the details given in the question.
I am informed that a similar amount was paid 18 months before the Lockerbie attack, but that there is no connection between the two. The Government's view is that the PFLP-GC did not carry out the Lockerbie bombing. If that payment was related to other issues, we do not know precisely what they are, but it is our view that the lapse of time between the making of the payment and the eventual outrage suggests that the two were not linked.
My hon. Friend's second question was whether the security and intelligence services had any knowledge of a payment of $500,000 to Mohammed Abu Talb on 25 April 1989. I am advised that the answer is no; the services have no such knowledge. There were references to money in Talb's evidence given at the Lockerbie trial—$5,000 in relation to the Copenhagen bombings, a bank loan of 45,000 krone that Talb secured to start a video business, and a sickness benefit payment of 4,000 krone—

961
but I am advised that the services have no references from this or any other source to amounts or dates that correspond to those mentioned by my hon. Friend.
I am aware that during the intelligence services debate on 11 July, my hon. Friend raised a number of other detailed questions. It remains the Foreign Secretary's intention to write to him with a full reply to those and the further questions that he has raised. I would say to my hon. Friend that the Lord Advocate is responsible for the Turnbull matters, and I understand that he will write to my hon. Friend about them. In relation to any possible further charges, Dumfries and Galloway police have complete freedom to investigate and bring charges as they see fit. Part of our diplomatic effort is to ensure Libyan co-operation with these inquiries.
I would like to address one other issue that my hon. Friend raised on that previous occasion, namely, the role of Eliza Manningham-Buller. The Security Service announced to the press at the time of Ms Manningham-Buller's appointment as director-general that she had previously been head of the section responsible for counter-terrorism. She held that role at the time of the Lockerbie attack—a time when that section's work was, of course, dominated by that awful event. She was head of counter-terrorism and worked on the Lockerbie case. So what? What else would she have done?
I turn finally to the important issue of a public inquiry. The Foreign Office has had regular contact with the relatives in recent years. The Foreign Secretary has met them twice in the last year to brief them on the progress of diplomatic talks with the Libyans and to discuss their interest in a further inquiry. I say "further inquiry" because there have been several inquiries already. There has been a hearing of the air accidents investigation branch, a fatal accident inquiry, an inquest, a criminal trial and an appeal. The Select Committee on Transport has reviewed aviation security in the light of Lockerbie. Numerous Departments and agencies of government have reviewed their workings to ensure that the lessons of Lockerbie have been learned. Much has been learned and many procedures have been changed. Aviation security has been entirely overhauled since 1988.
On 21 May, the Foreign Secretary met the relatives and ran through the reasons why the Government do not favour a public inquiry. Above all, we cannot see any areas of uncertainty that such an inquiry could effectively address. The trial has, as I have explained, clarified a great deal. The exact motivation for the attack is something that perhaps only Megrahi can fully explain. I hope that he will do so at some point.
Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. O'Brien: We are pressed for time, but I will give way briefly.
Mr. Dalyell: I saw Megrahi for two and a quarter hours, and he explained everything. He told me that he was a sanctions buster for Libyan Arab Airlines, which is a bit different from being a mass murderer.
Mr. O'Brien: Being a sanctions buster may well be somewhat different from being a mass murderer, but it is not my role as a Minister of the Crown to second-guess the finding of a court that has heard all the evidence and looked at all the circumstances. These issues have been looked at very thoroughly and, in my view, so far as we can evaluate this, the conviction was made as a result of the evidence put before the court.
I cannot imagine how a public inquiry would compel Megrahi to set out the details of the motivation that allowed him to act as he did. Public inquiries are poorly adapted to the handling of intelligence material, particularly material obtained through liaison with foreign services. Of course, it must be accepted that those services might not agree to disclose such material. Furthermore, a great deal of time has passed since Lockerbie. Many potential participants in an inquiry will have retired, died or lost detailed recall of some of the issues of the 1980s, even if the tragedy itself will always be burned in their minds.
As the Government cannot see the potential benefit of an inquiry, it is hard to justify such a lengthy and expensive process. With regret for the disappointment that this will cause to the families, I therefore have to repeat the Foreign Secretary's message—the same has been said in the Chamber on several occasions—that we will not be calling a public inquiry.
However, as I told the House this afternoon, we remain open to other forms of review, inquiry, scrutiny or study that will add to the families' and our knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the Lockerbie bombing. We will continue to consider the options. If we can find a focused approach that offers insight, without the shortcomings that I have mentioned, this Government will pursue it. I will seek to keep the House and the families informed, as will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
This is a matter that we are deeply and seriously concerned about, but we want to consider it further. We want to ensure that, when we do make some judgments on how to take the matter forward, they are the right ones. We owe that to the families and, indeed, to all involved.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Criminal Records Bureau
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin.]
9.30 am
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Police Act 1997, which established the Criminal Records Bureau, came into force some two months before the 1997 general election. The decision to create a centralised criminal records bureau was well received. The National Association of Clubs for Young People wrote to me at the end of last week to say that it fully supports the principle of the CRB.
Hon. Members have signed several early-day motions, including early-day motion 1335, which 75 hon. Members signed. Before the motion begins its complaint, it states:
"That this House welcomes the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau."
Early-day motion 1273, which some 63 hon. Members signed, also states that.
The Protection of Children Act 1999, a private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) with Government support, provided a list of all individuals who are unsuitable to work with children. It also provided for the CRB to administer checks against that list with an obligation on organisations to carry out checks on new recruits and volunteers. The CRB thus became the central access point for all organisations for information on convicted or suspected child abusers.
The CRB issues three levels of criminal record certificates of disclosure. The first is the standard disclosure, which is primarily for posts that involve working with children or vulnerable adults, but includes one or two legal professions and the accountancy profession. It provides details of all convictions on the national police computer, including spent convictions, cautions, reprimands, and names held on lists kept by the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills.
The second level of disclosure—the enhanced disclosure—is for those who will have a greater degree of contact with children, such as teachers, scout masters and guide leaders. It, too, provides the information under the standard disclosure, but adds a check of local police records.
Finally, the basic disclosure is available for all types of employment, including voluntary positions. It lists unspent convictions under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and is applied for, and issued to, the individual concerned. It is up to the individual to choose whether to show it to their employer. It is a passport for employment in some professions, such as the care home industry. However, the procedure for seeking a standard or enhanced
180WH
disclosure is different from that for the basic disclosure. An organisation is required to register for a standard or enhanced disclosure, which costs some £300 plus £12 to register any counter-signatories. Each further disclosure will cost £12, although that fee is waived for volunteers. Requests for standard and enhanced disclosures must be counter-signed by a registered counter-signatory. As expected, organisations have used the umbrella organisations of which they are members and to which they are affiliated to secure registrations on their behalf. A school seeking a disclosure will use the local education authority to seek that on its behalf as the registered body. That sounds fine in theory, but I have one or two observations about the costs and performance of the CRB.
On the cost, early-day motion 1326, which began life on 16 May, states that
"this House notes the Government's pledge made last year to meet the costs of police checks on those volunteers wishing to work with young and vulnerable people through the voluntary sector … but expresses grave concern at the fact that the cost of carrying out the criminal record checks will be passed on to the volunteers by the new Umbrella Registered Bodies, leaving organisations such as the Scouts … facing huge costs, or the individual volunteer facing costs".
Similarly, early-day motion 1273, which began life on 9 May, notes
"with regret the Government's failure to prevent the costs … being passed on to potential new volunteers by umbrella registered bodies; and urges the Government to reverse its decision and make resources available for umbrella registered bodies for this purpose, in order to encourage rather than deter legitimate volunteers".
Early-day motion 1335, which began life on 16 May, urges the Government
"to look again at this matter to ensure volunteering is encouraged, not penalised."
That extraordinary situation has arisen despite the assurances given by Ministers.
In February 2001, the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment said:
"We estimate that the voluntary sector will need to make at least 1.5m checks per year. That is why Jack Straw and I have worked together to ensure that organisations like the Scouts, playgroups and Sunday schools will not have to bear the cost of ensuring volunteers have undergone the essential criminal record background checks."
At that time, a Minister of State at the Home Office said:
"We have announced our intention that standard and enhanced disclosures … will be issued free of charge to volunteers."—[Official Report, 15 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 695W.]
In one respect, they are issued free of charge to volunteers, but the volunteers nevertheless have to pay for them. The announcement by Ministers of an intention is not sufficient to deliver the reality on the ground, so what has gone wrong?
The Government pledged that no volunteers or voluntary organisations would be penalised financially. They pledged that volunteer checks would be free and, as I said, in one sense they are. However, volunteers cannot apply directly to the CRB; they must go through a registered body. Voluntary sector bodies will seek recompense only for their own costs as registered bodies, but commercial companies are free to charge what they like for the service. As a result, volunteers pay anything from £10 to £25 to have a check done. As I

181WH
said, the CRB makes no charge with respect to volunteers, but with regard to registered bodies, the service is not free.
The National Association of Clubs for Young People, which estimates that it will process 8,000 applications a year, anticipates costs of £60,000 a year. It has sent me the costing, and I have looked through it. The headline figure of £60,000 to process 8,000 registrations might strike people as expensive, but having looked through the costing—I am happy to send it to the Minister—I can say that the costs seem perfectly reasonable. I am referring to the costs of the clerk to do the work, the rental of the office space, IT support and so on, which mount up.
A body such as that association cannot be expected to bear that cost; it must pass it on to the volunteers. We should bear in mind the fact that the association represents about 400,000 club members, 75 per cent. of whom are drawn from the three lowest socio-economic groups. We are not talking about the Hurlingham club—it is more a case of the Boys' Brigade. Many of those club members come from our most vulnerable communities. The Government will have to deliver their pledge of a free service because the reality is that organisations will have to bear enormous costs or volunteering will be penalised by the payment.
The CRB has been criticised for running about six months behind schedule. How will it handle the volume of anticipated inquiries? What is the backlog of teacher applications? Applicant checks are to be slimmed down, with a check against only the so-called list 99 before a teacher is employed and full vetting being completed after he or she has started teaching. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case and, if it is, the implications of that, and when a normal service will be resumed or initiated?
My attention was drawn to the problem of delivery by the chief executive of New Forest district council, Mr. Dave Yates, who wrote to me about taxi drivers in his area. He said:
"since the establishment of the CRB, all operators and drivers have encountered numerous problems, not least an unconscionable delay in response. This has led, in some cases, to the District Council being unable to issue drivers' licences and this means that certain individuals have had to suspend their livelihoods pending satisfactory resolution."
In other words, those individuals have not been able to work. I have had a helpful correspondence with the chief executive of the CRB; he has outlined to me in detail his action plan to deal with problem professions, including taxi drivers, about whom I am particularly concerned. He even helpfully gave me a telephone number that taxi drivers experiencing a problem could ring to expedite their applications. I thank him for that. However, what confidence can the Minister have that those are merely teething problems and how can we be assured that they are, without knowing in detail what they are? What is the cause of the problems?
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Like my hon. Friend, I have pursued the issue as a consequence of letters from a district council—in my case, Cambridgeshire county council. The council was naturally concerned about its failure to get timely checks
182WH
on people who sought work with children and vulnerable adults. I felt particularly strongly about that when, as a member of the Standing Committee on the Protection of Children Bill, in 1999, I moved amendments that were expressly designed to provide that the CRB would have to obtain criminal record checks and enhanced disclosure within a calendar month. That is consistent with the target times that are being set, but it is clear from my correspondence with the CRB that within weeks of its establishment, and after three years of preparing to be established, it is not meeting even the targets set by Ministers at the outset and is having to take all sorts of remedial measures—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is too long for an intervention.
Mr. Swayne: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right. It is a matter of debate who showed the greater prescience when he moved his amendments: he in spotting the problem, or Ministers in rejecting the amendments knowing that they would not be able to deliver on the demands made in them.
Mr. Lansley: I shall try not to strain your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker.
To be fair to Ministers, they said at the time that they would set targets. The point is that they are not meeting those targets because they did not put satisfactory measures in place when establishing the Criminal Records Bureau.
Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend is right. In a parliamentary answer to me on 27 June, the Minister said:
"the Criminal Records Bureau will be in a position, as soon as possible, to meet the high standards of service that it has set itself."—[Official Report, 27 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 1070W.]
Will the Minister give us some grounds for sharing the confidence that he shows in that parliamentary answer? Will he tell us that the problems will be resolved and how that will he done?
Mr. John Randall: I was reluctant to intervene because I have been listening with great interest. Does my hon. Friend have any idea of the reasons for the problems and the failure to meet the targets? Is it because of a lack of resources or people in the CRB?
Mr. Swayne: I understand that additional staff were taken on after the initial problems were experienced, which suggests that the organisation was under-resourced when it began. However, I shall look to the Minister to explain the reasons, because I can only speculate and rely on my correspondence with the CRB, which sought to hide nothing but concentrated on how it was addressing the particular problem with taxi drivers to which I drew attention. I was grateful for that, but the CRB did not go into great detail on the wider problems.
Mr. Lansley: I promise my hon. Friend that I shall not interrupt him again. He said that nothing was being hidden by the CRB. I am sure that that is true, but in

183WH
correspondence with me, the chief executive made it clear that it had a service standard of meeting 90 per cent. of enhanced disclosure applications within three weeks and 90 per cent. of standard disclosures within one week. However, he did not provide me with information about the bureau's performance compared with those standards.
Mr. Swayne: I agree entirely. If I had been more efficient and diligent, I would have tabled written questions to elicit that information, but I am sure that the Minister will tell us today.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend accept that one problem is that the CRB does not seem to know when it has received applications? Dorset county council has sent in applications that the CRB has consistently denied receiving.
Mr. Swayne: I have experience of that too. I know of taxi drivers in my constituency whose applications were never received, which is frustrating for the individuals concerned. However, that problem is not exclusive to the CRB. Constituents have told me that they have been unable to establish whether their passports, which they sent by registered post, arrived at or were processed by the UK Passport Service. Many constituents complain that they have not received a reply to their letters to me although I was never aware of having received them, so it is sometimes difficult to apportion blame.
Finally, I shall give the Minister what might be described as a hospital pass. It is a question that I am sure that he will be unable to answer, but I would be happy if he passed it on to the appropriate Minister who can answer it. I have received many representations from an organisation called Hampshire Care. One of its complaints has been the number of staff waiting to have their own disclosures processed. The key question for that organisation is the proper lifespan of a criminal records disclosure, by which I mean the lifespan that the registered person should apply to the validity of the document.
There is a great deal of labour mobility in the care home industry—people move from one care home or employer to another—and using their basic disclosure they are able to show the certificate that they acquired from another employer. The key question for the care homes organisations concerns the point at which they should seek a new disclosure. Those organisations asked that question of officials at the Department of Health on 14 February, and again on 11 March, 30 April and 30 May, but have not yet had an answer. I do not expect an answer today, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to supply me with one at some point.
Mr. Chope: Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister how the accuracy of the information that comes from the CRB will be ensured? I have a constituent who is a distinguished former RAF officer, who has found that he has—allegedly—a criminal record going back to 1990. Obviously that is not the case, but he is being required by the CRB to disprove that conviction.
Mr. Swayne: I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that we have not turned the principle of
184WH
English justice on its head by requiring people to prove their innocence, and that the CRB will take a more pragmatic approach in such cases.
9.51 am
Mr. Charles Hendry: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on securing the debate. I have attempted to table an Adjournment debate on this subject for some weeks. My hon. Friend has spoken elegantly and effectively, and has drawn attention to the problems of which we have become aware over recent months.
I initially tabled early-day motion 1335 with support from two Labour Members, one Liberal Democrat and one nationalist, which now has more than 70 signatures of support. It was based on concerns expressed to me by the National Association of Clubs for Young People. I pay tribute to that association for highlighting those concerns, and for demonstrating so graphically their effect on people and similar organisations. None of us disagree in principle with the fact that there should be checks of this type, and we must be certain that those who are working with children and vulnerable people do not have backgrounds or records that would make them unsuitable for that work.
None of us seeks to suggest that those checks are inappropriate. We are concerned about the practical implications, and how the CRB is working. The Home Secretary, when he was Education Secretary, estimated that the voluntary sector would need to make at least 1.5 million checks per year, and said that the Government wanted to ensure that organisations such as scout groups, playgroups and Sunday schools would not have to bear the cost of ensuring that volunteers had undergone the essential criminal record background checks. That statement was endorsed by the current chairman of the Labour party, when he was Minister of State at the Home Office. He said:
"We have announced our intention that standard and enhanced disclosures, which include those working in sensitive positions with the vulnerable, will be issued free of charge to volunteers."—[Official Report, 15 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 696W.]
Organisations such as the National Association of Clubs for Young People want the Government to honour that commitment. A discrepancy has arisen because of the costs of the checks that have to be carried out by registered bodies, which include the voluntary organisations, and profit-making organisations that can charge significantly higher sums of money. The National Association of Clubs for Young People has given us a detailed breakdown of its grounds for believing that the cost will be about £80,000 in a full year for that organisation alone to check the record of its volunteers. It reckons that it needs about 8,000 new volunteers annually. That is not an extravagant figure; it works out at only three new volunteers per club throughout the country. Those people are not in a position to afford the charges; not only do the overwhelming majority of people who are supported by the clubs come from the three lowest socio-economic groups, but so do the volunteers, therefore they will not be able to afford significant charges.
The voluntary organisations say that there are direct consequences of the proposal: a reduction in volunteers would mean that the programme would be reduced

185WH
almost immediately and the smallest clubs, often serving deprived rural areas and, typically, maintained by the efforts of two or three volunteers, could be forced to close. We are talking not just about the costs but about a real possibility that the voluntary organisations that provide the services so effectively will have to close down, with the loss of those services.
Mr. Chope: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a further problem? The Government are profiting from the process because value added tax is payable on the charges imposed by the club.
Mr. Hendry: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point. I was going to come to it later in my speech, but I shall deal with it now. If the Home Secretary is right in his estimate that 1.5 million record checks a year will be required and that the average cost of each one could be about £10, the cost in total will be £15 million or more. That means that the Government stand to make £2 million, £2.5 million or £3 million a year from something that they said would be free. That is immoral. My hon. Friend tried to make changes to the Finance Bill to take that into account, but they were not acceptable because of the nature of that measure. It is completely wrong that when the principle is that the checks are free of charge the Government should profit from them through VAT. I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's comments on the matter.
I have contacted a range of other organisations that will be significantly affected. The Central Council of Physical Recreation, for example, which covers some 110,000 voluntary sport clubs, has a network of 1.5 million volunteers, and new volunteers coming on-stream will involve 30,000 checks a year, which is a phenomenal number. The CCPR reckons that the minimum cost will be £150,000 to £200,000 a year, money that could be spent on improving sports facilities, bringing in more volunteers or helping to run things more effectively, but instead it will be spent on paying charges simply to allow people to volunteer in the first place. The CCPR has decided that because of the costs involved it will not apply to become a registered body for processing applications. That means that those who want to volunteer to work with sports clubs and clubs for young people will often be driven to those who do such work on a profitable basis. One does not criticise that, but their costs will be higher than that of clubs run by a voluntary organisation.
The Scout Association says that it expects that 70,000 applications will have to be checked every year. It is already spending £25,000 on extra staffing to handle the applications and, as the year moves forward, it is possible that the cost will double to £50,000. The association believes, understandably, that that will put people off applying to become volunteers with the scouting movement.
The Church of England will be affected. Representations were made to me at the weekend by someone who was concerned by a notice from the diocese in Derby. There was concern about the cost even of a lay preacher, for example, who would have to undergo checks. The cost to the Church will be significant if it is to meet the legal requirements.
186WH
None of the organisations are in a position to bear the costs. The Prince's Trust thinks that the cost to them could be as much as £100,000 a year. These are phenomenal figures for organisations that do so much good work, often with the most vulnerable and insecure people in society, so I hope that the Minister can reassure us on the matter.
The Girl Guides tells me that it faces extra costs in handling the applications, and in training. It speaks of
"huge cost implications involved in training our local managers
who are all volunteers which is key to the system working. They are from very diverse backgrounds and will not always have the skills required to ensure that forms are completed correctly. There are also training implications associated with developing a robust appeals system to allow for appeals when a volunteer application is refused due to an adverse disclosure."
Will the Minister explain how best we can help organisations such as the Girl Guides to cope with associated costs?
As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West said, there are two ways forward: either the costs have to be borne by the voluntary organisations themselves, reducing the scope of their work, or the costs have to be passed on to volunteers, which will discourage them. According to the Girl Guides, that is already happening. It says:
"Guidance notes on completing forms are too detailed and are off putting to applicants."
The number of applications of people who want to work with Girl Guiding UK is diminishing because of the complicated procedure.
Some organisations say that the change will not be retrospective and claim that they will be all right because they deal only with a few volunteers. However, I understand—I hope that the Minister will confirm this—that it will be retrospective in its application to all those currently working with young or vulnerable people. The costs will be infinitely greater than many organisations currently recognise. I hope that today's debate will draw attention to such problems.
My hon. Friend also referred to delays, which are becoming extraordinarily serious. Girl Guiding UK states:
"Replies to individual applications submitted in April/May still have not been received from the CRB",
though
"applications submitted since June are being turned round in approximately 3 weeks."
The CRB claims that it can more closely meet the target that it set itself: does that apply only to current applications, or to historic applications as well? Will processing current applications more quickly create worse problems for applications submitted some months ago? Barnardos tells us:
"As at the end of June only 26 per cent. of disclosure applications had been returned by the CRB, which is impacting on our ability to start new workers and volunteers into posts working with children."
It continues:
"Summer play schemes are likely to have to be cancelled or disrupted because of the backlog."
Twenty-six per cent. is more than a quarter of the applications. It is clear that organisations such as Barnardos are feeling desperate at the prospect of such a substantial backlog.

187WH
Representations have also been made about the different forms that need to be completed. The Central Council of Physical Recreation says that it would prefer the system in Scotland, where a central registered body handles all the applications for voluntary organisations free of charge. The Scout Association has expressed frustration that it has to complete different forms in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, adding further to the bureaucratic problems. A range of issues is not being dealt with adequately.
My final point concerns the costs of the CRB. Whether the CRB is under-resourced has already been discussed. A vast increase in anticipated costs has occurred. Three weeks ago, I tabled a question to the Minister, requesting a reply by a named date. I should have received a reply three or four days later, but I have not yet—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. May I draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that the only Member standing should be the one who holds the Floor.
Mr. Hendry: The question I asked the Minister concerned the initial anticipated costs of the CRB in comparison with current estimates. Capita, which has the contract to operate the CRB, issued a press release in July 2000 stating that the value of the contract was estimated to be around £400 million over 10 years. However, I understand that the Home Office said last month that current forecasts suggest that operating and overhead costs are estimated to be £940 million during the first 10 years of the project. That is a doubling of the estimate in two years and, by any calculation, it is a massive miscalculation. I hope that the Minister can give a clearer explanation than the information that we already have.
Those who work with young and vulnerable people are asking only that the Government should honour their clear pledge. The organisations involved took that pledge at face value and were grateful that they would not be charged by the CRB for carrying out checks. However, they did not realise how enormous the cost of preparing the forms for processing would be. The Minister will understand those concerns and I hope that he can address them this morning.
10.6 am
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). He expressed his concerns eloquently and touched on serious issues.
The hon. Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) spoke about the costs falling on volunteers, so I shall not spend time on that, but I endorse his comments because the strong concerns about the matter are important.
Of course, checks must be made and we must have an assurance that they are adequate, but there are many questions and issues about the current situation and we all hope that the Minister will address them today. I want to touch on three areas: the failure to attain targets for disclosures, the accuracy of information and the future marketing of services.
On the targets for disclosures, I want to touch on an issue that is close to my heart. I wanted to ask the Prime Minister about it on Wednesday because it is vital.
188WH
Many checks have not been carried out on volunteers who want to participate in and help to run holiday play schemes and other activities. We are all concerned about antisocial behaviour and know that diversionary programmes are necessary, but many have been held up. Have the Government put in place a fast-track system of checks so that play schemes and so on can go ahead? They are vital and one of our greatest concerns in society at the moment.
On delays, I have received, as has the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), copies of representations from Dorset county council. The leader of the council, in a letter dated 26 June, states:
"Initial difficulties were experienced during March … Since then over two hundred applications … have been sent to the CRB. To date not one completed disclosure check has been received back. A similar situation exists with our Social Services Directorate. More than one hundred and seventy applications have been sent and so far only four completed checks have been received."
As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not clear that there was knowledge that those had been sent back by the bureau, which adds to the confusion.
The leader of Dorset county council is particularly concerned about performance standards and said that the National Care Standards Commission has instructed that potential employees must not he allowed to start work in children's homes prior to clearance being received—we all agree with that—and that the situation prompts the question whether, because of the poor service, the bureau will indemnify the county council for possible consequences of an unsuitable interviewee being put in post and harm arising therefrom. A number of bodies want reassurance because they are being asked to take risks or not to provide vital services. That is the choice before them. The service costs a lot, or perhaps I should say the lack of service.
Mr. Chope: The county council also says that the system that it used to operate when it obtained information from the local police was much more efficient than the new system. The new system is not only more expensive, but much less efficient.
Mrs. Brooke: Certainly, that point is being made strongly in representations to us. It shows what a long way the new service must travel before it can offer what the public deserve.
On accuracy, the data inputting has been outsourced to India and I have been informed of estimates that the data entered are only about 80 per cent. accurate. That means that some people are being wrongly identified as having a criminal record. If that is true, it is horrendous. I should like the Minister to clarify the matter, but the claim has been made to me that such people are having to prove their innocence. That seems bizarre in our system.
We have heard about the problems of escalating costs and we are aware that as the scheme is a partnership with Capita, profit must come into the equation at the end of the day. Although we all want organisations to be cost effective, I am concerned about how finance might be raised in the future. The CRB's business plans show that when it gets round to basic disclosures, which I think will be some time in the future, it has plans to

189WH
market the usefulness of basic disclosure checks on a wider group of individuals. To cover its costs, the CRB needs to look into about 6 to 9 million basic disclosures and whether it will remain financially viable if it does not hit that target is questionable. However, if it is marketing those checks, is it possible that many organisations will be inappropriately probing people's backgrounds?
A balance is needed. Of course we want security and safety checks, but the plan smacks of Big Brother if its drivers are financial rather than caring. That is what concerns me about profitability. The scheme must be cost-efficient, but should not seek profit at the expense of people's lives. That is particularly the case because we know that we need to rehabilitate offenders and bring down re-offending rates. Disclosures are appropriate in some circumstances, but we must get the balance right if we are to get people back on the right track. I should be very grateful if the Minister would address some of my concerns.
10.12 am
Mr. Christopher Chope: I begin, Mr. Cook, by warmly congratulating—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be remiss were I not to remind hon. Members that when the House took the decision to have this parallel Chamber, it also decided that the four senior members of the Chairmen's Panel were to be referred to as Deputy Speakers when occupying this Chair.
Mr. Chope: I apologise profusely for having addressed you incorrectly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on having introduced the debate so ably. It is significant that we have had contributions from the Opposition parties but none from Labour Back Benchers. Perhaps they are embarrassed by the failure and performance of their own Government.
Mr. Swayne: They signed the early-day motions.
Mr. Chope: As my hon. Friend says, that is despite the fact that they signed the early-day motions.
I shall not repeat many of the points that have already been so ably made, but let is be said that, on this matter, the Government have broken their promises to an important part of our community—the volunteers who make the world go round for so many young and elderly people in our localities. An intolerable burden is now being placed on those volunteers, a burden not just of cost but of inefficiency.
I want to concentrate my remarks on the case to which I alluded briefly in an earlier intervention, that of a very distinguished retired Air Force officer who lives in my constituency and is the victim of inaccurate data. The Criminal Records Bureau now requires him to prove his innocence. I hope that the Minister will take that issue seriously because it has severe implications for the issue of identity cards that use microchips, and what can happen when someone is falsely accused of having a criminal record.
190WH
My constituent writes:
"As a contribution to charity, I have taken up acting as a volunteer driver … As the work involves dealing with disabled and vulnerable people, I was required to provide full information as to my identity. These details were passed to the Criminal Records Bureau … for checking … To my surprise, on 19 June this year, I received from CRB an Enhanced Disclosure … showing that I was, in fact, someone else with a conviction dated 8 November, 1990."
He has not passed the name of the person on to me for reasons of confidentiality, but he continues:
"At the time of this man's conviction, I was resident in Switzerland. The only indication of a connection between the man and myself was that we were born in the same place."
He telephoned the CRB
"who seemed a little surprised that I was making a complaint, and I also wrote to them expressing my dissatisfaction, suggesting that they recheck their data. They responded by sending me a pro-forma letter registering my complaint and asking me to send them three passport size photographs of myself, and to complete a Fingerprint Consent Form giving me a deadline date of 10th July."
There were obviously a very large number of allegations of false identity, hence a pro-forma letter.
Why should my constituent be required to complete a fingerprint consent form? Why should he be put in the position of a suspect or a convict when he is the victim of mistaken identity, and perhaps bad data and record keeping? His letter continues:
"They would then arrange for my fingerprints to be taken by the local Police and they would be checked against the Police Central Fingerprint Database. Not unnaturally, I wrote to CRB and refused to do this, as I do not believe the onus is on me to prove that I am not someone they allege, but for them, if they wish, to prove I am not who I say I am."
He is not prepared to go to the time and expense of correcting CRB data.
My constituent says that he presumes—I am not so sure until we hear from the Minister that his presumption is correct—that the CRB has a responsibility to ensure that its data is correct, otherwise it is not worth having. He says that he has received another reply from the CRB. It seems that the CRB is quite good at dealing with correspondence, but it does not have the time to process the applications made. The CRB claimed to have rechecked its data, which showed that the convicted man had used my constituent's name, and date and place of birth as "an alias for conviction". My constituent says that he did not understand exactly what that means. He has a relatively unusual surname, so he finds it hard to believe that someone picked on that surname for part of a false identity. He will write to the CRB again to explain that he will not send photographs or have fingerprints taken, as it is for them to establish who is who for their records.
He draws to my attention and asks me to raise the issue that
"The CRB must take responsibility for the accuracy of their data. If they find inaccuracies or inconsistencies in their data, it is their responsibility to check and correct their data, not ask innocent citizens to do their work for them."
He asks:
"Whatever happened to the Data Protection Act when the criminal record of the man I am alleged to be has been passed to myself and others in the CRB Enhanced Disclosure? There seems to be no attempt to exercise confidentiality."

191WH
He goes on to ask what will happen if we get identity cards—or entitlement cards in Labour newspeak—that could have in a microchip containing all the person's data including their criminal record. If that happened, he asks:
"How much confidence could one have in the quality of the data if simple cases of wrong identification like mine occur?"
I hope that the Minister will express his concern and tell us what the Government will do to ensure that similar injustices do not occur.
Perhaps because of my constituent's background in the armed services he does not say that he wants compensation. He is not suing for defamation—I am sure that he is entitled to do that, because he has been defamed by the CRB—but he seeks a system that is reliable and that can be used to ensure that information on people who have criminal records is available to those who need it but that those who do not have criminal records can remain free and at liberty.
10.20 am
Bob Russell: The Criminal Records Bureau is turning out to be this Government's Child Support Agency. It seemed like a good idea at the time, it had all-party support and everyone believed that it would be the answer to what was perceived to be a major problem, namely, preventing those with a relevant criminal record from working in paid employment or as a volunteer with children, young people or vulnerable adults.
However, the reality is not what was expected or what was promised. I accept that the CRB is still a new organisation, but the stark position is that it has failed to meet any of its targets since it was set up, according to an answer to a question that I put at last week's meeting of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Teething problems are one thing, but the failings cannot all be explained away with such a lame excuse.
Of particular worry is the prospect that the applications of some new teachers will not be processed in time for them to take up work in schools this September. Last Friday The Times reported:
"Some new teachers may be unable to start work next term after a backlog at the Criminal Records Bureau, which does criminal checks on people working with children. The bureau has been unable to cope with the number of applications concerning teachers."
That report contradicts a written answer to a question that I put on the subject to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. I was told that contingency arrangements had been made and that
"CRB staff are trawling the backlog of applications, and checking new applications, to identify those in respect of teachers and other key staff for schools."—[Official Report, 2 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 237W.]
Will the Minister clarify the precise position? The CRB, an executive agency of the Home Office, is based in Liverpool. Will the Minister tell us how many people are employed by the CRB and by its private sector partner, Capita? Do Ministers accept any responsibility for what is happening? Should we blame the CRB or Capita, which, according to a media report, has been subjected to an investigation into its activities? Apparently, Capita has been accused of improper accounting, and there are rumours that the Home Office
192WH
plans legal action against it for consistently failing to meet its performance targets under a £400 million contract with the CRB. Would the Minister care to confirm, clarify or deny those serious points?
The situation at the CRB is dire. Many applications are now being processed in India because Capita and the CRB cannot cope with the huge backlog. In the light of such revelations, how confident can we be about the CRB, which is a sister organisation of the UK Passport Service? An example from my constituency illustrates the shambolic state of affairs. An application by a lollipop lady has languished with the CRB for six weeks. Every day throughout that time, hundreds of pupils who attend the Friars Grove infant and junior schools in Colchester have had to cross a busy road without the assistance of a warden. The schools break up today for the summer holidays. I hope that the CRB will have got its act together by the time pupils return in September.
I submit that the safety of every youngster has been put more at risk by the CRB prolonging the absence of a lollipop lady than the realistically non-existent threat posed to a single one of them by the highly unlikely possibility that the lady in question might have a dodgy past and would molest a child. I am told that the schools were prepared to engage her but were advised that, legally, they would be in breach of the legislation if it were subsequently found that she had a criminal record. They were not prepared to put themselves at risk in the eyes of the law, however remote the possibility.
The upshot is that the CRB—an organisation whose whole existence is supposedly for the purpose of protecting young people—has put children's lives and safety at risk because it has not processed a lollipop lady's application in the six weeks since Essex county council submitted it for clearance. She has lost six weeks' wages. People are not queuing up to become school crossing wardens—there are many vacancies.
That is not an isolated incident. Last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) recounted to me a case in his constituency where someone had a job offer withdrawn because the CRB had taken too long to process the application. Youth organisations are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit volunteers, and lengthy delays by the CRB in processing applications for clearance are making the position even worse because potential volunteers can lose interest and find other things to do.
The CRB's annual report was published last Thursday and contains lots of ticks where performance tasks have been achieved. It boasts:
"As a new organisation we have an opportunity to deliver a first-class customer service. We are fully committed to Service First principles and shall apply for Charter Mark recognition once we are fully operational."
Experience thus far is not encouraging.
The CRB admits that it exceeded its budget last year by more than 10 per cent., but failed to deliver what had been expected and promised. How much of the overspending went to Capita? The annual report observes that the
"CRB was established as a public-private sector partnership (PPP). After a rigorous tender process we selected Capita as our private sector partner. Capita is responsible for developing the IT infrastructure; recruiting staff to operate the call centre; and making the initial identity check on applicants."

193WH
Last year the Home Affairs Committee, which predicted troubled times ahead, said:
"Effort should be concentrated on ensuring that the Criminal Records Bureau will operate effectively when it starts, rather than opening earlier and performing inadequately."
The Committee's reservations seem to have been realised. The Home Office's annual report shows that the CRB missed its target to commence the issue of standard and enhanced disclosure certificates by November 2001, and instead began processing such applications only in March 2002. The CRB did not become fully operational until 11 March 2002. During questions to Lord Falconer on 1 July he confirmed that the precise number of enhanced disclosures currently being made within three weeks was not known, but that it was dramatically below the target.
I have asked many questions about the CRB from before it was set up to the present. In my research for today's debate the earliest question that I could find was from January 1999, and my most recent questions led to five written answers that I received last night. I may have asked more parliamentary questions about the CRB of the Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—in respect of sport—than any other Member, which may not come as a surprise to the Minister.
On 17 January 2001, I challenged the Prime Minister directly about the Government's intention to impose a tax on new volunteers by requiring them to pay a £10 fee to be checked out by the CRB. I followed that up with an Adjournment debate, and the Home Affairs Committee commenced an inquiry, which had only just started when there was a welcome U-turn by the Government, who agreed to scrap any fee, as the nation's voluntary youth organisations and I had requested. I suspect that the pending general election had something to do with that change of attitude.
The Government have said that clearance checks by the CRB will be free to volunteers, but the reality is that the establishment of the CRB collectively costs the nation's voluntary youth organisations several million pounds every year to service applications from new volunteers. My attempts, and those of others, to get the Government to reimburse organisations for their operating costs have proved unsuccessful. The loss of such money is to the detriment of our youth organisations, which consequently have fewer resources to invest in our young people.
In a written answer of 22 July 2002 the Minister said:
"We have received representations from voluntary organisations requesting additional funding to meet start-up costs and ongoing overhead costs of processing applications. We have considered the representations very carefully but we have not been persuaded that it would be appropriate for additional funding to be made available for these purposes."—[Official Report, 22 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 96W.]
It is difficult to reconcile that refusal to help our voluntary youth organisations, sports clubs and other groups with the Government's claim that they want to encourage volunteering and promote the excellent work that the nation's youth organisations undertake.
In conclusion, I should like the Minister to consider how much it costs to lock up one youngster in a young offenders institution, and how many millions of pounds
194WH
are spent each year dealing with the consequences of vandalism, antisocial behaviour and criminal activities. What about the cost to the national health service caused by the deteriorating collective health of the country's young people? That deterioration has been caused, in part, by the inadequate physical education that they receive in school and the lack of sports facilities outside school. If, rather than penalising volunteers, more was invested in organised youth activities, the public would receive better value for money. The Prime Minister says that he wants an extra 1 million volunteers to be recruited. The performance of the CRB is not helping to achieve that.
10.29 am
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on securing the debate. I listened with great care to what he said, and also to the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). It is customary for the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to come armed with statistics to back up the points made by the Member who proposed the debate. I have, however, rarely heard a more comprehensive and clear-cut litany of statistical evidence in a Westminster Hall debate. That evidence clearly shows that the CRB is not functioning. I will not repeat those facts to the Minister because I want him to have sufficient time to make the detailed reply that I am eager to hear.
The Minister should consider two issues of principle. There was universal approval across the House for the principle behind the introduction of the CRB and the vetting procedure. As the Minister knows, however, it was clear from the outset that there was considerable concern about the extent to which costs would be borne by voluntary organisations. The Government constantly reiterated that measures would be taken to ensure that that did not happen, but that has proved to be nonsense. The matter demonstrates, I fear, the law of unintended consequences. Departments consider a problem and identify what seems to them to be a solution—in this case, it was decided that volunteers would not have to pay to get the information—but, in fact, huge administrative burdens are created. I appreciate that the Government will say that those burdens will have to be shared to an extent, but there is a public policy issue.
I want to pick up on points made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and my hon. Friends, which demonstrated the extent to which the vast bureaucratic system will have the unintended consequence of penalising and preventing volunteering. That will be to the detriment of society, even though the measures were intended to have an advantageous effect by preventing unsuitable people from gaining employment.
The other issue is performance. Performance is lamentable. The Minister will have to accept that. The CRB's own report shows that it has enormous problems. The evidence that shows that CRB's information is occasionally inaccurate—I have seen that in my constituency—is particularly worrying. I want the Minister to tell us more about the system by which the CRB operates. We have the impression that a structure has been set up. One asks a question of the structure and

195WH
it comes up with an answer. It may not deliver it as quickly as it should, but it comes up with the correct answer. My hunch—perhaps it is more than a hunch, I think that one can detect this—is that the system is far more ramshackle than the existence of the CRB as an institutional agency suggests.
The recent publication relating to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, "Breaking the Circle", introduces a new topic that I will not touch on—although I remind the Minister that this valuable document contains interesting material. Paragraph 1.19, entitled "Approaches to disclosure", is about the background to the changes to the 1974 Act, which are intended to increase public protection while minimising the burden on those who should have their convictions treated as spent, thus changing the categories under which the CRB operates. It states:
"An additional factor to consider has been the recent introduction of central arrangements for the disclosure of previous convictions through the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). The demand for checks for vetting job applicants has placed a heavy demand on local police forces. The CRB is shifting that burden to a one-stop shop service for access to criminal and other information, principally for recruitment and certain licensing purposes".
It then describes the three different levels of disclosure.
I was struck by that passage. Hon. Members may care to note its tone. First, it is clear from what is said that the CRB has not completed the shifting of that burden to a one-stop-shop service. Secondly, it highlights that in the initial stages of disclosure, the local police forces on which demand fell in practice were overwhelmed. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what stage we are actually at. Does the CRB yet have all its data, or is it, in fact, having to shop around in a multiplicity of records? Since my time as a barrister, I have always taken the view that the criminal records system has been rather less centralised than some people may imagine. What are the procedural and logistical difficulties that the CRB must overcome to assure itself that it has all the information it needs?
My questions are genuine; they are not loaded and I do not know the answers to them. However, I have a feeling that matters are far less simple than the existence of the CRB may have led people to expect, a fact that struck me as I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch describe the case of his constituent. Sources of information seem by no means clear cut and could be open first to mistakes and secondly to a lack of confidence that the CRB is able to gain access to the information that it needs to supply the right reply. If I were working for the CRB, I would be rather anxious about giving somebody a cleared vetting when I know from the multiplicity of sources that the bureau taps into that it does not have the confidence to do that. I wonder if that goes some way to explaining the problems. What are the Government and the CRB doing about that?
As I said, I want to give the Minister every opportunity to reply. The Government have our absolute support in wanting to make the CRB work. However, the comment that it has the same feel about it as the Child Support Agency is correct in my view. We must get the system up and running and ensure that it is cost-effective, that the burden does not fall disproportionately on voluntary organisations and that answers come through accurately and quickly.
10.38 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) for raising this important issue. I am only too aware of the difficulties and problems about which he and other hon. Members have spoken in today's debate.
I shall begin by saying something simply and clearly: the Criminal Records Bureau is not currently providing a satisfactory service. I want to apologise to hon. Members for that fact. The CRB and its staff are aware that a satisfactory service is not being provided and they are working hard to put things right as we begin to deliver this important new service, which is, after all, aimed at improving the protection of children and vulnerable adults.
Before I try to respond to as many as possible of the questions that have been asked by hon. Members, it may be helpful if I set out the background. I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and other speakers that there was and is widespread support for the creation of the CRB under part V of the Police Act 1997. As we heard, the CRB issues three levels of criminal record certificates, or disclosures. Anyone will be able to apply for the lowest level of certificate—the basic disclosure—when it becomes available early next year. However, access to the higher levels—the standard and the enhanced disclosure—is restricted to those applying for positions that are exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. That is intended to ensure that spent criminal record information is revealed only where necessary because of the sensitivity of the post for which an individual is applying.
The Police Act further restricts access to the highest level—the enhanced disclosure. Part V of the Act was amended primarily by the Protection of Children Act 1999 and the Care Standards Act 2000, which set up a single arrangement through which standard and enhanced disclosures reveal whether the applicant is included on lists of those who are unsuitable to work with children, which are held by the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills.
It was always recognised that the programme for establishing the CRB was highly complex and challenging. As we heard, the CRB replaced the previous arrangements involving separate checks with each local police force and against departmental lists. It should be remembered that the time the police took to carry out those checks under the previous arrangements varied enormously. Some checks were carried out quickly within two weeks; others took as long as three months, depending on the police force and the time of year. The creation of the CRB has thrown into sharp relief a single standard of performance compared with the previous performance of all the different police forces.
Switching from the previous arrangements involved 43 police forces, and the integration of a major central computer system and other Departments' databases. It was a massive undertaking but allows the CRB to offer a single route of access to local police force intelligence, information held by the police national computer, and lists held by the Department of Health and the

197WH
Department for Education and Skills. Drawing those sensitive databases together means that, for the first time, standards can be used for assessing the suitability of personnel who might be recruited into positions of trust.
The legislation under which the CRB operates requires registered bodies to countersign applications for higher-level disclosures, thereby confirming that the applicant's identity has been checked and that the higher level of disclosure is appropriate to the post or work involved. I will return to the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in a moment. These bodies may be employers or, in the case of volunteers, one of the large number of registered "umbrella" bodies. Following a major exercise, a total of 6,096 bodies have registered to date, of which 917 are umbrella bodies—an important point that relates to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Wealclen (Mr. Hendry) and others about the impact on the voluntary sector. Of those 917 umbrella bodies, 442 are—in the jargon—open umbrella bodies that are prepared to take applications from outside their sector.
The CRB became operational on 11 March this year. Since then, more than 276,000 disclosure applications have been received and more than 119,000 disclosures have been issued. The number of disclosures currently being issued is already greater than that achieved by the old police checking system. The police carried out about 1 million checks a year; the CRB's current workload suggests that the annual rate for the first year will be about 1.5 million checks. However, as hon. Members forcefully pointed out, performance to date has not matched the service standards to which the bureau aims to work. There have been delays in processing disclosure applications, which I regret. The CRB is typically taking six weeks to process correctly completed disclosure applications. I emphasise the words "correctly completed", because one of the principal reasons for the delay is the introduction, following consultation with customers, of a paper-based application route—filling in a form—alongside the telephone route, which was originally envisaged as the principal application route. That is an experience with which hon. Members will be familiar in many other areas: if one wants to renew insurance, for example, one rings a number, gives the details and is then sent a piece of paper to sign.
A question was asked about the cause of the current difficulties. The bureau had anticipated a much higher level of telephone applications; about half the disclosures are issued within three weeks by that method, compared with the paper application route, which achieves that target for about 10 per cent. of disclosures. The contrast between the two routes is obvious. Paper applications contain very high rates of error and omission. Many forms—as many as almost half of those sent to the CRB—have had to be sent back because information was missing from them. Changes were made to accommodate paper applications; processing times are affected by incomplete applications. In addition, measures taken to overcome the early operating difficulties have led to delays in processing applications.
I am sure that hon. Members appreciate the great importance of ensuring that the CRB has the right information to make a check, because if a check is not
198WH
done correctly—this relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch, to which I shall come in a moment, about the identity of his constituent—we would have a different debate, in which I would be criticised because the system had failed. The purpose of the process is to ensure the protection of children. We therefore need to ensure the proper collection of information and completion of applications. If that is done over the phone, an operator gets all the necessary information so that a form can be sent for the applicant to check and pass to his or her employer or registered umbrella body for counter-checking. That is the best way of ensuring that errors and omissions do not occur.
Mr. Hendry: Does the Minister agree that there is a third option, which is for applications to be processed electronically? Many voluntary organisations would welcome that because it gets round the problems of postal applications—although they recognise that there are difficulties with electronic signatures. Could more applications be done electronically, to speed up the process?
Hilary Benn: I do not know the answer to that but I shall inquire and write to the hon. Gentleman. We set up the CRB with the expectation that the vast majority of applications would be dealt with by telephone, which is a way of providing a service with which citizens are increasingly familiar and which, as I have tried to explain, has distinct advantages over the paper-based route in terms of making the system work more efficiently.
Many points have been made and I shall try to respond to them as extensively as possible in the time available. The hon. Member for New Forest, West asked about the life span of a criminal disclosure. That is a pertinent question but it is not an issue for the CRB. It has been suggested that checks should be made every three years, but ultimately it is the responsibility of the employer or the voluntary body to decide what is appropriate. If someone moves from one employment to another and says to the new employers, "Here's the check I received 12 or 15 months ago", the onus is on those employers—who are, after all, taking on the person—to decide whether the check is sufficiently up to date to satisfy them that the individual is safe to work with those for whom he or she will have responsibility or whether to request a further check.
Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. What advice would he give a voluntary organisation such as the Scout movement, which has tens of thousands of uniformed and non-uniformed volunteers?
Hilary Benn: The same advice would apply, because in the end the voluntary organisation faces the same responsibility. What other reassurance can one give? It is the employer or voluntary organisation that is responsible for taking on the person, whether in a paid or voluntary capacity, and it must decide the appropriate action to take. We all recognise that the CRB must be quicker in responding and issuing the disclosures, but the responsibility cannot be taken away from the organisation that takes on the person.
Mr. Grieve: I am sure that the Minister will see the difficulty that that poses in practice. It is one thing to vet

199WH
a stranger who comes along and says that they want to work in an organisation, but a slightly unusual thing to tell someone who is a permanent part of the organisation that they will have to reassure the organisation every three years that they have not secured a criminal conviction somewhere else. This is when I start seeing elements of unreality creeping into the system.
Hilary Benn: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but in working for the protection of children and vulnerable adults, we are balancing risks. We must balance how organisations run against what would fall down on our heads from a great height if someone got a criminal conviction somewhere else and did not tell their employer or the voluntary body with which they were working. That is what we are dealing with, and we are imposing the requirement because as a society we want systems in place to minimise the chance that people are put at risk. There is a cost to that and a balance to be found.
The hon. Member for Wealden spoke about the complicated procedure. While informing myself, I looked at the application form. It requires a certain amount of information, but that is necessary to enable cross-checks to be made. If the CRB does not have those full data, it will find it much more difficult to issue a disclosure confidently. I was asked whether the system is retrospective. There is no obligation, and it is up to voluntary organisations to assess the potential. On the cost, the contract with Capita was valued at £400 million over 10 years. That is an element of the overall cost of the CRB, which, including the agency, non-Capita costs and the police, is estimated at £930 million over 10 years.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole(Mrs. Brooke) asked about summer play schemes. Fast-track arrangements are in place, but if she is concerned about particular schemes, I would be grateful if she could draw them to my attention. The summer splash schemes organised by the Youth Justice Board have been fast-tracked, and I am aware of the point, made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), about the importance of other activities in ensuring that young people do not engage in criminal activity.
The hon. Member for Christchurch cited an important case, and I understand his concern. I am advised that fewer than 10 of the 119,000 disclosures have been disputed. If he gave me further details about the case, I would be happy to investigate and write to him. Indeed, I was interested in his description of the unfortunate circumstances in which his constituent finds himself—and it appeared that someone else had used his constituent's identity. We should pause for a moment to reflect on that. In those circumstances, the onus is on the CRB to satisfy itself about who it is dealing with.
I understand why someone who has not got a criminal record would ask why they should have to prove that they have not done something, and hon. Members asked about the process. Someone has a name and a date of birth, but people with a common name may share the same name and date of birth. If the CRB checks its various sources of data and finds that someone with that name and date of birth has a criminal record, it must ask itself whether it is dealing with John Smith of this date who has or John Smith of this date who has not. Those
200WH
are the difficulties that arise, because people use aliases, with all the things that can be found on the police national computer and local police intelligence records.
The CRB has the duty to check. I appreciate the difficulty raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch, and I understand his constituent's concern. However, one could see the problem in a different light if, in another case, a person had committed an offence but had used an alias and applied under that name. That is why the CRB must be satisfied about who it is dealing with. However, if the hon. Gentleman gives me the details, I shall be happy to look into the case.
The hon. Member for Colchester asked about the number of staff: 700 staff are employed by Capita and there are 400 core staff. On the matter of voluntary organisations, the Government responded to the anxiety originally expressed about imposing a cost on the individual volunteer. I understand that it is possible for volunteers to apply by telephone and—I am thinking through the process—if they do so and give all the information required, the CRB will send them a form which they will have to sign and present to the umbrella body, saying, "Here is the evidence that shows I am who I am. Can you sign it?" The umbrella body will check their identity and countersign it. That might be a way to address the cost of the process.
In the time available, I want briefly to move on to the steps that the bureau is taking to deal with the problems that have been identified. First, incomplete forms are now removed from the mainstream processes to try to increase the efficiency of processing correctly completed applications and the exceptions. Incomplete or incorrectly completed application forms are now being returned to the registered body for correction.
Secondly, there is a programme of training and communication for registered bodies to try to reduce the main sources of errors and incomplete forms. If they can get the applications right first time, the CRB will have a better chance to deal with them than if they have to send them back. Additional staff have been taken on, including in the call centre, where last week 88 per cent. of calls were answered within the 20-second response time set down in the service standard, compared with under 30 per cent. at the end of May. That is progress, and we should acknowledge it.
Additional data entry capacity has been taken on by Capita using Hayes plc India, and new data entry systems involving fast keying and scanning optical character recognition systems are being utilised. The disclosure application forms have been reviewed and redesigned to try to deal with people's experiences as they fill them in. All of these steps form the CRB's improvement plan and if the agreed time scales are kept to, it will progressively achieve a reduction in the backlog of unprocessed work in the coming weeks, and achieve service standards by the end of the summer.
Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister answer my query about the CRB's ability to access information?
Hilary Benn: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not responding to his question. If he is content, I shall write to him about it as he raised a very important point about the systems and the processes. We need to look at that if they are creating difficulties.

201WH
The hon. Member for New Forest, West mentioned taxi drivers at the beginning of the debate. Special arrangements have been made for them, as I think the hon. Gentleman acknowledged in his response. I hope that they are working, in particular to deal with issues involving loss or distress. The hon. Member for Colchester mentioned teachers. The bureau has introduced contingency arrangements to enable teachers to be offered placements on the basis of a check of the Department for Education and Skills list 99, in advance of the full disclosure. That meets the legal requirement, so it will not result in the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman feared. For care home staff, the CRB is talking to the Department of Health about fast-track procedures.
It was perhaps inevitable that a project of such a size would encounter problems. Hindsight is perfect; the CRB is not yet. The problems, however, have made the staff at the bureau even more determined to offer a higher standard of service in future. They want to get things right.
I conclude where I began: there cannot be short cuts in trying to get things right. This is not just a mindless administrative process —
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Export Credit Guarantees
11 am
Mr. Harold Best: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to address how the Government manage import and export credit guarantees, with particular reference to the arms industry and its trade with the rest of the world.
For the past 12 years, there has been a consistent loss in relation to the underwriting of the arms industry's export trade by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. My observation is based on my reading of an answer from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) in June this year. The answer contains a table of results, for want of a better term, from 1990 to 2001 that makes the losses clear.
As I understand the matter, the ECGD is required to operate with a reasonable expectation of breaking even. Premium levels are set to cover costs and risks, and the reserve margin is added to the premium rate to provide the necessary confidence for a break-even in trade that it carries out. The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, in his previous job, emphasised that point, saying
"we expect ECGD to do a good deal more than break even."
He continued:
"Export credits are not aid but…loans that we expect to be paid in full and on time."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 2 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 202-3WH.]
The ECGD operates under the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's financial objectives for the export credit agencies lay down a set of rules, and Ministers are expected to ensure that they are upheld—that is, there should be no operation on a loss-making basis. That is manifestly not happening in relation to the guarantees for the arms-related business.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I do not want to take up my hon. Friend's time, but I must intervene. I think that he will find that his information is out of date, and I hope to show that things have dramatically changed in the past five years.
Mr. Best: If that is the case, I will be delighted to hear it, as will most hon. Members. From the information I have, though, things might be getting worse, even when recoveries are taken into account. Maybe that is the Minister's point.
On a macro-economic level, joint research carried out by the Centre for Defence Economics at York university and by the Ministry of Defence concludes that the significance of its results for the wider debate on defence exports is twofold: first, the economic costs of reducing defence exports are relatively small and losses are largely one-off, and, secondly, the balance of argument on defence exports should depend mainly on non-economic considerations. Those two points are of great significance in this debate.
In addition to what seems like an ECGD subsidy, the arms trade benefits from a £10 billion investment by the Ministry of Defence every year, including research and development, and £20 million provided through the Defence Export Services Organisation.

203WH
I and others think that the ECGD's support for defence exports should be included in annual reports on strategic export controls. That was also the view of the Quadripartite Committee in 1998. The economic benefits of the arms trade are at best dubious and, on what is essentially a moral issue, the Exchequer should no longer provide a subsidy to it.
This short debate is timely, in that the Export Control Bill is going through the House of Lords, and it provides an opportunity that we should take. We could tighten the Bill to strengthen the Department of Trade and Industry's role in the licensing process, making suitable development one consequence that it must consider in deciding whether to grant a licence. The Chancellor should build on the Mauritius mandate, and export credit should no longer be supplied for arms to go to any developing country. The need for transparency and accountability has never been greater than it is in that area.
I have some questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. First, why has the National Audit Office not investigated the excessive and unwise expenditure by the ECGD? Secondly, what explanation can be offered for the losses in relation to defence-related business? Thirdly, why have such losses been allowed to continue for the past 12 years? I shall be particularly interested in his response to that in the light of his assertion that it is not true. Fourthly, will the Government accept the need for clear and transparent accounts, and disaggregate the figures for sector and country so as to make it clear which areas and sectors are making a profit and which a loss? Finally, will they extend the Mauritius mandate, insisting that ECGD cover should be available only to those 63 developing poor countries that support economic and social recovery and development?
Like most people, I feel passionately about whether the Government of the United Kingdom take a moral approach to the arms trade and how it is financed by Departments. I am sure that all the people of Britain, not just taxpayers, would like to feel comfortable in that their Government are not involved in any financial arrangements that might subsidise the activities of arms manufacturers and the use of arms in other parts of the world.
11.7 am
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak early in the debate. As you are aware, I have an engagement elsewhere in the House at noon and I apologise to all hon. Members for having to leave early. I shall read with great interest and care all the contributions that I miss.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) on having secured the debate. He has brought before the House a subject that raises issues of considerable political, moral and economic importance, especially in the troubled times in which we live. It is right that Parliament should have an opportunity to discuss them.
It might help if I make clear the political and moral standpoint from which I view those issues. I am a Christian socialist who, although not a pacifist, has pacifist leanings. I am not a member of the Society of Friends, but I periodically attend Quaker meetings and I have been encouraged to consider the issues
204WH
surrounding the ECGD and the arms trade by the parliamentary officer to the Society of Friends, Mr. Michael Bartlett, whom I thank for the research that he has undertaken. I am pleased that I and others in this Hall might have assisted in that research through the parliamentary questions that we have asked.
One parliamentary question that I asked sought to discover the total premiums received by the ECGD in respect of the arms trade for each year in the decade 1990 to 2000, and how much was paid out in claims for the same period. The answer was given on 12 June 2000. In respect of the arms trade, it showed that, for every single year of that decade, considerably more was paid out by the ECGD than it received through arms deals.
In none of those 10 years did premiums exceed payments made. During that period, premiums in the sector amounted to £213 million while the sum paid out in claims was a staggering £667 million, which is more than three times the premium. We must think about those figures, because they mean that the ECGD lost £454 million—nearly half a billion pounds—on arms deals in the last decade of the last millennium. More recent answers to similar questions on different years appear to reveal the same pattern of losses.
Ministers have often said that the ECGD does not operate to subsidise international trade, but to support and insure it. If the ECGD is an insurance policy, it is one that makes a staggering loss every year. When that happens on such a sustained and consistent basis and on such a scale, we must question the ministerial assertions. The figures are compelling, and they leave little room for any conclusion other than that the ECGD operates to subsidise the arms trade significantly. That raises issues of substantial political, moral and economic importance.
Politically, we must confront what appears to be the simple fact that a covert subsidy for the arms trade exists, which would be an overt breach of Government policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West suggested, the ECGD is specifically required by the Government to operate with reasonable confidence that it will break even. It is not remotely breaking even on arms deals and it makes losses year on year. If the ECGD is confident that it is breaking even in the sector, its confidence seems badly misplaced.
If that is the case, we must ask significant questions. How can we require the ECGD to break even when we allow it to sustain losses on such a scale? How can we decry any subsidising role for the ECGD while simultaneously allowing it to fulfil exactly that role? Those are questions of profound political importance, and I trust that the Minister will address them.
The figures also raise a moral issue for us all. The arms sector, in which the ECGD operates, is no ordinary industrial or manufacturing sector, but one of the most sensitive sectors of all. That requires us to answer a simple question: do we believe that it is right for the weapons trade to be subsidised by our Government? I am not a Quaker or a pacifist. I believe, albeit reluctantly, that in our dangerous world it is necessary for nations to be armed and able to defend themselves. That means that I believe it legitimate to make and sell arms, but I question whether it is right for the Government to underwrite that trade to the extent that they manifestly do.

205WH
Consider the countries and people to whom we have sold arms, and the extent to which they have benefited from such subsidies. Saddam Hussein has been the lucky beneficiary of £630 million of arms subsidies, not a penny of which has been recovered. In today's time of great peril, it seems that we could sell arms to Pakistan and India, backed by ECGD support. I hope that I am wrong, but I fear that I may not be. Subsidising arms deals to that theatre at this moment may not make the world safer.
The extent of the apparent subsidy seems to raise large economic issues. Apart from the domestic consequence of diverting such sums to the arms trade, the subsidy surely distorts the economies of the countries to which we sell the weapons. especially developing countries. That means that their scant resources are being diverted to arms deals. Many people—not only in the House, but in the country as a whole—already despair at the amount that developing countries spend on weapons. That money could be spent on schools, medicines or economic infrastructure, but our Government are apparently offering some of those nations subsidies to encourage them to continue buying arms that they may not need.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor appears already to understand that. Under the 1998 Mauritius mandate, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West referred, my right hon. Friend announced the end of support for arms export sales to the world's most highly indebted poor countries. That is warmly to be welcomed, but we must follow that lead and extend the policy globally. We shall then have an ethical policy of which we can all rightly be proud.
11.16 am
Sue Doughty: I, too, begin by declaring my credentials: I am a Quaker—a member of the Religious Society of Friends. That does not necessarily bring with it total acceptance of the idea that we cannot have arms anywhere, and each of us constantly searches our conscience to work out where peacekeeping and justice are necessary. We do not simply say "No!" in every situation; we must think about what we do. Like other hon. Members in the Room, however, I have come to the conclusion that the ECGD should not be involved in the arms trade. Its involvement in such things does morals, ethics and the ethical dimension of our foreign policy no good. It also seems to cost us money. which we could invest in other countries positively rather than negatively.
ECGD export credit guarantees for defence-related sales have grown in recent years, which makes it a priority that we examine the department's activities. An answer that I received to a parliamentary question shows that £0.37 billion of guarantees were issued for exports of defence equipment in 1996–97. Under this Government, that figure has risen every year, and it reached £2.73 billion in 2000–01, which is the most recent year recorded.
I do not want to take a cheap swipe at the Government's ethical foreign policy. The intentions are there, but we need much stronger commitments, and if that means anything, it means examining the ECGD
206WH
and arms exports. We know that the arms trade is subsidised using taxpayers' money. The ECGD succeeds in breaking even across all the exports that it supports, but that is not true of the defence sector. The net cash loss per annum for defence-related guarantees was £57 million per annum, but it has reached £80 million per annum during this Government's years in power. On top of that, it can be argued that the risks involved in export guarantees mean that the true cost of the ECGD's subsidy to the arms trade is as high as £227 million.
We must ask ourselves why arms exporters cannot go to the private market to cover risks, because if they can find cover there, they should. If private investors find the risks too high, they are surely also too high for the British taxpayer. The net cost to the ECGD confirms that.
Supporters of the subsidy to the arms trade advance various arguments in its favour, such as the fact that it provides employment, supports research and development and contributes to British technological excellence and the security of domestic sources of defence procurement. However, one could almost put those arguments in favour of the drugs trade. Last week, we heard of a big gang bust in south London and of the way of life of some of the people involved. One could say that getting rid of drugs gangs would cost jobs or car sales—that logic does not seem too different from that used by supporters of the subsidy.
Let us consider that logic. Ministry of Defence economists concluded in their analysis last December that the economic costs of reducing defence exports are relatively small and largely one-off, and they suggested that the transfer of resources from a capital-intensive industry such as arms production to a more labour-intensive industry might mean a net increase in employment.
Reference has already been made to the report "The Subsidy Trap", published by Oxford Research Group and Saferworld, which further undermines the claims about jobs in the arms sector. It estimates that each job in defence exports receives a subsidy of £4,200, although those figures can cut both ways and people can claim that they mean or do not mean certain things. However, whatever one says, Government subsidy is everywhere in arms exports. It could go somewhere else—to railways, renewable energies or forces for the sustainable environment. The engineers could be redeployed, and their skills would have a role elsewhere.
When considering technological excellence and security of supply, we still have to take a realistic approach based on the dangers and challenges that we face. Our involvement in recent conflicts has been as a member of international coalitions based on our membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the European Union. Defence procurement takes place with our allies, as in the case of the Eurofighter. For those who believe that that is the way we should go, the development of such co-operation is much better for our security and it will do more to strengthen than to undermine it.
We must remember, on behalf of the Government, what our over-zealous and unethical pursuit of the arms trade has led to in the past, and this debate is part of that. Sales have been made to countries such as

207WH
Indonesia, which have used the arms for internal repression and external aggression. Efforts have been made, including this Session's Export Control Bill, to ensure that that does not happen in future—I know that the Minister will come to that— but there are loopholes in that Bill, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) will refer to.
Mark Thomas, of Channel 4, found that, within a week or two, he could become a middleman arms broker, facilitating the sale to Zimbabwe of gun parts originating in Britain. At the time, we were friendly with some countries or hostile regimes to which we sold arms. How do we know what arms Iraq has? Because we sold Iraq the arms and we have the receipt, so we know that Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons.
Sometimes we do not even think before we sell, or we think the wrong thoughts. There are ethical considerations that cannot be ignored—this is a matter not just of subsidy, but of ethics. The Government have taken positive steps by stopping the use of guarantees for exports to some of the world's poorest and most indebted countries, and we all welcome that, but there is still concern about exports to India and to Indonesia, the instability of conflict areas such as Kashmir and the message that the continued sales sends to the countries involved. Jack Straw says that the deal was not intended to support the conflict, but we are sending mixed messages.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. In the Chamber, we refer to Members by either their Government post or their constituency, not by their Christian name and surname.
Sue Doughty: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have said Foreign Secretary, and I take your point entirely.
People are not happy about the taxpayer's role in such conflicts. Our priority, and I hope that the Government will continue with this, is to assist in achieving peaceful resolutions rather than to support conflict. Although nations have the right to defend themselves, I am no cheerleader for the arms trade. It is part of international trade, but we should not help it through Government subsidy. We must negotiate and, if necessary, act unilaterally to make our arms trade an ethical exporter or to bring it as near as possible to a strict definition of an ethical exporter. Conducted ethically, the trade may even work towards greater global stability.
I must make a further point on the ECGD and corruption. Susan Hawley, for Cornerhouse, presented a paper on that subject at the "Beyond Best Practice" seminar in Parliament on 23 May. The paper identified the amount of bribery undertaken by British business and identified the ECGD as an organisation with a long history of backing projects involving corruption. Bribery by British businesses remains a significant problem, despite the OECD convention, and Gary Campk in of the CBI said recently:
"The CBI and British business is totally against bribery, corruption and extortion. But these sort of issues are often about the way you do business."
A document entitled "Transparency International Bribe Payers Index" shows that, this year, Britain comes well behind other European countries in that respect.
208WH
None the less, the top three corrupt industries are construction and public works, arms and defence, and oil and gas. There is a lot of corruption in those industries, and we need the ECGD to take a lead in eliminating it. The ECGD needs to review its policies, because export credit is still being given to corruption-prone businesses. It must play a greater role in sharpening the Government's anti-corruption measures and commit itself to greater transparency.
In concluding, one might ask what the ECGD is for. It results in a peculiar subsidy that is taken from the better side of our export trade and given to the arms business. That is totally unacceptable. However, at the 23 May seminar, we heard nothing about the ECGD promoting renewable energy, which is a force for peace and economic development in the world's poorest countries. If we are to retain the ECGD, we should ask that it support sustainable businesses that benefit British exports and do good rather than harm in the world overall.
11.27 am
Harry Cohen: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) on securing the debate and presenting it so well. I agree with him and the other hon. Members who have spoken in their criticisms of the ECGD.
I quote New Statesman, which produced a supplement for the arms industry entitled "The Defence Business". Louise Bowman wrote an article referring to the issues that we are discussing:
"Export guarantees are a way of offering finance to the buyer on the cheap—at the expense of the vendor country's taxpayers"—
in other words, us. She continued:
"At its simplest, the arms buyer borrows money from a bank to pay for the goods. The export credit agency (ECA) in the vendor country, whose industry is selling the arms, stands surety for the loan. Because the ECA is a government agency, the loan is backed by the Government and—this is the key—so qualifies for the lowest rates of interest."
Under such arrangements, and with guarantees from our Government and our taxpayers, we are subsidising foreign companies that want to buy arms. We often subsidise foreign Governments who want to buy arms. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) is right to say that we subsidised Saddam Hussein with about £630 million for armaments for which we have received not a penny back.
Nigel Griffiths: We did not do that.
Harry Cohen: No, the Labour Government did not do that, but the last Conservative Government did. However, that is the system under which the ECGD operates, which led to that situation. Some £4,100 million of military-related guarantees are still at risk.
Oxford Research Group, which has done a lot of excellent work, estimates that the net subsidy via the ECGD is £227 million per annum. The ECGD persistently makes losses, although Ministers have said that it is supposed to break even and have given clear instructions to that effect. It has made losses every year

209WH
for the past 12, and the figures are illuminating. as in no year has the premium earned come anywhere near the claims paid. For example, in 1991–92, £11 million of premium was earned and £79 million in claims paid—a sevenfold difference. The claims recovered made only a small dent in the deficit. That pattern is repeated year after year, with a fivefold or sixfold difference.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, in a previous debate in this Chamber on the ECGD, a Minister denied that there was any cost to the taxpayer?
Harry Cohen: I hear that point and I know that that was the Government's position, but it is contradicted by figures in parliamentary answers. If the subsidy is not direct, it is a back-door subsidy of the size that I mentioned. Despite ministerial requirements that the ECGD should break even, there have been consistent losses, year after year. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West and I have sent a joint letter to the Comptroller and Auditor General, asking him to meet us to discuss the issue. The ECGD is clearly not operating in the way that it is required to operate.
The ECG is only part of the overall subsidy to the arms industry. The Campaign Against Arms Trade has just issued its document "Shelling Out", which details the amounts involved and shows that the overall subsidy is £763 million a year—that is, £30 for every person in this country ever year, despite the fact that defence constitutes only 2 per cent. of our overall exports. We could build 10 hospitals or 100 schools with that subsidy.
I want to list several criticisms. The arms that we sell end up in the hands of people for whom they are not intended and there is no end-user requirement on arms exports. That creates all sorts of misery, war and conflict in other parts of the world.
One consequence is that refugees seek to escape those conflicts, which have been fuelled by our armaments and armaments subsidies. Those refugees then come to Britain and we are told every day by the press, such as the Daily Express, that asylum carries a cost, which it does. It is right to offer asylum, because we must treat people decently and not allow them to be tortured or killed, but of course that costs money. That is a hidden subsidy of the arms trade, which should be added to the bills already identified by the Campaign Against Arms Trade, Oxford Research Group and Saferworld.
The arms trade also does harm through wars worldwide. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough has tabled an early-day motion emphasising that no impact assessment has been carried out on the arms trade or the work of the ECGD. There is a licensing system, but that is not the same as an impact assessment covering human rights, the effect on the environment and the effect of wars and refugees. Such an assessment should be carried out before subsidies are given.
The Government and those who favour subsidies for the arms trade often make the excuse that many jobs are involved. "The Subsidy Trap", published in July 2001 by Oxford Research Group, estimates that annual
210WH
Government subsidies for arms exports are about £420 million. That is less than the figure in "Shelling Out", but still £4,600 for every job in arms exports. In December 2001, a Ministry of Defence economist and independent academics teamed up to publish a report on the economic impact of halving defence exports, which concluded:
"The economic costs of reducing defence exports are relatively small and largely one-off."
It went on to suggest that employment levels are likely to benefit from investments being transferred to more labour-intensive, but lower wage, economic activities. I believe that we could create more jobs and more income for the nation by putting such subsidies directly into productive jobs.
We must consider the issue of free trade and protectionism. We are told by the Americans and members of our Government who are in favour of globalisation that we need to end protectionism and subsidies, but subsidies go directly to the arms trade, which contradicts what they say. Those subsidies amount to a trade barrier. There is consensus in the OECD on the effect of such subsidies in other areas, which are restricted, but that does not apply in agriculture and defence, so all sorts of hidden subsidies occur as a result. They distort overall Government borrowing because we have to pick up the bills, especially in the case of default, and they penalise other productive sectors.
In the example of the ECGD, which breaks even overall, civil industry—productive industry—is paying the bill for subsidies to non-productive areas, such as defence, when the money should go to productive sectors of the economy. Why not let the market do the job anyway? There are plenty of other credit agencies. Why not let the arms industry live or die by the market, as other areas of the economy are being told to do?
I believe that the Government have proposed a 6 per cent. rate of return on capital, as the New Statesman article said. That is welcome to a degree, although the arms industry is already campaigning against it. Even if it is implemented, will it be required? If the ECGD is supposed to break even, it will not, so is it just another target that will not be met? For those reasons, all Government subsidies and credits to the arms industry should be ended completely. That is long overdue.
11.39 am
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I shall be brief. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) for obtaining the debate. Hon. Members have expressed their opinion on war, so I shall express mine. I am not a pacifist, although I wish I had the strength of mind to be one. I am probably one of the world's natural warriors, but I am interested in conflict resolution and I seem to spend most of my working life concentrating on that. If this country were attacked, however, I would hope that we had the correct arms to defend ourselves.
For that reason, I realise that we cannot do without some sort of arms trade, but I do not believe that our taxes should be used to subsidise other regimes through it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) that we can do nothing about the end use of arms, and there have been tragic

211WH
consequences from end-use in our lifetime—Saddam Hussein has been mentioned, and I went to East Timor during the referendum and saw the suffering there. Perhaps we should concentrate on that. We carried on selling to Indonesia when we knew that wholesale slaughter was going on in East Timor.
What the Government do in my name is hugely important to me. The ECGD is clearly subsidising the arms industry, and we are still helping India and Pakistan to increase their arms, which fills me with horror. They were teetering on the brink of nuclear war just weeks ago, and that threat has not gone away.
A number of other Members have tabled early-day motions, such as that condemning the sale of F 16 fighter aircraft to Israel. We cannot control end use. I shall give an example. Earlier today, the sovereign so-called democracy of Israel used an F 16 to fire a missile into a residential area, supposedly to assassinate a Hamas leader. So far, 16 civilians have died, eight of them children. The incident is being called the slaughter of the innocents, which it certainly is.
That slaughter was carried out not by an organisation operating outside the state or an organisation from an aspiring state, but by the state, taking part in murder. The fact that eight civilians who died were children is coincidental. The attack was ordered by Ariel Sharon, who is already dripping in blood from Sabra and Shatila. I want an answer from the Government on why the rules for obtaining export licences were changed, allowing British components for the F16 fighter to be sold to Israel via America. Will the Minister explain the ethical dimension of allowing the Department to subsidise the arms trade and grant licences to countries such as Israel and, in the past, Iraq and Indonesia?
As other hon. Members have said, if we are to subsidise, we should do so for humanitarian reasons. A company in my constituency made a terrific product—drills for obtaining water in developing countries. I bet that it would love a subsidy. It did a useful job, as most of the developing world is without clean water supplies, and I would like my taxes and those of my constituents to go on something like that. I agree with the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), who talked about sustainable energy and worthwhile projects, which we would all like to see.
I want to speak only briefly, so I end by pleading with the Government and the Minister to take note of the extremely sensible advice of the Quadripartite Committee, which is that they should stop subsidising the arms trade. If there is talk of ethical dimensions to policy, let us put our money where our mouth is and carry it out for once.
11.44 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) on choosing this important subject, and on the brevity and clarity with which he introduced it. He thereby gave other hon. Members the opportunity to develop arguments in a manner that is rather unusual in this Chamber, where the introductory speeches are often rather self-indulgent.
Most hon. Members who have spoken have declared where they come from, spiritually and ideologically. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe)
212WH
called himself a Christian socialist, and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) described herself as approaching the subject as a Quaker. Like her, I had my spiritual upbringing in the Quaker meeting house in York, although I fear that I have regressed.
I approach the issue from the standpoint of an economic liberal. I do not quarrel with the basic proposition that there has to be an arms trade—countries have to defend themselves, so they have to acquire arms, which have to come from somewhere, and have to be bought and sold across frontiers. There is, therefore, a legitimate role for trade and for the UK, both as an importer and an exporter of arms.
However, the arms trade is different from trade in other products. It therefore has to be hedged with regulation to take account of the dangers of internal repression and of the sort of instance described by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), in which the arms export trade can fuel conflict. I take come comfort from the strong position taken by the IMF, which has been extremely critical of the role played by export credit guarantee agencies, not only the British one, in relation to the arms trade. It argues that normally, when an export credit guarantee operates for the supply of, say, machine tools or a power station, it is supplying a productive asset that generates income and wealth. It therefore contributes to development and that development helps the country to repay the debt that it has acquired. However, that does not apply in the case of the arms trade, because what is being sold is an unproductive asset. Weapons generate no income or wealth. One has, therefore, to be extraordinarily careful to ensure that the supply of weapons under export credit agreements does not undermine the development of the countries concerned. The IMF has taken a critical view of the role of export guarantee agencies. This is not just a moral issue, it is also an economic one.
I was fortunate enough to introduce a debate on the subject in February 2000, and I made many of the points that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West has made today. I want not to go over that ground again, but to identify the areas in which Government policy has moved on, so that we can update the debate. I would point to two factors. First, the role of the ECGD has been reviewed—indeed, I think that it is now in the middle of a second review. There is clearly some discomfort in Government about it, and I believe that that arises from wondering why the ECGD is not turned over to the private sector. The Government have been happy to do that with National Air Traffic Services and other organisations, so if the ECGD is purely commercial and will be subject to commercial discipline, why is it not privatised? That would be a logical step for a body that was subject to full commercial discipline, but it has not happened; the ECGD has been retained as a public agency. Therefore, Members of this House have, very reasonably, asked why, if it is a public agency subject to public policy concerns, we should not have a look at what it is doing.
That has raised several secondary issues. The environmental agencies are rightly asking why a public body is providing credits that are, arguably, subsidised, to promote coal burning in power stations, which undermines the Government's Kyoto objectives. Questions are also asked, as they have been today, about why the organisation is apparently promoting

213WH
armaments exports. That is important, because of the proportion of the ECGD's portfolio represented by the armaments business. If that were only 5 or 10 per cent., as it was in the 1960s and 1970s, it would not be an issue; we would not be debating it. However, the arms trade is now central to the role of the ECGD. Some 40 to 50 per cent. of outstanding debt to the ECGD relates to armaments business. Last year, 50 per cent. of its new business was arms. That might have been a blip. However, in recent years, the armaments industry has been the dominant industry to be supported by ECGD arrangements. To summarise, there is a big debate about the ECGD and its role. If it is commercial, why is it not private? If it is public, why does it not support public policy objectives?
The second big change since I introduced the debate a couple of years ago is the evolution of Government policy towards arms exports. The Minister will know about the Export Control Bill, as he piloted it through the House. I trust that we will not hear any more about it tomorrow on the Floor of the House, but we are not quite sure about that. It has almost completed its passage through Parliament. In general, my colleagues and I welcome it, and we also welcome the fact that the Government took the initiative to introduce this legislation, which provides a framework of discipline for arms exports and licensing.
However, there has been much ambiguity in the Government's attitude towards arms exports, notably in respect of sustainability. The Government have ignored an all-party consensus on that issue, hence the Tanzanian deal—on which, as the Minister knows, I have strong views, and about which I have spoken in the main Chamber. There is also a lack of effective controls over deals involving third countries, which has led to the current arrangements in relation to Israel.
There has been a lack of transparency, because the Government have chosen to ignore the recommendations of the Quadripartite Committee. That is very important in the context of the narrow discussion on subsidies, because we do not know how much of the arms section of the ECGD portfolio is subsidised. The issue is wrapped in secrecy, and the Department's annual report hardly refers to the arms part of its business, even though it accounts for almost 50 per cent. of its activity. There is very little transparency and clarity and we have little idea of what is actually going on.
Dr. Tonge: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the amendments that we tried to push through to strengthen the prior scrutiny provisions in the Export Control Bill would have ensured much greater transparency and enabled the whole of government to see where the deals were being done? That might have brought the ECGD under the control of Parliament rather than one or two Ministers.
Dr. Cable: I agree, and that is the single most disappointing retreat that the Government have made in this policy area. It is relevant not only to licensing but to the way in which the deals are financed.
I shall make a final comment on Government policy, before turning to the narrow issue of subsidy. I am worried because the Government have been at least
214WH
partially captured by the industry. About 10 days ago, BAE Systems made an outrageous statement demanding a monopoly in Government arms contracts. It was an outrageous demand and I am pleased that Defence Ministers robustly repudiated it. None the less, something has given BAE Systems the expectation that Government Ministers are there to do its bidding. That is a worrying and alarming indication of the way in which the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry have handled their relationships with the industry. The subsidy issue is an integral part of that.
When I raised the issue of subsidy in a debate more than two years ago, I was told, as the Minister has obviously said to Labour Members now, that our figures were out of date and that the Government would demonstrate to us in the course of time that they had tightened up on implicit subsidies through defaults on ECGD contracts, so there was no subsidy at all.
However, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) asked a penetrating question that demonstrated that the net loss from ECGD business is accelerating, not declining. While this Government have been in power there has been a net cash loss of £80 million a year, as opposed to £57 million a year before 1997. That is expressed in simple cash terms, but the cash losses understate the extent of the subsidy.
As hon. Members have already said, two major reputable academic studies have cast light on the problem. The first one to be published, to which we first had access a few years ago, was the York study conducted by Professor Hartley and his colleagues, which focused on the fact that the ECGD was required merely to break even, rather than to generate the 6 per cent. return required of organisations such as the Post Office and London Underground. The subsidy was calculated on that basis. The ECGD has subsequently said that it does not merely break even, but makes a 5 per cent. return on its capital. The problem is that we do not know the return on its arms business, because it does not say; it has not broken the figures down and it probably does not analyse them. That is the department's defence, but it is rather shaky.
A more sophisticated study, which was recently carried out at Oxford, nails down the fully subsidised nature of the department's arms activities. It examined the cost of export credit guarantees, which are, effectively, a form of political risk insurance provided by the ECGD to arms exporters. Those involved in the study went round the market asking what deals would have cost had they been financed in the international capital markets, particularly using the new derivatives available in those markets. They then applied the same weighting for risk that would apply in a purely commercial transaction. The result was a sophisticated, methodologically faultless study, which came up with a figure of £225 million a year for the subsidy to the arms exporters. Without it, they would have had to pay higher premiums in the market.
To conclude, I do not understand why the Government are so reluctant to apply market discipline to arms exporters. After all, it is now accepted that many aspects of PFI projects must be financed in the market and carry the full market cost. Why should our arms exporters be exempt from that discipline? Ministers

215WH
have never satisfactorily answered that question, and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West has performed a valuable service in continuing to focus their attention on it.
11.57 am
Mr. Robert Key: I, too, start by congratulating the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best), who initiated the debate. It is important that we have the opportunity to air our feelings about these extremely important issues on behalf of our constituents, and I shall seek to do just that.
Hon. Members seem to have been declaring interests, so I had better declare mine. Earlier this year in the main Chamber, I said that it might be a good idea if we declared where we were coming from on issues with moral and ethical dimensions. I therefore have no difficulty in saying that I am a fully paid-up member of the Church of England and that I take my religion seriously.
All those who have spoken have considered only one side of the equation as regards exports, and particularly defence exports, and I shall seek to redress the balance somewhat. I look forward to the Minister's comments; indeed, I think that he might even have some news for us, because we are expecting an announcement quite soon.
I want to move the debate from utopia to the real world. It has always been my understanding that the ECGD's purpose was to share risk in the national interest, not to subsidise exports. That is a fundamental difference in view between the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West and myself.
The Conservative party has supported arms sales to foreign Governments where those sales conformed to the accepted consolidated criteria that have been put in place. Arms should be sold only where we are satisfied that they will be used for the legitimate purposes of security and defence. During the recent stand-off between India and Pakistan, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said that we should temporarily suspend arms sales to the region. That is now inappropriate in the light of the de-escalation of tension between the two countries. There is therefore no doubt that we take a pragmatic approach, but it is based on a strong ethical foundation.
Harry Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Key: I really do not have the time.
Harry Cohen rose—
Mr. Key: All right, but only because it is the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen).
Harry Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the previous Conservative Government were satisfied that it was in the interests of security and defence to give Saddam Hussein an ECGD subsidy?
Mr. Key: I was not a Minister at the time, and cannot answer for the then Conservative Government, much as that will disappoint the hon. Gentleman.
216WH
Hon. Members who are not Ministers have no access to intelligence or defence reports or to the diplomatic analysis available to the Government. Only the Government have that information—and quite right, too. They have the legitimate right to make executive decisions on exports, and we scrutinise those decisions under our constitution through the Select Committee system. The Defence Committee, as the hon. Gentleman knows because he served on it with me, has access to secret information on a limited basis, which can help to inform us. For those reasons, however, my party and I reject the suggestion that there should be prior parliamentary scrutiny. In the end, the Executive have the right to govern, and only they have the information.
Mrs. Mahon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Key: No, I am going to make progress.
Under the United Nations charter, countries have the right to self-defence. I believe that it is morally bankrupt to say, "Let's trust the United Nations to sort out the world's problems and accept that nations will buy arms—but not from my country, because I am morally superior." That is not a sustainable argument.
The overriding reason for the existence of the United Kingdom defence industry is, always has been, and always will be the supply of equipment and services needed by the British armed forces to ensure that our country's national security interests are protected. Exports are increasingly vital for the continued maintenance of a viable defence industrial base in the United Kingdom, and the industry cannot be sustained by reliance on procurement by the Ministry of Defence alone. Due to the high technology input and the cost of a large proportion of the defence industry's output, it is essential to lengthen production runs and reduce unit costs. Therefore, it is vital to export.
The benefits of the United Kingdom defence exports to the Government in reducing defence equipment costs outweigh their cost by a significant margin. Rather than being subsidised, as we have heard consistently from hon. Members today, defence exports represent a significant net benefit to the United Kingdom economy. Sales averaged about £6 billion in 1998–99 and supported almost 100,000 of a total of 400,000 defence jobs. Many of those were high quality jobs in cutting-edge, high-technology industry.
It has been estimated that the ending of defence exports from the United Kingdom would involve a one-off adjustment cost of between £4 billion and £5 billion, which is equivalent to about 0.5 per cent. of one year's gross domestic product. In addition, there would be a continuous net cost to the taxpayer of between £90 million and £200 million a year.
The Government's policy of supporting the legitimate efforts of the United Kingdom industry to win export orders are primarily based on their contribution to our defence and international security interests. Defence exports help to support a strong United Kingdom defence industry and contribute to the security of our friends and allies.
Dr. Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Key: I am sorry, but I am going to make progress; the debate so far has been very one-sided.

217WH
The benefit of the defence exports is felt by not only British companies but by United Kingdom industry as a whole, because defence exports are a catalyst for national economic and technological development. Exports also help to defray the costs of the United Kingdom's research and development. The Ministry of Defence has estimated that defence exports through extended production runs reduced unit costs by £350 million to £400 million per year from the United Kingdom defence budget.
It is unsurprising that the United Kingdom's share of the world defence export market is rising, because the global defence market has been in steady decline since the mid-1980s. That market is still lucrative and valuable financially while also having important intrinsic strategic and political implications. The benefits for the companies involved and for the wider British economy are substantial. The market protects the United Kingdom's national interests through the maintenance of our indigenous manufacturing capability, and British political influence around the world. Companies often fund a considerable portion of the research and development activities that develop the equipment needed by the British armed forces from export-generated income. Exports help to keep the United Kingdom at the cutting edge of high technology development, giving our armed forces a technological advantage. The Export Credits Guarantee Department is probably the most reviewed agency of Government at the moment. I hope that the Government will, within the next 24 hours, stop dithering and tell us what they plan for the ECGD.
Defence should be judged by the same criteria as any other sector when ECGD cover is considered. Once it has fulfilled the conditions of the consolidated criteria, it is no different from any other industry. I hope that the ECGD, and defence exports, will be treated accordingly. I also hope that the ECGD process will not be used to second-guess issues such as sustainable development—subjects on which we have had substantial debate both in the House of Commons and in the other place.
If an export licence is issued by the Government, firm and open reasons should be given for any subsequent refusal of ECGD support. Examples are regularly quoted of cases in which Treasury intervention—or some other mysterious intervention—stops a particular export, even if it is a reorder by a NATO ally, but the company involved is never told. Sometimes hints are dropped, but that is as far as it goes. If we seek transparency, that is an area in which there should be more; companies should know why their applications are being rejected.
Some aspects of defence procurement might not be shared by the majority of other bidders for ECGD support. Project fulfilment often spans many years, the customers are usually Governments, not companies or consumers, and the risks are sometimes political as well as commercial. Banks will often refuse to provide cover in such circumstances, even when an export licence has been granted. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead says that we should let companies live and die by the market, but that would not necessarily be in the national interest. If the banks will not—for a very good
218WH
reason—take on a risk that the Government assess from their information to be in the national interest, the hon. Gentleman's argument falls down. Our main competitors enjoy strong and cheap support from their equivalent Government agencies for defence business. So long as that situation remains, we need comparable support from the UK Government to ensure that there is a sustainable approach to risk. This is all about risk management, not about subsidy.
What does the ECGD support? Is this just about arms? Of course it is not. The exports that it has supported have included textile machinery for Uzbekistan and power stations for China. Yes, there has been defence-related equipment, but civil aircraft take 21 per cent. of the budget, and among £800 million of overseas investments there is an office building in Morocco. The projects featured in the annual report include double-decker buses for Hong Kong, low-cost housing for Romania, road improvement schemes for the Pacific island of Vanuatu, a pharmaceutical plant in Croatia, social services vehicles for Barbados, navigational equipment for Trinidad and Tobago and investment in an aluminium smelter in Mozambique, generating 800 jobs.
I mention those because they are all part of the same equation; we cannot separate defence from everything else. It is straightforward. If, as a nation, we are to come back to the moral and ethical position, apart from ensuring that we have a healthy industrial base for the prosperity of our people, we need to reduce the need for arms around the world. That has been a prime mover in the whole of western strategic defence analysis.
We have learnt the lessons of the cold war, and we are now learning the lessons of terrorism and the consequences of asymmetric warfare. We see the horrors of mines around the world and the damage that they do to the economy. We are talking about areas of instability, such as the great arc of instability from the Caucasus through the middle east and along the Maghreb to the western or Atlantic end of north Africa. Instability generates a need for arms and leads to economic migration and further political and military instability.
In 1996, I served on the Select Committee on Defence. I cannot remember whether the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead was on the Committee then—I think that he was. We visited nearly all the countries on the northern shores of the Mediterranean and talked to them about reducing risk, economic inequalities and the need to migrate.
The root cause of all the instability is poverty. All the nations of the developed world need to start thinking differently. The hon. Gentleman has been thinking along those lines since 1996 at least, when the Committee produced the report outlining that need. If we talk about reducing the need for arms, we should also talk about reducing poverty and the lack of food, water and education, and health problems—especially women's health. They are the root causes.
Dr. Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Key: In a moment. We are talking about the need to support some of the most vulnerable people in the

219WH
world. We must all promote that new thinking. As a Conservative, I think that that is consistent with my political beliefs.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman. If he believes that poverty is the cause of all the instability he referred to, does he not feel a little ashamed that the Conservative Government reduced the proportion of GNP spent on overseas aid to 0.25 per cent, and that, as the Conservative spokesman on international development has explained, it is not his party's policy to raise the proportion to the 0.7 per cent. that the United Nations recommends?
Mr. Key: That is not an accurate representation of my party's policy. I certainly do not feel any shame. I feel disappointment, and did so many years ago, when I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Minister for Overseas Development, Chris Patten. We were constantly battling with the Treasury, just as people in Departments do now, to try to increase the proportion of the budget that went to our Department.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) said that the ECGD must take a lead in eliminating corruption. That is an extraordinary request to make of the ECGD. I do not think that such a role is in its constitution. Let us get back to reality.
It is important to recognise that the largest slice of ECGD support—53 per cent. was the latest figure that I could get hold of—goes to civil programmes. Those will be crucial if we are to start eliminating the poverty that leads to all the instability that leads to the arms trade.
I hope that we can get more of a note of realism in the debate. If all we can do is try to stop the arms trade, we will not get very far forward. I read with interest the letter from bishops and others in The Times yesterday about that issue. I thought that their hearts were wholly in the right place, but that they should get their feet on the ground and think of the broader equation that I have tried to outline.
I hope that we shall get some news about the ECGD, because there have been four ongoing reviews in the last year or so. I hope that the Minister will have some important messages for us.
12.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate all hon. Friends and hon. Members on their excellent contributions, and on giving their sincerely held views.
Before answering the five questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West put, I shall set out the value of the ECGD's work. In its recent annual report, the ECGD showed that the guarantees were aimed at ensuring that countries could benefit from the expertise of UK businesses, and that UK businesses are not disadvantaged when bidding for contracts abroad, whether civil or defence related.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment, Baroness Symons, presented the new and comprehensive ECGD annual report on 10 January. She stressed that it showed that exporters—with
220WH
Government insurance and Government support—had been successful in winning orders worth billions of pounds.
More than 50 per cent. of the ECGD's support goes directly to civil contracts. I expect that civil contracts in 2001–02 will take up 70 per cent. of such support, and that the proportion taken up by defence contracts will fall to 30 per cent. Civil projects include, for example, the export of Airbus aircraft to Austria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, El Salvador, Finland, Hong Kong, Iceland, Korea, the Netherlands, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Switzerland and the United States.
All hon. Members can see that the ECGD plays an important role in supporting the aerospace industry's export drive. It also helps business to export buses to Hong Kong; it aids the construction of a port in India; it provides a desalination plant in Oman to supply fresh water for thousands of homes; it builds bridges and a 500 MW gas-fired combined-cycle power station in the Philippines; and it supports a food-packaging plant in Turkey. All those examples are testimony to the value of export credit guarantees. The ECGD also welcomes applications for sustainable energy projects—as hon. Members know, that is a subject close to my heart.
More than 30 countries received goods backed by export credit guarantees last year, and details are given in the annual report. Those countries include South Africa, the United States, Australia, Lithuania, India, Italy, Sweden and Greece. In Romania, export credit guarantees helped a UK defence manufacturer to supply border surveillance vehicles. That is a part of the world that I know well, and the whole House knows that nearby territories were subject to the worst type of ethnic cleansing. The command and control systems for South Korea's navy were supplied by UK manufacturers helped by export credit guarantees. Of course, some items that were formerly supplied using export credit guarantees were the subject of great controversy. Those include the Hawks that the Conservatives sold to Indonesia in 1990.
In answer to one of the specific questions that hon. Members raised, I should make it clear that we reject any automatic linkage between export licences and ECGD support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) mentioned the Mauritius mandate and demanded that ECGD cover should not be granted to the poorest developing countries. I agree. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House on 4 December:
"Export credit support for defence sales to 63 of the poorest developing countries is not generally available."—[Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 145W.]
In fact, those countries have received precisely no ECGD cover for defence items in any of the past five years. We go further than the OECD statement of principles on official export credit support to heavily indebted poor countries, which lists only 41 countries, as my hon. Friends know.
Dr. Tonge: Will the Minister give way?
Nigel Griffiths: I will not give way to the hon. Member, because she came in late and did not hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West. I want to answer the points raised by hon. Members who have been here throughout.
In the past five years, export credit guarantees have not been granted for defence contracts to any African country, expect Egypt and South Africa. Total Government aid to African countries—excluding, of course, the export credit guarantees to the two countries that I mentioned—totalled £450 million in 1997–98, £575 million in 1998–99, £634 million in 1999–2000 and £778 million last year.
The UK has one of the most responsible and transparent export licensing regimes in the world. In response to questions that have been raised, I should say that neither Pakistan nor Israel has benefited from UK defence companies using ECGs in the past five years—nor, since 1998, have Indonesia and India. When Thabo Mbeki's democratic Government sought to ensure that his country and all the citizens of South Africa had the necessary protection, they awarded a contract to BAE Systems and its partners to supply 52 aircraft. An application for ECG was accepted.
I shall now turn to the four questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West.
Dr. Cable: Before the Minister does that, I want to ask him about the transparency that he just described. Will he explain why he has just approved export licences for the sale of military equipment to the Channel Islands, including helicopter parts, machine guns and much else, given that the Channel Islands does not even have an army?
Nigel Griffiths: The issue is transparency. The hon. Gentleman knows about those export licences because the information is in the public domain, but I am happy to write to him about any specific questions that he wants to ask.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West asked why the National Audit Office is not examining the ECGD. As hon. Members will know, I served on the Public Accounts Committee, and I have the greatest admiration for the work of Sir John Bourn and his colleagues. They decide what they will investigate and they have clearly chosen to focus on expenditure that causes far more concern than that of the ECGD.
My hon. Friend's second point related to losses. The ECGD charges a premium to cover its costs and any expected losses, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House on 22 January 2002, it is her policy to eliminate subsidies from export credits. For several years, ECGD has made a net contribution to the Exchequer: £128 million in 1999 to 2000; £205 million in 2000–01; and I understand that a similar contribution is expected for 2000–02.
My hon. Friend's third question referred to the amount of ECGD support for defence manufacturers during the past 10 years, which he claimed amounted to a subsidy. Let me give the Chamber a fuller account of our stewardship since May 1997. For defence businesses supported from 17 May 1997, claims outstanding are zero. In fact, ECGD earned about £100 million in premium for defence business in the same period. The
222WH
ECGD has actually made a net contribution. In summary, since May 1997, when the Labour Government were elected, no new business supported by ECGD for the defence sector has had claims sanctioned.
My hon. Friend's fourth question related to the need to provide figures country by country. The Secretary of State has done precisely that in her full answers to parliamentary questions. Let us be clear about how we ensure the defence of the UK. Our spending on equipment is almost £10 billion. We can—and do— buy some of that equipment abroad. We purchase other equipment from UK firms, which employ about 245,000 people in this country. Those companies also seek to export some of that equipment, or modifications of it, to other countries that want to defend their territory. That generates an income of about £5 billion a year.
Some would argue that such exports should be abolished, shrinking the defence industry to two thirds of its present size. That would not remove the need for the UK's armed forces to have equipment, but it would require the MOD to source more of it from abroad. Export credit support for defence exports is available from all the major exporting countries. Competition in the defence sector is fierce, and if UK manufacturing exporters are to remain competitive, they should have access to the same sort of support that is available to their overseas rivals.
Mrs. Mahon: Even if what is exported is used as it was in Israel this morning, against civilians? Eight children died.
Nigel Griffiths: I did refer to Israel earlier, when I assured hon. Members that my information was that Israel had not benefited from defence-related export credit guarantees for the past five years under this Government's stewardship.
I have been closely involved with the Export Control Bill, and it is important to realise and accept what the Quadripartite Committee said: we have one of the most transparent and effective export control regimes in the world. We are, however, seeking to strengthen it, because there is no complacency in our approach, and I shall describe some of the improvements that we have made.
First, we set out our ECGD business principles in 2000 to ensure that the ECGD promotes a responsible approach to business and takes account of the Government's policies on sustainable development, the environment, human rights, good governance and trade. Any support for the defence sector must now be consistent with those principles.
Secondly, we have increased transparency by ensuring that the ECGD publishes a list of guarantees in the annual report for the first time. Defence manufacturers are not exempt from the terms of confidentiality that apply to all other business sectors. Thirdly, the ECGD has strengthened its anti-corruption and due diligence procedures.

223WH
All nations have the right to self-defence; it is enshrined in article 51 of the United Nations charter. However, many countries do not have an indigenous defence industry and rely on purchasing equipment from elsewhere to safeguard their national security.
Harry Cohen: Does Iraq have the right to self-defence?
Nigel Griffiths: Every country has the right to self-defence, but I take it that my hon. Friend is not defending some of the terrible practices in Iraq. A few moments ago he openly condemned the purchases of past decades. Indeed, even those who contributed to licensing them have recognised that they were a mistake. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's question. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. All interventions should be made from a standing position and through the Chair.
Nigel Griffiths: This has been an important debate. It has covered an issue that cuts across party differences, and many sincere contributions have been made. It is our job in government to ensure that there is no repetition of the arms-to-Iraq scandal and others. I welcome the interventions that have been made, and the keen interest shown by many Members of Parliament, particularly those who are present. For many years, they have highlighted any reprehensible practices, and they seek at all times to hold the Government accountable for export policy and the way in which export credit guarantees are given.
The debate has given those of us in government the chance to explain how our policy is working, and I urge every hon. Member to read this year's annual report. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West for securing the debate and enlightening us all.

Belarus
12.29 pm
Mr. Michael Trend: I am grateful for this opportunity to bring the situation in Belarus back to the attention of the House. This is the third time that I have raised the subject in such a debate, but I make no apology for that. The oppressed people of Belarus rely on us to give them the voice that they are denied in their own country. In July last year and July 2000, I outlined the condition of what was, and sadly remains, the most authoritarian of European countries. Since then, the position has got worse.
I should like first to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). It is my first opportunity to welcome him to his new position. In the three debates that I have been fortunate enough to secure, he is the third Minister to reply. I regard these opportunities as important moments for Ministers to familiarise themselves with, and educate themselves on, this question. I also welcome him back to the Government, as he was a loss to them. I am sure that he will do well.
It is important for us in the free Parliaments of the world to continue to remind the authorities in Minsk that we are watching them closely and that they shall one day be called to account. Last year, the Minister for Europe spoke well of the need for the torch of liberty to be lit for Belarus. Over the years, that torch has illuminated the hidden secrets of totalitarian dictators throughout the world, been used to search out and expose the wicked deeds of tyrants and helped bring half our continent closer to the clear light of responsible government. Mr. Lukashenko and his cronies in Minsk should be in no doubt that we will continue to hold the torch of freedom for Belarus.
In the past two years, we have seen first parliamentary and then presidential elections in Belarus. Both were severely flawed. The Minister will know that the British Government said that the parliamentary elections
"failed to meet international standards for democratic elections"—[Official Report, 11 January 2001: Vol. 360, c. 603W.]
I am sure that the Government are equally critical of last year's presidential elections, in which the united opposition forces struggled against injustice and corruption. The elections were conducted in a country where there is no proper rule of law or division of powers, no legitimate Parliament and no free access to the media for the opposition forces. Electoral law in Belarus is far from fair and, inasmuch as it exists, is evaded rather than respected by the state authorities. Above all, the atmosphere of fear created by Mr. Lukashenko persists and, in recent months, has perhaps heightened. As in all totalitarian societies, fear is essential for keeping the system going. Belarus is a police state going to the bad. It remains the worst such country in Europe, and Mr. Lukashenko continues to hold the unenviable title of our continent's most tyrannical leader.
Before examining developments since the recent elections, it is important to remind the House of concerns that have existed for some time. We should not lose sight of the depth of the problems in Belarus. In recent years both the United Nations committee against

225WH
torture and Amnesty International have commented fiercely on Lukashenko's curtailment of basic liberty and freedoms, and I will cite a few past cases that are still alive. The Belarussian authorities have still failed to initiate impartial and thorough investigations into the "disappearances" of the former Interior Minister Yury
Zakharenko in May 1999, the former first secretary chairman of the dissolved Belarussian Parliament Viktor Gonchar and his companion Anatoly Krasovsky in September 1999, and the Russian television cameraman Dmitry Zavadsky in July 2000. Amnesty International's three prisoners of conscience in Belarus—Professor Yury Bandazhevsky, Andrey Klimov and Vladmir Koudinov—remain in prison. In each case, the real reason for their imprisonment was their opposition to Mr. Lukashenko. I could mention countless other examples, but suffice it to say that our memories will go on as long as it takes.
More recently, what has happened in Belarus since the recent elections? The simple answer is that there has been an increase in state control of Belarussian society and further concentration of power in the hands of Lukashenko. His Government have failed to produce any viable plan to reform the ailing Belarussian economy, which is heading full speed towards crisis, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has said that it will curtail its activities in Belarus because the country has failed to enact economic and political reforms. The EBRD announced last year that it would review its activities following the presidential elections. It now sees no evidence of a commitment to the principles of multi-party democracy, pluralism and market economics. It probably did not help that after the presidential elections Lukashenko also unseated several senior businessmen from their positions when it suited him to do so.
Lukashenko has also fallen out with his one former international ally. the Russian leader President Putin. Assaults on human rights and freedoms in Belarus are becoming even more blatant and the situation continues to deteriorate. I shall give examples of that. For some years, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe has played an important role in voicing the concerns of the free world in Minsk. After many months of worsening relations between the Belarus Government and the OSCE, the authorities have refused to extend the visa of the acting head of the OSCE's advisory and monitoring group in Belarus, Andrew Carpenter. No reason has been given for de facto expulsion of Mr. Carpenter, which means in effect that the sterling work that the OSCE has done in Belarus has come to an end. The expulsion was condemned at a recent OSCE parliamentary assembly meeting in Berlin and the Council of Europe has also registered its support for the OSCE position. It was right that the delegation from the Belarus Parliament—which was elected two years ago but which we do not recognise as legitimate—was not allowed to sit in the OSCE parliamentary assembly.
The case of two journalists of the independent regional newspaper, Pahonya, in Grodno who were convicted of libelling Mr Lukashenko during last year's presidential campaign has also caused much concern. The two men, Mikola Markevich and Pavel Mazheiko,
226WH
were sentenced to serve up to two and a half and two years respectively in a detention camp. Amnesty International has said about the case:
"The sentencing of these journalists yet again revealed Belarus' inability to brook dissent and allow its small independent journalist community to give voice to widely shared concerns about the fate of a series of high-profile 'disappearances' in the country".
What remains of press freedom in Belarus is in a precarious position. Pahonya has now been shut down. Other journalists have been arrested and other publications are under threat. Lukashenko's reign of terror extends across all the provinces of Belarus.
Another case should give us great cause for concern. Mr Anatoly Lebedko, leader of the United Civil party, is an old friend of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, of which I have the honour to be a governor. He has travelled widely in his campaign to put the case for the democrats of Belarus; indeed, hon. Members of all parties met him in the House only a few years ago. He too is in a position of potential personal danger. On 12 July he was summoned to the prosecutor's office and informed that a criminal case had been opened against him. The Belarus Ministry of Justice has begun a broad examination of activities of the United Civil party; the authorities demanded that they be given 5,000 documents within two days. Their intentions are clear: to get rid of the UCP and others who effectively block the Belarussian Government's attempts to achieve international legitimacy. Other political parties, independent trade unions and non-governmental organisations have also been targeted and subjected to harassment. Ordinary people as well as political leaders and journalists have been subject to criminal and administrative persecution for taking part in demonstrations: for instance, there were severe beatings of peaceful demonstrators who demanded social protection for workers and pensioners in April.
There is also a threat to freedom of religion in Belarus. The Belarus Assembly recently approved a draft bill to introduce compulsory registration of religious communities as well as other restrictions on religious freedoms in the country—which has great resonance for those of us who followed the assaults on religious freedom under the Soviet Union. In the past few weeks, we have once again heard the voice of the Keston Institute, which I am ashamed to say I have not thought about much in the past 10 years. It still exists, and has pointed out the threat that this law poses to Protestant churches and non-traditional religious movements in Belarus.
Lukashenko' s behaviour on the international scene continues to give as much concern as his tyranny at home. There have been many reports recently about the part that Belarus plays in international arms trading. Only last week, United States Congressman Christopher Smith, who was in Berlin for the OSCE parliamentary assembly, commented on his fears about the extent and nature of Lukashenko's arms dealing. In an interview with Radio Svoboda, Mr. Smith said:
"The facts I saw, both confidential and not confidential ones, evidence that Minsk is a main source of arms delivery to dictatorships and terrorists, including Iraq, for which the potential targets are the USA and British military aircrafts, patrolling the air zone. It is a special question. There is an agreement at a high level that Lukashenko supports terrorists."

227WH
We should understand that that view is widely held in Washington. This country has a clear interest in not allowing Belarus to operate as a European arsenal of terrorism.
It is also clear that we should keep a close eye on the deteriorating relationship between Lukashenko and President Putin of Russia. Since 11 September last year, much has changed in the relationship between Russia and the west. A consequence of the improving relationship has been a falling out between the authorities in Moscow and Minsk. A few weeks ago, several parties of the Russian state Duma, including the Union of Right Forces and Yabloko, urged President Putin to press Belarus to investigate all its cases of disappearance. The leader of the Union of Right Forces, Boris Nemtsov, said that Putin is concerned about the number of people who have gone missing in Belarus. That is a great change. Last year, Putin was not prepared to use his influence for good in the Belarussian presidential elections. Now, he pours scorn on Lukashenko's wild plans for a union of equals between Belarus and Russia.
Surely those developments present the west with an opportunity. Belarus has hitherto relied heavily on moral and financial support from Russia. There is some evidence that the continual notice that we in the west give to individual cases in Belarus pays off, in that the authorities tread with greater care. How much more of an effect could President Putin have if he really decided to help sort out the disgrace that is the Government of his neighbour, Belarus?
We must also keep sight of the fact that Belarus will quite soon be the European Union's neighbour, given the EU's ever widening border. Drug traffickers and other serious criminals are allowed to operate in Belarus. The EU has a clear interest here, too.
Finally, I want to pay a personal tribute to the brave people who keep the torch of freedom alight in Belarus. The debate always returns to human rights. Those who work for human rights internationally, especially in oppressed countries, most deserve our support. International parliamentary bodies and groups such as Amnesty International continue to play an important and robust part in the fight against injustice. Our embassy staff in Belarus should also be commended, as should the OSCE mission. Charter'97 does much to bring news from Belarus to the attention of the outside world, as does Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. However, our greatest concern must always be for individuals. At this time, I am thinking chiefly of Mr. Lebedko.
If I have one delicate word of criticism for our own Government, it is that I still regret the closure of the British Council in Minsk. At the time of the closure, Members from both sides of the House were very critical of the Government for sending the wrong signal to the Government and democrats in Belarus. If the Minister can say anything today that might bring some hope that the Government will reconsider their decision, it would be very welcome.
The United States and European Governments, and many international bodies and observers, have rightly condemned Lukashenko's behaviour. I look to our Government today to raise their voice again in defence of the human rights of the people of Belarus. Liberty,
228WH
the rule of law and the right to own property are at the heart of individual and collective freedom. These are denied to the people of Belarus at the moment. I urge the Government to take the opportunity to add their voice—the voice of a free and strong people—to the general condemnation of Lukashenko and to do all that they can in particular cases to advance the cause of liberty in Belarus.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I thank the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) for his warm words on my appointment: I am looking forward to carrying out my new responsibilities. I congratulate him on keeping issues about Belarus in the public eye. It is indeed a police state going to the bad, as the hon. Gentleman described it, and it needs to know that Members of Parliament in the UK will keep the torch of liberty burning for the people of Belarus.
It is almost exactly two years ago since the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Belarus for a summer Adjournment debate. He raised it again last July, and now brings this important issue before the House once again. When we debated Belarus two years ago, the country was due to hold parliamentary elections. The then Minister of State noted that the flawed referendum of November 1996 had set the country on an anti-democratic path, from which it has not deviated. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) hoped that the parliamentary elections of 2000 would be used to take a step towards democracy. In last year's debate, he noted that those hopes were not fulfilled, but looked forward again to the presidential elections due last September. I regret that I am unable to bring news of any improvement in Belarus. Rather, the democracy and human rights position there has deteriorated.
Most opposition parties boycotted the parliamentary elections of October 2000. The conduct of those elections did not comply with international standards. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Council of Europe and the European Union all declined to send official observers to the elections, and have not recognised the election as legitimate.
Presidential elections were held on 9 September last year, and the Belarussian electoral commission declared President Lukashenko the winner with 75 per cent. of the vote, but the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights reported that the election process had failed to meet OSCE standards. After two years and two flawed elections, President Lukashenko' s re-election regrettably appears only to have confirmed him in his anti-democratic path.
Most seriously, no progress has been made in investigating the disappearances of political opponents or the oppression of political opponents. I shall mention, as did the hon. Member for Windsor: the former Interior Minister, Yury Zakharenko, the Belarus Supreme Soviet Deputy, Viktor Gonchar, Anatoly Krasovsky and the journalist Dmitry Zavadsky. We are also worried about the prisoners of conscience to whom the hon. Member for Windsor referred: Professor Bandazhevsky, Andrey Klimov and Vladmir Koudinov. We in this country are concerned about them all. Some remain missing and no progress on these cases has been made, despite frequent expressions of concern from the international community.

229WH
Belarus's legislature, the National Assembly, is the product of the flawed and internationally unrecognised elections of 2000. It is now considering an illiberal law, requiring the registration of religious communities. The proposed Bill would outlaw religious groups active in Belarus for fewer than 20 years or with fewer than 20 Belarus citizens. One might have anticipated that Lukashenko was the sort of person who would have sought to ban the 12 apostles. The Bill clearly sets out Lukashenko's vision for Belarus—to turn back the clock to at least 1982.
On the economy, Lukashenko has reiterated his opposition to structural reform and earlier this year assumed powers to interfere in business activities. Attempts to reach agreement with the International Monetary Fund have consistently failed. The directors of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development reported in March that economic conditions in Belarus were such as to preclude fulfilment of the technical conditions for new lending.
The people of Belarus are being impoverished by their President. Further evidence of the path followed by Lukashenko is found in his relationship with the OSCE, which has deteriorated in the past two years. In 1997, the OSCE permanent council established an advisory and monitoring group, which was set up in Minsk in 1998. However, following the departure of the group's head official, the Belarussian authorities have refused to grant a visa for a replacement and have refused to extend the visas of other senior AMG personnel.
The hon. Member for Windsor noted the latest turn of events. The senior OSCE expatriate—Andrew Carpenter, a Briton—was told on 3 June that his visa was not to be extended and that he had until midnight to leave the country. Such behaviour by the Belarussian authorities is unacceptable and gratuitously damages relationships with other countries, such as ours.
What can we do about it? Our actions to deal with Belarus must necessarily be taken in concert with our EU and other partners. We are all exerting pressure for change but in the end the solution lies in Lukashenko's own hands; we cannot run Belarus for him. He has been in power since 1994, and he has four years of his current term left to run. The UK and other EU member states have made our position very clear. The measures taken by the EU in 1997 remain in place. They restrict ministerial contacts with Belarus, suspend aid except for humanitarian reasons or to support civil society, and suspend ratification of the EU-Belarus partnership and co-operation agreement.
EU member states will not support Belarus's membership of the Council of Europe. NATO's partnership for peace agreement, signed in 1995, remains undeveloped. Aid to Belarus by international financial institutions is restricted, going only to support small and medium-sized enterprises and the private sector, with a view to strengthening civil society. I should here point out that we have no quarrel with the people of Belarus, as the hon. Member for Windsor said. We wish to alleviate the problems they face because of the misguided policies of their leader. Giving money to Lukashenko is a waste and unless we can get help directly to the people of Belarus it is frankly better to keep the cheque book shut.
230WH
Belarus may not be changing, but the region around it is. Belarus's western neighbour, Poland, is now a member of NATO and should soon join the EU. Belarus's north-western neighbours, Latvia and Lithuania, are candidates to join both NATO and the EU. To the south, Ukraine has just declared its intention to join NATO, and is seeking to intensify its relations with the EU, which it has stated its desire to join one day.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently launched a wider Europe initiative which aims to encourage the EU to set out a policy for its relationship with Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus after EU enlargement. Such a policy could be the basis for the fruitful development of relations between the EU and its three new eastern neighbours. We envisage enhanced agreement in a range of areas, conditional upon further reforms in the countries concerned. The Danish presidency is taking forward detailed work on these elements. On present form, Belarus looks likely to miss out on the opportunities that that would offer, but the clear option of a more beneficial relationship with the EU will soon be on the table. Belarus will need to decide how to respond.
To the east, Russia has established a new relationship with NATO. It also has a key role in the future of Belarus, not least because of Lukashenko's interest in a Russia-Belarus union. As the hon. Gentleman said, the plan seems to have been thrown into doubt following last month's meeting in St. Petersburg between Presidents Putin and Lukashenko. At the meeting, President Putin seemed lukewarm, to say the least, about the concept, and the prospect of uniting Belarus's unreformed economy with that of Russia, which is much further advanced, cannot be attractive.
We understand President Putin's wish to develop a close relationship with neighbouring states with which Russia has traditionally close ties. An undemocratic and economically dependent Belarus is a less interesting proposition, even if it is on Russia's doorstep and any union would be on its terms. The hon. Gentleman is right that we hope that the pressure for reform in Belarus will come from the east as much as the west, and we would welcome any decision by Russia to use its influence to encourage positive changes in Belarus.
The hon. Gentleman referred to reports about arms supplies and links to Iraq. We are concerned about the reports and are watching the situation carefully. President Lukashenko needs a clear warning that close relationships with Iraq would not just lead to him being frowned upon by the international community, but to it expressing its views even more strongly than that.
I repeat my congratulation to the hon. Member for Windsor on securing this debate. I also repeat the concern that the UK shares with the people of Belarus about the way in which their President is running the country into the ground. Lukashenko is leading his country backwards economically and politically, and that is unsustainable. We shall ensure that the pressure for reform, or the torch of liberty as the hon. Gentleman described it, continues at least to flicker in Belarus and is supported by parliamentarians in this country. The day will come when Belarus returns to the democratic path and the European mainstream.

Charter Holiday Industry
12.57 pm
Mr. Frank Roy: I am delighted to have secured this important debate on a subject that directly affects the lives of many people in the United Kingdom.
According to the Home Office's website, more than 38 million holiday trips were undertaken from this country last year, and of those more than 20 million were what is known as package or inclusive holidays. This week, airports throughout the UK will move vast numbers of holiday-making families to their dream destinations. The people taking those trips—to the heat of the Spanish costas, the fun of Majorca, the nightlife of Ibiza, the magic of Florida or wherever their chosen holiday resort lies—deserve the best value their money can buy.
Those people have worked hard all year. Many pay the cost of their trip with loans and will repay them in the next 12 months in time for next year's holiday. However, millions of them do not realise that they have been ripped off by greedy holiday companies. The phrases ripped off, fleeced, done, overcharged or taken for a ride all mean the same thing: people have not received value for money. Unfortunately, no one seems able or willing to give them the protection they deserve.
I do not intend to discuss the holidays from hell that we see commonly on television: the four-star hotels with no sanitation; the family rooms above a 24-hour discotheque; the half-built self-catering unit; the room with a view of the local rubbish dump; the pool with no water; the cruise ship with no hot water; and the villas flooded with too much water. I intend to highlight the need for regulation of the holiday industry to ensure a better deal for those who put their trust and hard-earned cash in the hands of holiday operators.
For some time, I have been appalled by the practices of the holiday industry, as they extract as much money from their customers as possible. However, I became even more appalled, and angry, when I discovered that those same companies paid no heed to the guidelines laid down by the Civil Aviation Authority on the serious matter of safety during flights. I quote from the CAA's "Flight Operations Bulletin on Cabin Safety":
"Emergency situations have shown that the separation of family groups, especially children, may lead to problems in emergency situations. Of particular concern is that during emergency evacuations group members separated from other members of the family, or party, might seek each other out during an evacuation process."
That is very understandable. What family or parent would not immediately ensure their child's safety in the event of an emergency evacuation from an aircraft? The guidelines continue:
"Such actions could have an adverse effect on passenger flow rates towards emergency exits and might seriously affect the outcome of an evacuation."
That is exactly what would happen if families were not seated together on their holiday flights. Undoubtedly, parents would not escape quickly from an aircraft if they knew that the rest of their family were sitting some rows behind them. They quite naturally would make their way back along the aircraft, against the flow of the other passengers, to ensure their family's safety. That delay,
232WH
caused by seat separation at the check-in desk, could mean the difference between life and death for many people on a stricken plane.
In the same bulletin, the CAA states clearly: "Operators are recommended to develop procedures for seat allocation that takes into account the following factors

(a)Children accompanied by adults, should ideally be seated in the same row as the adult. In wide-bodied aircraft children and accompanying adults should not be separated by more than one aisle.

(b) Where such criteria is not possible, children should be separated by no more than one seat row from accompanying adults.

c) Seat allocation procedures for family groups, including adults, should reflect the above criteria."

Those are straightforward, unambiguous guidelines with no possible misinterpretation: for everyone's safety, families must sit together on aircraft. What do United Kingdom holiday companies do? That nice Mr. Thomson, not to mention Airtours, JMC and Global—in fact, nearly every charter company—charge us extra for the privilege of staying alive with our kids in an aircraft emergency.
During the past few weeks, my American intern, Jess Lorber, and I have contacted a number of well-known travel firms to find out whether they charge families for the privilege of sitting together on an aircraft. Almost 90 per cent. told us that, to guarantee a seat together, there would be an average charge of £10 per family member. However, they did not all charge £10: some gave discounted children's rates of £7 and £5. Kindness indeed. All the operators told us that that was an extra service, and the best way of ensuring that a family was seated together. One operator even told us, "Between you and me, we do it to remain competitive with other companies, as they all charge fees." Forget about safety, is not it comforting to know that some companies charge merely to remain competitive? That statement sums up the need for this debate and, more importantly, the need for stronger regulation of the holiday sector. Companies argue that they rip families off because their competitors do. That is an indictment of the holiday sector.
I have no hesitation in calling on holidaymakers to boycott companies that charge families for the privilege of sitting together on a flight to or from their holiday destination. There is no need for such charges, whether at the pre-booking or late-deal stages. Every company knows beforehand how many families will be travelling together and can pre-allocate adjoining seats, just as many scheduled flight operators do every single day of the week. I hope that the Minister will address that serious issue.
After the dreadful events of 11 September last year, every flight operator and airport rightly had to review their security procedures. The world had moved into a new era of asymmetrical threat from terrorist attack, and every innocent family became a potential target. I believe that every holiday company in the UK now charges a security surcharge of £7 per person. I presume that it is for the increased costs at airports and on flights, although one company representative stated:
"These charges were government imposed after September 11."
Perhaps the Minister can tell us when the Government imposed such a charge. I suspect that he will be as puzzled as I am.

233WH
Perhaps the £7 charge pays for more controlled airport parking, perimeter fencing, CCTV, luggage and body scanners and more employees at airports. However, is not it strange that a company such as easyJet charges only £1.60 for the same services? The explanation on the company's website for imposing the charge is that, because of the incidents of 11 September, the cost of running a secure airline had risen and, although easyJet had tried to avoid incurring extra charges for its customers, a charge of £1.60 had been imposed to appease insurance syndicates. It assures customers that it
"will not be making any additional profit from this charge."
What happens to the difference of £5.40 between easyJet's £1.60 charge and the £7 charged by travel companies? Why is it charged? I certainly do not know why; perhaps a tougher regulator would be able to tell us.
Can we argue that a family of four should have to pay almost £30 for extra security at the airport and on flights? I doubt that we can, but BAA plc may be able to. However, its senior management told other Members and me last week that
"they have passed on no extra security charges to flight operators since September 11."
By my calculations—according to the school that I went to—more than 20 million trips taken by holidaymakers at £7 per person bring in £140 million. For what? We know that the money is not going to BAA plc. It does not buy more controlled parking spaces, perimeter fencing, CCTV cameras, luggage and body scanners or more people. So where does it go? Are holiday companies ripping customers off as a result of 11 September? I sincerely hope not. Perhaps the Minister will give us his opinion about that.
Can the Minister explain the meaning of a holiday advertisement on Teletext a few days ago, which said:
"Family of 4, 14 days, HB, Majorca, 1,500, BF £10pp, TOD £10pp, DC/CCC 2.5 per cent."
In the interests of fairness, I shall repeat that more slowly:
"Family of 4, 14 days, HB, Majorca, 1,500, BF £10pp, TOD £10 pp, DC/CCC 2.5 per cent."
I am sure that you know what that means, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, with all due respect, I hazard a guess that the Minister would have been puzzled on reading it, as I was. It means that 14 days half board in Majorca for a family of four costs £1,500. Booking fees are £10 per person, which for a family of four is £40. Tickets on departure are £10 per person, which is £40 for a family of four. I shall refer later to DC/CCC. The new price is now £1,580.
There are more hidden rip-offs. The £7 per person security charge would cost a family of four £28. In late deals, transfer between the airport and the hotel costs £15 per person, which is another £60. Optional flight meals cost £10 per person, which is an extra £40. Even the 20 kg luggage allowance that used to be included now costs £15 per person, so that is an extra £60. All those hidden charges blow away the theory that we are still considering a package holiday. It is no longer a package holiday, but a fragmented rip-off. Our family of four, who were paying £1,500, now need to pay £1,768.
234WH
What is the final rip-off? Every travel agent sets its employees targets to sell holiday insurance to unsuspecting customers. Even when free insurance incentives are offered, which are known in the trade as silver level, employees are ordered to sell gold-level insurance, which costs £10 per adult and £7.50 per child. That insurance is paid out against a holiday costing £1,500 per person. How many ordinary families in this country book a fortnight's holiday in Majorca at a cost of £1,500 each? Families are paying far in excess of what they need to pay. If a family of four are not offered free insurance, they pay the going travel agency rate of a staggering £31.99 per adult and £27.74 per child to cover the two-week holiday. Those inflated insurance charges add an extra £119.46 to the family's bill.
From the original price of £1,500, our family must now pay a new amount of £1,887.46. To borrow words from "Who wants to be a millionaire", "But we don't want to give you that. We want to give you DC/CCC at 2.5 per cent." That debit or credit card charge of 2.5 per cent. on £1,887.46 is £47.18. That brings the new grand rip-off charge for the £1,500 holiday seen on Teletext to £1,934.64. That is an astonishing hidden charge of nearly 30 per cent.—a rip-off in anyone's language.
I can highlight other rip-offs, such as cancellation fees. If a family buys out within 56 days, they pay £105 per person, so our family of four would lose £420. However, if the company cancels, it pays out only £20 per person, which would be a total of £80. There is an increase if the customer cancels 14 days before departure. They would lose 90 per cent. of their money, yet the company would pay only £40 per person if it did likewise. That means that if our family of four cancel, they lose £1,698.72, but in similar circumstances, the company is obliged to pay out only £160. I genuinely believe that consumers receive a raw deal from holiday companies. Their flagrant disregard for the Civil Aviation Authority's guidelines is scandalous. Their security fees must be justified, their hidden charging must be investigated and the rip-offs must stop.
While researching this matter, Jess Lorber asked me why British consumers do not complain more and insist on a higher level of service. He was right to ask that, and it is why I am complaining in this debate. I am looking for a far higher level of service and demanding tougher regulation of the holiday industry.
The examples that I have given reveal only the tip of an iceberg. We all know that there are many horror stories to be told about the charter holiday industry, so I call on the Government to launch an inquiry into the need for stricter regulation of that industry. I and 20 million others await with interest the Government's response.
1.15 pm
The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is topical as we are now in the holiday season. He raised important issues and made typically shrewd observations on the travel industry and the need to protect holidaymakers.

235WH
I shall speak first about the holiday market in the United Kingdom, which is one of the largest and most diverse in Europe with about 20 million packages sold every year and a turnover of around £8 billion. The traditional holiday market is changing and, increasingly, the familiar package is just one of a number of holiday products from which consumers can choose. Before focusing on my hon. Friend's concerns, I want to outline the protection available to the travelling public in the United Kingdom.
There is already a considerable body of regulations governing holidays, especially package holidays. Package travel law recognises the great diversity of the market from the largest operators, which are household names, to the smaller, independent businesses and one-person operations. The key legislation is the package travel regulations, which implement the 1990 package travel directive. One of the main reasons for the introduction of those regulations was to enable dissatisfied holidaymakers to pursue their case with a single supplier. Previously, aggrieved holidaymakers had to pursue their case with hoteliers and transport providers in a foreign country. The important protection is that the regulations place on tour operators a wide range of obligations to their clients, and ensure that when things go wrong consumers have adequate means of obtaining redress. The regulations also require tour operators that become insolvent to be able to repatriate and refund holidaymakers.
Another important protection for consumers is provided by the Civil Aviation Authority's licensing regulations. The majority of package holidays sold in the United Kingdom involve air travel, and the package travel regulations require organisers to hold a licence issued under the Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers' Licensing) Regulations 1995. Those licences are administered by the CAA and provide financial protection arrangements for air packages.
Other consumer legislation also applies to the sector, including the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, misleading prices law, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Control of Misleading Advertisement Regulations 1988. They provide protection against misleading statements by tour operators about the holidays they provide, and apply to all holidays, not just packages.
The package holiday market is also self-regulated, primarily by the codes of practice operated by the Association of British Travel Agents. Those codes of practice have been tried and tested over a long period. ABTA operates an independent arbitration scheme to resolve disputes between holidaymakers and ABTA members, who sell more than 90 per cent. of packages in the United Kingdom.
The fact that there is a strong body of legislation does not mean that things do not go wrong. As my hon. Friend said, things can go awry even before a holiday has started, and he highlighted problems arising from lack of transparency when consumers are given misleading or confusing information.
The travel industry is dynamic and constantly changing in response to consumer demand and other less predictable events. Since 11 September, the tourism industry has been through a difficult time. Recovery has been slow since consumer confidence took a blow.
236WH
Bookings for the next year are down on previous years, and the industry has been going through some restructuring; it has cut capacity in an effort to face new challenges. Some costs, such as aviation insurance and airport security, have become more unpredictable.
As I said earlier, other market developments include an increasing trend away from package holidays. Instead, consumers put together elements of holidays from sources other than traditional travel agents by, for example, looking for the best deals on the internet. The phenomenal rise of the no-frills airlines has been part of that trend, and it is set to rise further. However, the great majority of British family holidaymakers continue to look for conventional packages, and the variety of deals and prices on offer can be bewildering.
As my hon. Friend emphasised, changing trends can bring problems as well as increased choice for consumers. The regulatory bodies report significant numbers of consumer complaints about this sector, and we take that very seriously. The levels of protection for consumers vary according to the methods by which consumers book their holidays; the rules are extremely complex. There are concerns that consumers may not know their rights despite the efforts of the regulator, industry bodies and consumer groups, which is why my Department is taking steps to improve the information available to consumers.
Holidays that go wrong can be particularly distressing for consumers. My hon. Friend described several specific problems encountered by consumers when they try to book holidays. I shall briefly address each of those.
As regards security charges, I appreciate the concerns about the levying of yet more charges on holidaymakers. However, the industry is best placed to make a commercial judgment as to what extent extra security charges need to be passed on to the consumer. The Government have the same concerns as my hon. Friend. If additional security charges are levied, they should be fully justified and presented in a clear and transparent manner so that holidaymakers know what they are paying for at the outset and can make a choice of whether to use a particular operator or to go elsewhere.
We are liaising with trading standards officers on concerns about pricing practices in the holiday industry. The law is clear: prices that include security charges must be made transparent. We are ensuring that this sector operates in that manner.
Concerns have been raised that consumers are inadequately protected because they are increasingly buying holidays that are not packages and so fall outside the scope of the regulations. That issue was covered in a recent European Parliament report, which proposed a fairly wide-ranging review of the package travel directive. The origins of the report lie in earlier work carried out by the Commission on the implementation of the directive by all member states.
There is a trend among tour operators to add a number of supplementary charges to the price of a package, and my hon. Friend has given some examples of that. Others include charges for collecting tickets at

237WH
point of departure, and even for using the resort swimming pool. We believe that holiday operators should ensure that all charges are made clear to the consumer at the point of sale, so that people know what they are buying. My hon. Friend was worried about the practice of some operators of charging for pre-bookable seats. That is a matter of concern, particularly as the CAA recommends that in the interests of safety families should be seated together. I shall return to that point.
The recurring problem of misleading prices in brochures or shop windows is often highlighted in the media. Trading standards officers keep those practices under close scrutiny, and have initiated discussions with the industry about pricing. A particular problem is the way in which holiday prices are generally presented, with the use of discounts, fluid pricing and, last but not least, the increasing use of supplementary charges or optional extras, to which my hon. Friend has referred.
What are the Government doing about those criticisms? There are mechanisms in place for dealing with misleading statements. In addition to powers under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, trading standards officers are empowered to take action when they consider that a misleading price indication has been given. Any suspected breaches of pricing law fall within the scope of part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and should be reported to the trading standards service so that it can investigate as appropriate. My Department is in close touch with the trading standards service on matters relating to that legislation, and trading standards takes a keen interest in such issues.
Seating arrangements on aircraft are such an important matter that the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who has responsibility for competition, consumers and markets, will be discussing it in more detail with the scheduled tour operators. That is in response to criticisms voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, not least at DTI questions recently.
My hon. Friend referred to the powers of the Director General of Fair Trading under the Control of Misleading Advertisement Regulations 1988. He does have such powers, but they are used only as a last resort. Advertising and sales promotion in the printed media in the United Kingdom are largely controlled by self-regulation. We would prefer businesses to use that means to ensure that their advertising material does not offend or mislead. The Advertising Standards Authority
238WH
is responsible for ensuring compliance with the British code of advertising and sales promotion. It is to that organisation that concerns about misleading advertisements in the printed media should be directed.
That system of independent scrutiny, set up with the support of commercial businesses, shows why it is important to examine ways of tackling problems through self-regulation, such as improvements to codes of practice or information and advice, so as to arm consumers better when making decisions about holiday bookings. More regulation is sometimes the answer, but I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that the market is already well regulated and monitored. Given the circumstances that my hon. Friend described, I suggest that the travel industry should take primary responsibility for fulfilling its obligations to its customers, and should do so well and within the prescribed legal limits. If the industry fails to do that, it runs the risk of facing legal action.
Having said that, I recognise that the operation of legislation benefits from fresh consideration and review of its effectiveness. We are aware of the European Commission's interest in reviewing package travel and timeshare law. The Commission has said that further work is needed, for example, to clarify the definition of a package holiday. A recent European Parliament report recommended that the term "package" be redefined. We shall have to consider whether widening the scope of the directive would be appropriate and would address some of the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised.
We are ready to play a full part in ensuring that the travel market works properly, and we want to develop a dialogue with key players in the industry, with regulatory authorities and with key consumer bodies. The latest Commission initiative may provide the opportunity to resolve once and for all some of the issues surrounding the protection of consumers buying package holidays. By their very definition, the matters that we are discussing are wider international concerns, not just domestic issues. That initiative builds on work already done by the Commission and others. The market is changing, and traditional consumer attitudes to holidays, including the way in which they book them, are changing. The Government must ensure that consumers are protected in that constantly changing market, but consumers have a responsibility to be careful when buying one of the many types of holiday now on offer.
I congratulate my hon. Friend once again on raising an important matter. I hope that I have reassured him that there is work in progress to address the real concerns that he has raised this afternoon.

Hospital Services (Somerset)
1.29 pm
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am delighted to have secured this debate with only 24 hours to go until the recess. I want to be a little parochial; rather than discuss hospitals in Somerset, I should like to talk about the Minehead, Williton and Bridgwater hospitals in my constituency. I shall focus on the Minehead and Bridgwater hospitals, as the Williton hospital is quite new, and has had an exemplary record for many years. I want to consider the problems of a constituency that is more than 52 miles long, and covers some of the most sparsely populated areas of England. The problems of west Somerset are probably quite well known to many people. The area contains the biggest Butlins in Britain, where 9,000 people a week can enjoy the delights of the riviera of north Somerset. Last week, 280 people went down with a virus, and hon. Members can imagine the strain that was put on the local health service to deal with that problem. I could say that that happens only once in a while, but it tends to happen each year, when that number of people are in such close proximity to each other.
My constituency is a tourist area, including Exmoor, the Quantocks and the Levels. The last battle in Britain was fought in my constituency—some say that it still goes on. People come through it at an enormous cyclical rate to enjoy the delights of a very large area. The town of Bridgwater is the opposite extreme. It is an industrial town that makes cellophane, Sunny Delight, ammunition, plastics, extruded plastics and many other things. The hospitals cover a very sparse and dense area, but they have one thing in common: they cover a vast area.
I should like to pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), from whose areas the hospitals draw people and who cannot be here owing to other duties. They have exactly the same problems with those two hospitals, and would say what I am saying. To put it crudely, we need two new hospitals: one in Minehead and one in Bridgwater. That is because the present hospitals were built by subscription, as most in this country were within living memory. The hospitals have a finite capacity. Minehead hospital is on three floors, with the operating theatre on the third floor. As hon. Members can well imagine, with today's health and safety concerns, doctors cannot operate on the third floor due to the constraints of fire regulations and other modern problems that were not taken account of quite so readily some years ago.
I want to cite some statistics to show why we need a new hospital: it is a case of the devil and the damned. West Somerset covers 218 square miles—London would fit into it easily. Bridgwater is a slightly smaller area, but it covers Mendip, Taunton Deane and a surrounding area that has the sea on only one side. The rest is almost the same size. There are on average 50 beds in Bridgwater hospital, slightly fewer in Minehead and about 30 in Williton. An enormous number of people need health care and they cannot always get it.
The local major hospital, Musgrove Park, is just outside the constituency of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). That hospital has its
240WH
own problems because its general surgery unit needs about £40 million to bring it up to a standard that is acceptable today. It was built so that US Army jeeps could drive down the corridors during the last war. That is how wide the corridors are, although I am not sure jeeps would get down them nowadays. Musgrove Park is going down the private finance initiative route already, but I do not want to concern the Minister with that. However, we have infrastructure problems that we need to address. The hospital in Minehead is in the middle of the town, and it is physically impossible to expand it any further. The one in Bridgwater has exactly the same problem. It cannot be expanded because it is faced by a river, and a main road lies behind it.
We also have other problems. We have an enormous problem in housing nurses. There are not enough houses. The Minister may respond that that is the responsibility of another Department. It is incredibly expensive to live in Exmoor or the Levels. One would think that it would be comparatively cheap because it is a rural area, but in fact houses in Exmoor are more expensive by far than anywhere locally, because of the area and its outstanding beauty.
We also cannot recruit GPs. The whole of Somerset is short of GPs, but especially in my constituency. We cannot get them to come down and settle there. One would think that GPs would love to come to such a beautiful area and be part of a thriving rural community. It is a lovely place in which to bring up their families. However, they do not come and we are short of them. We are also short of dentists throughout the county, and we are trying to encourage them to come to the area. We have a problem getting them to settle in the area, although we had no problem in doing so until recently.
We have a problem with all levels of care. Until recently we were fighting tenaciously for equipment to keep our X-ray system in Minehead going. We managed to do so, but it cost £150,000, nearly half of which was raised by the League of Friends and others. We could not rely on our primary care trust to raise the money, although it is doing its best to provide money across the spectrum. The trust got the money and now has a digital X-ray machine, but thanks only to enormous support from the local community in the Minehead area.
Domiciliary care is another problem. We cannot get people to come down and settle because we have a problem with training our nurses. If a nurse settles in my area and needs to train to get up to the next level or grade, they have to go to Plymouth, Bristol or in some cases Truro. Truro is in Cornwall and is about 120 miles away. Plymouth is 80 miles away and Bristol is between 50 and 60 miles away. Those places are not easy to get to, so if a nurse intends to take time out and wants to get up to the next grade at a cost of £350, she has to do it in her own time. Getting cover in an area such as my constituency is almost impossible, so many nurses who want to get on and better themselves are not in a position to do so. We do not have enough people to take up all the slack in the system. I am sure that that is true throughout the United Kingdom, but I am describing the particular problems of a rural area.
Nurses' pay is another problem. I am delighted that the Government intend to build more houses in London for nurses, and are doing whatever else they can to encourage nurses, doctors and police, but that does not

241WH
help us in our area. Will the Minister consider some form of inducement for nurses to settle in rural areas, to encourage them and enable them to retrain? In Minehead especially we depend almost entirely on people who retire to the area or who are considering settling in the area because their husbands or wives have moved there.
I wonder whether, in the longer term, we should consider establishing a mechanism to encourage nurses and other specialists to settle in areas such as my constituency. They should not be offered a bribe—that would be cheap—but some form of incentive so that they could set up their family and themselves in an area where they know they can stay for a long time.
The health service is considering how to improve training in our area, and the university of Plymouth, with Somerset College of Arts and Technology in Taunton and Bridgwater college, is actively considering whether something can be done. However, as the Minister knows, the cost of doing anything like that is enormous, and it will be difficult for the university of Plymouth to improve matters without help from the Learning and Skills Council, the medical sector or the Department of Health. If that were forthcoming, a lot of people would be willing to come and settle in the area in the certainty that they would receive training and be able to stay on. That goes for GPs and for everybody else.
About a third of the beds in our three hospitals are blocked. We have a major problem in Somerset with care homes. We have lost many beds during the past few years, in an area with a large number of retired people, and the hospitals have had to take much of the strain. I had a meeting with all the health care providers in my constituency at Bridgwater hospital last Friday. They said that the situation was getting worse. I am not saying that there is an easy fix to the problem—there is not—but I hope that the Minister will try to deal with the problems caused by the fact that up to a third of the beds in those hospitals, which are almost always full, are taken up by people who need to be properly looked after either in the community or in care homes.
Somerset county council pays one of the lowest rates of income to nursing home operators in the United Kingdom. I see Somerset as the forgotten county. People go through it to get to Devon and Cornwall or elsewhere, and we seem to be forgotten. We have more old people than the areas that surround us. As a result of that, and the loss of homes, we cannot afford to keep those people, so homes are shutting down at an alarming rate. In Minehead, we have lost four homes in the past year. We cannot continue that level in any sustainable future. People have to go to Musgrove on the one ambulance that we have or stay in the hospital in Minehead, but the capacity there is such that acute patients have to go to Musgrove to be looked after.
People in hospitals tell us that they want to be in a care home but cannot get into one, which is a shame. That is not because they do not have the money. Some have the money, but beds are not available for them. A lady from one of the homes in my constituency told me a couple of weeks ago that she had a waiting list of five people for every bed. As the Minister knows, people usually get
242WH
into nursing homes usually as a result of the death of a client, to put it crudely. We have a structural problem now that things have reached that level.
Another problem in Bridgwater—it applies to the whole of Somerset—is that the mental health department in the county wants to lay off between 45 and 50 people this year because of a funding crisis. I received an e-mail from a constituent, who stated:
"The chief executive admitted at the meeting that services to our patients would suffer as a result of these cuts. This in turn will put extra pressure on the GP's and other primary care staff."
That sums up the problem. The area can ill afford to lose so many mental health professionals. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. It is not a criticism, but it may make him consider the future of a county that has encompassed mental health provision. We bring many people into Bridgwater from elsewhere and ably look after them. Is there any way in which we can bring that to the forefront of people's minds? Unfortunately, it tends to be disastrous when people's mental health is not as good as it should be. All the health care professionals involved suffer, as well as the person who is ill. I do not want blame to be apportioned; I merely want the problem to be sorted out. The Minister could address that.
I want to praise the Somerset Coast primary care trust, which has done a phenomenal job. Its work extends into the constituencies represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, and it has tried to bring health care to the forefront of people's minds in the area. Donald Hinds and Alan Carpenter, the two people at the top. have worked incredibly hard with the general practitioners and all the health care professionals in my constituency and in the other two constituencies to ensure that the trust works. So far, so good, I can safely say. It is marvellous that the trust is creating a system in which GPs and nurses feel that they are part of the team and that people are talking to each other. Last Friday, I was delighted to see the executives of the trust and the health care professionals talking openly about the future.
In the past month, we have had two yellow alerts in Musgrove. There have been 12 medical outlays in July as well. We are a tourist area, and we cannot always cope with problems when we have an influx of tourists. The information about the yellow alerts came from a doctor, as I had wondered about them. Two in one month is not good. We cannot cope, and it does not help when people are in corridors on beds or when they cannot be admitted to hospital because there are no beds. The situation in Musgrove is extremely difficult.
We should consider new hospitals in such areas. They could be built with small accident and emergency departments, out-patient departments and so on. At the moment, in neither of my hospitals are such departments manned all the time. They do not have the capacity or the people, and that point must be considered. Resolving that problem would help the situation dramatically.
The only downside or fear that we have about the strategic health authority is that we have been thrown in with Dorset, and if people in my area need acute care they must go to Dorchester, Poole or Bournemouth. It is a long way to travel from my area to Dorset, through

243WH
the constituency of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. I wonder whether the decision is right; if it works, it will be marvellous, but if it does not it will be difficult for people in Somerset—certainly for those in my constituency. That is why we need those hospitals, because it takes the whole day to go down to Dorset.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on securing this important debate. His passion for his constituency and for health issues in the area is evident. I know Somerset a little, having had occasion to visit Glastonbury in the past. One of the first media events in which I participated on becoming Member of Parliament was to visit Frome's Women's Institute for "Any Questions", so I know how friendly people are in that part of the country. The national health service is vital for people in his constituency and for everyone in the country. I am pleased to take on board much that has been said and to speak on the issue.
The hon. Gentleman referred to two community hospitals in his constituency, at Bridgwater and Minehead, which provide a valuable role and, at least to some extent, enjoy good local support. I join him in expressing my appreciation and thanks to those who work in them for the care and support that they provide to their patients. The hon. Gentleman raised the need for investment and to improve the environment of the two hospitals, which are managed by the Somerset Coast PCT.
I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. Gentleman that as part of the clean hospitals programme, the Government last year provided that PCT with £75,000 to improve cleanliness and decor at hospitals. Extensive refurbishment of community hospitals in Minehead, Williton, Bridgwater and Burnham has now been completed. It included the painting of hospital corridors and foyers, the provision of new signs to give patients clear directions around the hospitals, refurbished toilets and new tables and chairs.
The refurbishment is part of the Government's £60 million investment to improve the environment for patients across the country and comes with the requirement for NHS trusts to carry out monthly cleanliness inspections and quarterly building maintenance audits, to be monitored by strategic health authorities and NHS Estates.
The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the changes to the two hospitals. One would expect a constituency MP to raise such concerns, and I take them on board. It is important to emphasise that the NHS has a new framework; we have been serious about shifting the balance of power from Richmond house to local PCTs in liaison with their strategic health authorities. The debate will be on record, but I encourage the hon. Member to take his views and those of his constituents to the local PCTs, which liaise with the strategic health authority to make those important local decisions.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concerns about mental health care. Those decisions may need to come back to Richmond house. Essentially, investment is shifting the balance of power. We are serious about that and committed to it in the NHS plan. That means that it is for local areas to make any decision.
244WH
I also hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the configuration of the strategic health authority. Again, that involves local decisions, and there are discussions about reconfiguration and other issues elsewhere in the country. That is an issue for the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the health community in the Somerset and Dorset area.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted the problems faced by the local health community in recruiting suitably qualified staff. He will know that the main problem facing the health service is not necessarily the provision of extra money; indeed, people throughout the country will say that they see the resources coming through. The NHS is growing faster than any other health service in Europe and it has undergone the longest sustained period of growth that we have ever known. However, the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned staffing constraints, including the number of trained and qualified staff across a range of specialties. Increasing the work force is therefore a top priority for him and, indeed, the Government. We have said that, by 2004, there will be 7,500 more consultants, 2,000 more GPs, 20,000 extra nurses, 6,500 extra therapists and 1,000 more medical school places, on top of the extra 1,100 already announced. That huge programme of growth is intended to deal with capacity issues that affect some of our larger counties, and particularly those whose population profiles include a large elderly community.
In 1996, there were 2,629 consultant anaesthetists. Five years later, there were 3,549—an extra 900. However, that is simply not enough, and we estimate that we will need another 2,500 consultant anaesthetists over the next nine or 10 years. We expect 1,850, so it looks as if there will be a shortfall. We therefore need a massive recruitment campaign to step up the numbers right across the board.
Trusts in Somerset have been active not only in recruiting the necessary additional staff but in retaining those who currently work in the area. The PCT has attended several career fairs around the country to showcase the facilities that are now available, and that is starting to have positive results. In addition, it offers a range of flexible working conditions, including flexible working patterns, team-based self-rostering, annual hours and flexitime. I understand that it is also looking to develop a child care strategy centre to provide staff with good, accessible and affordable child care. There will also he particular local needs and local ways of recruiting, which the PCT will be well placed to take on board, and I listened with interest to some of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions in that regard.
Several new developments are under way in Somerset. They are the result of the hard work and commitment of staff and of new moneys invested by the Government. They are helping the trust to attract new members of staff from across the country, and I want to mention some of the exciting new services in the Somerset area. A £17 million oncology centre is due to open in 2005. It will significantly improve services for the people of Taunton and Somerset, while reducing the need for patients to travel to Bristol for treatment. The Dene Barton House medical step-down unit has been developed at a cost of £700,000. That vital unit provides on-going care for patients once they have left the acute wards of Taunton and Somerset hospital, but before they are ready to go home, and it enables the trust to

245WH
reduce the length of time that people stay in hospital unnecessarily following treatment. It also helps to free beds in the district general hospital that are taken by patients who are waiting for nursing home places and who would be better placed outside the hospital environment.
A new cardiac catheter lab and angioplasty service have been developed at a cost of £420,000. The new service will increase the range of services available to the people of Taunton and Somerset, while reducing the need for patients to travel to Bristol. Those significant new investments will lead to an improved service for patients and show the commitment of the local NHS to providing specialist services closer to home, so that patients need not travel long distances for treatment.
I take on board many of the suggestions that have been made. I hope that the investment, alongside the ideas and good practice that have arisen as a result of the PCT's work with the hon. Gentleman and others, is the beginning of a health journey for people in the Somerset area. We are starting to see the benefits of investment and reform, both nationally and locally. Waiting time figures have improved significantly. The trust met its 2001 NHS plan targets of no patients waiting in excess of 15 months for in-patient treatment, or 26 weeks for out-patient treatment, by March 2002. It also achieved a maximum in-patient wait of 14 months and reduced the number waiting in excess of 13 weeks for an out-patient appointment to 971.
The trust will achieve the NHS plan target of a maximum 21-week out-patient wait by March 2003 and will move towards a 13-week maximum during 2003–04. Waiting list figures should continue to improve following the redevelopment of existing theatres and ward areas, the establishment of additional beds and the development of a diagnostic and treatment centre.
The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about delayed discharges, and linked the problem to the geography and population profile of his constituency, which
246WH
includes a large elderly population because people retire there. A few weeks ago, I was in Devon, where there are similar issues because of the nature of the county. He is right that there are too many delayed discharges, not only in Somerset but across the country. However, we are investing record amounts of money in social services. The Chancellor's Budget commitment to double annual increases in social services funding for the next three years will give social services departments the money that they need to build care capacity in the future.
We have already taken action to maintain capacity in the care home sector, to ensure that older people get the choice of a care home place when they need it. An extra £300 million has been allocated to local authorities to build capacity locally. From this, Somerset county council received £2.25 million. Our monitoring shows that at least half of that money has gone to support care homes with fee increases of between 3 and 10 per cent. since last September. The rest is enabling older people to stay in their own homes or to avoid having to go into hospital in the first place.
The number of delayed discharges is also falling as a result of the investment, which has ensured that people get the care that they need in the right place. In March 2001 there were 5,938 beds blocked but there were only 4,691 in March 2002.
We have already taken action to ensure that the care standards do not lead to the closure of good quality care homes. We will continue to monitor the situation and will take further action if necessary. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the on going discussions between the local council and independent care home providers to address local concerns.
In conclusion, I would like to praise the staff working in the Somerset Coast PCT. I am pleased to support the hon. Gentleman's view that their dedication and commitment is highly commendable.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  India
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the High Commissioner for India to discuss the security situation there. [69590]

  Mr. Straw
  I last met the High Commissioner on 30 June.

  I visited India and Pakistan on 18–20 July. After my meetings I said that we welcomed the steps taken by Pakistan to stop cross-border infiltration and Indian de-escalatory measures, but we remained deeply concerned about the military mobilisation on both sides of the border I stressed the need for a permanent end to cross-border infiltration and the importance of the forthcoming Jammu & Kashmir elections being free, fair and inclusive. We will continue to work with our international partners to encourage India and Pakistan to find ways to return to productive dialogue on all the outstanding issues between them, including Kashmir.

  The House should also know that I published revised travel advice yesterday which, because of the reduced tension between India and Pakistan, no longer advises British citizens to avoid travelling to India or those already in India to consider leaving. I have modified the travel advice for Pakistan, but this has to take account of the continuing internal terrorist threat.

  Middle East
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role the Government are playing in securing peace in the middle east. [69595]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Her Majesty's Government remains closely engaged in efforts to end the violence and resume a political process leading to a final settlement. We are supervising the detention of six Palestinian detainees in Jericho, and stand ready to assist with Palestinian reform in whatever way we can. I discussed the issue with Palestinian and Israeli leaders when I visited the region between 1 and 3 July.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the present situation in the middle east peace process. [69601]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government are committed to a negotiated and comprehensive settlement between Israel and her Arab neighbours along the lines set out in the declaration made by European leaders at Seville on 21 June. We welcome the Statement of the Quartet (US, EU, UN and Russia), which reaffirmed the goal of a final Israeli-Palestinian settlement within three years. It stated 880W
  that progress in the political, security, economic, humanitarian, and institution-building fields must proceed together. All parties have a role to play. The Palestinians must conduct security, political and economic reform, with an action plan agreed by the Quartet leading to a Palestinian state committed to combating terror. Israel must take immediate and concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable Palestinian state, including easing restrictions, releasing tax revenues, and freezing settlement activity consistent with the Mitchell Committee's recommendations. The UK will continue to offer political and practical assistance wherever possible.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is undertaking with Arab Governments to secure their help in the middle east peace process. [69606]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We welcomed the Arab peace initiative, adopted by Arab states in Beirut on 28 March. We welcome the role played by key Arab states in supporting the Quartet's Action Plan for Reform of the Palestinian Authority and Resumption of a Political Process. We regularly discuss the way forward with Arab leaders. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently met President Mubarak, King Abdullah, Prime Minister Hariri and Foreign Minister Maher. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is also in frequent contact with Arab leaders. We met Palestinian Minister for Planning and International Cooperation, Nabil Sha'ath, on 25 June. I met President Arafat and other Palestinian leaders when I visited the Palestinian Authority between 2 and 3 July.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role the Government are playing in securing peace in the middle east. [69613]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Her Majesty's Government remain closely engaged in efforts to end the violence and resume a political process leading to a final settlement. We are supervising the detention of six Palestinian detainees in Jericho, and stand ready to assist with Palestinian reform in whatever way we can. I discussed the issue with Palestinian and Israeli leaders when I visited the region between 1 and 3 July.

  EU Enlargement
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on progress being made towards the enlargement of the EU. [69596]

  Peter Hain
  The Foreign Secretary and I have had regular discussions with all our EU counterparts to keep progress on enlargement on track.

  EU Overseas Aid
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts about the policy underlying the distribution of the EU overseas aid package. [69597]

  Peter Hain
  EU Foreign Ministers discussed the overseas aid package at the General Affairs Council on 18 February. We agreed on the need to make the EU's external actions, including its aid programmes, more targeted, effective and responsive.

  UN Peacekeeping Operations
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of United Nations peacekeeping operations. [69598]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UN's involvement in peacekeeping and crisis management continues to be significant. There are 15 peacekeeping operations world wide, involving 45,145 troops, military observers and civilian police from 83 countries. Many of these operations are now in support of solutions to complex intra-state conflicts and tensions; many involve countries close to, or at risk of, collapse.

  EU Presidency
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Greek Government about their priorities for the EU presidency. [69599]

  Peter Hain
  We are in regular touch with our Greek partners. I am visiting Athens tomorrow. Their presidency priorities include enlargement, immigration, and economic reform.

  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Greek Government about their forthcoming EU presidency and EU enlargement. [69577]

  Peter Hain
  We are in regular touch with our Greek partners. I am visiting Athens tomorrow. Their presidency priorities include enlargement, immigration and economic reform.

  Missile Defence
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the US administration regarding UK participation in the US missile defence programme. [69600]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK and the US administration have discussed over time issues relating to missile defence.

  These include the threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, and the role that missile defence could play in countering these threats. However, it remains the case that the US has not yet decided how it wishes to proceed with missile defence and has made no request for the use of facilities in the UK.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussion he has had with the Russian Government on Chechnya. [69603]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last raised the situation in Chechnya in June, when he discussed the human rights situation in the republic with the Russian Foreign Minister.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the economic situation in Zimbabwe. [69604]

  Mr. MacShane
  What is happening in Zimbabwe is a man-made tragedy. The country is running out of food and its economy is imploding. Ultimately, Zimbabwe's only way back to sustainable development is through respect for the rule of law, a return to democratic principles and sensible economic policies.

  European Union (Aspirant Countries)
  Mr. Mike Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with leaders of countries seeking to join the EU; and if he will make a statement. [69607]

  Peter Hain
  The Foreign Secretary and I have had regular discussions with all our EU counterparts to keep progress on enlargement on track.

  Sudan
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what areas of the Sudan are out-of-bounds to humanitarian organisations; and if he will make a statement. [69608]

  Mr. MacShane
  Humanitarian access is difficult to many areas of Sudan where conflict exists. The Government of Sudan and the SPLM have committed themselves to facilitating humanitarian access to all legions of Sudan and there is no formal ban on access to any area.

  International Criminal Court
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is having with his counterparts in the USA about the International Criminal Court. [69609]

  Mr. MacShane
  We are in regular contact with the US Administration in respect of this issue. Officials have made several approaches, both bilaterally and in conjunction with EU partners, encouraging the US to ratify the Rome Statute. And we have repeatedly made clear that, while we understand US concerns that the Court might bring malicious or politically-motivated charges against US personnel, we do not share them. The Statute of the Court contains safeguards against this. Most recently, and in connection with the renewal of the UN Security Council mandate in respect of peacekeepers in Bosnia (UNMIBH), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has had a number of conversations with his US counterpart. The outcome was Resolution 1422, unanimously adopted on 12 July 2002, which respects the Statute of the Court and allows the US to continue to participate in UN peacekeeping operations.

  Gibraltar
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will cease further talks with Spain about the future of Gibraltar. [69610]
  883W
  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 12 July 2002,Official Report, column 1165.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what way the infrastructure of Gibraltar would improve under the proposed sharing of sovereignty of Gibraltar between Britain and Spain. [71166]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 12 July 2002,Official Report, column 1166.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conditions were set by the Government of Gibraltar in order for the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to participate in the talks. [71164]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1307W.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people in Gibraltar have indicated to him they would wish to take Spanish nationality. [71596]

  Peter Hain
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the House on 12 July 2002,Official Report, column 1166, we are in broad agreement with Spain on many of the principles that should underpin a lasting settlement to the Gibraltar dispute, including that Gibraltarians should retain the right to British nationality and gain in addition the right to Spanish nationality as well if they so choose.

  Organisation of African Unity
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent talks between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo at the OAU summit in South Africa. [69611]

  Mr. MacShane
  The conflict in the Great Lakes region must be resolved through negotiations between the parties. We therefore welcome the recent talks in Durban between the Presidents of Rwanda and the DRC. We are encouraged by the decision to hold follow-up talks between senior officials on 18 July in South Africa. We welcome the role that the Government of South Africa and in particular, President Mbeki, continue to play in trying to help resolve this long-standing conflict.

  Cyprus
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of Cyprus towards accession to the European Union. [69612]

  Peter Hain
  Cyprus has made good progress in its EU accession negotiations, having opened 30 of the 31 negotiating chapters and provisionally closed 28. At Seville, the European Council set out its intention of concluding negotiations with Cyprus along with nine other countries by the end of this year, provided progress 884W
  is maintained, and also reiterated that the Helsinki conclusions formed the basis of the EU's position in respect of the accession of Cyprus.

  Developing Countries
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Union's role with respect to supporting trade with, and increasing aid to, developing countries. [69614]

  Peter Hain
  We continue to push hard for an EU market more open to developing countries, especially the poorest, and for EU member states to join us in hugely increasing their aid budgets.

  Official Photographers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions during the last 12 months an official photographer has accompanied(a) him and (b) other Ministers in his Department on official visits (i) overseas and (ii) within the UK; what (A) travel expenses, (B) costs of equipment and processing, (C) staff payment and (D) other costs were incurred on each occasion; what publications official photographs have appeared in during the last 12 months and what terms and conditions were attached to the publication of such photographs; and whether photographs taken on official visits are available for use in non-governmental literature. [62832]

  Mr. MacShane
  The FCO does not employ an official photographer. However, photographs, from a variety of sources, including those taken by Ministers and members of staff of the FCO's work are posted on the FCO website or are used in publications.

  Asylum Seekers
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many asylum seekers have entered a United Kingdom overseas mission in China in each year since 1997; what their nationality was; how many were granted asylum; and if he will make a statement. [62909]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have not received any applications for asylum in any of our missions in China since 1997.

  Open Source Software
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is towards using open source software; and what percentage is used in his Department. [69317]

  Mr. MacShane
  The FCO awards software contracts on a value for money basis and is prepared to consider open source software solutions alongside proprietary ones in IT procurements. We have no figures available on FCO usage of open source software.

  The FCO's use of OSS will follow the Government policy once it is published this summer. The draft policy can be viewed at: http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/rfc/rfc_document.asp?docnum=429.

  Consultation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [69806]

  Mr. MacShane
  A list of consultations undertaken by the FCO since 1997 is as follows:Panel 2000 (future role of the FCO)

  (a) yes

  (b) yes

  (c) 10 September 1998

  (d) 15 November 1998

  Ascension Island

  (a) yes

  (b) yes

  (c) 22 April 1999

  (d) 30 June 1999

  International Criminal Court: consultation on draft legislation

  (a) yes

  (b) yes

  (c) 1 August 2000

  (d) 12 October 2000

  Private military companies: options for regulation

  (a) yes

  (b) yes

  (c) 12 February 2002

  (d) 12 August 2002

  Strengthening the biological and toxin weapons convention

  (a) yes

  (b) yes

  (c) 29 April 2002

  (d) 13 September 2002.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how long his Department allowed for consultation of each consultation document it published in 2001 in(a) electronic and (b) printed form; [70453]

  (2) 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; [70454]

  (3) in what format his Department has published the results of its 2001 written consultations; [70455]

  (4) 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; [70456]

  (5) how many complaints his Department has received about its 2001 consultations in (a) electronic and (b) printed form; [70457]

  (6) which consultation documents published by his Department in 2001 were not made available as paper copies. [70458]
  886W
  Mr. MacShane
  The FCO produced no consultation documents in 2001.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has a designated consultation co-ordinator in accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations. [70459]

  Mr. MacShane
  Yes.

  Sierra Leone
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the potential for the continued fighting in Liberia to threaten the stability of Sierra Leone. [70878]

  Mr. MacShane
  UNAMSIL and the Government of Sierra Leone have taken measures to minimise the impact of the conflict in Liberia on the emerging peace in Sierra Leone. The UK supports regional and international efforts to bring the conflict in Liberia to an end to halt the worsening humanitarian situation in the sub-region. A considerable number of innocent civilians have been displaced in Liberia, and others have sought refuge in Sierra Leone. We continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 10 July,Official Report, column 1017W, what conditions in Macedonia have to be met. [71131]

  Mr. MacShane
  With regard to the UK ratification of the SAA, we have made it clear to the Macedonian Government that we expect to see the continuing implementation of the August 13 agreement, including free and democratic parliamentary elections, rights for all ethnic groups and rule of law.

  Nepal
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether military assistance to be provided to Nepal by the UK will include training and capacity building initiatives for its security forces. [71353]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Nepali government has our full support, and we are committed to providing continuity development, political and miliary assistance to help them overcome this crisis.

  We intend to implement a number of training programmes designed specifically for the Nepalese security forces. The Nepalese police will receive assistance to help them modernise and enhance their professionalism. We intend to do this through UK and local technical assistance and aim to help local communities by increasing their access to open and accountable policing.

  We will also provide training for the Royal Nepalese Army in peace support operations and human rights awareness programmes. This should increase the protection of human rights by way of improved awareness of humanitarian laws and the better reporting of human rights violations.

  Catherine Meyer Case
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Lord Chancellor concerning the Catherine Meyer case. [71591]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is the lead Department on Hague Convention cases. In 1995 Lady Meyer ceased to pursue court proceeding under the Hague Convention for the return of her children. At that point the Lord Chancellor's Department ceased to be involved in her case. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department have offered a joint meeting to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) to discuss Lady Meyer's case and the operation of the Hague Convention.

  Entry Clearance
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet hon. Member s to discuss entry clearance issues relating to his travel advice before 24 July. [71590]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I shall be meeting hon. Members on Wednesday 24 July from 3.30 pm to 4.30 pm in Committee Room 18.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether sanctions on Iraq cover fibre optic cables. [71751]

  Mr. MacShane
  Yes. The Goods Review List (GRL) introduced by UN Security Council resolution 1409 (2002) lists all dual-use and military goods whose export to Iraq under the UN Oil for Food programme is subject t to review by the UN Sanctions Committee. The list, which is publicly accessible on the UN website at www.un.org/Departments/oip/index.html, includes fibre optic cables. All other exports under the Oil for Food programme not included on the GRL are approved automatically by the UN Secretariat.

  Information Campaigns
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [70206]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: In financial year 2001–02 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office spent £1,448,314 on information literature and £6,434 on advertising. The figure for information literature includes expenditure on consular publicity campaigns, such as "Know Before You Go", which is run jointly with the travel industry to help ensure that travellers are well prepared for conditions abroad. Expenditure on advertising for recruitment is excluded, as identifying this expenditure would entail disproportionate effort and cost.

  British Council (Indemnity Undertakings)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many indemnity undertakings were given by his Department in respect of loss or damage to works of art loaned to the British Council for exhibition overseas for the 12-month period ended March 2002; and what the value was of contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings which remained outstanding at that date. [72877]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Council, although not a Government Department, receives a substantial grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Council regularly organises or sponsors exhibitions overseas of works of art loaned from national galleries and private collections in the United Kingdom. It provides certain assurances or guarantees in respect of loss or damage while these works are on loan.

  In the 12-month period ended 31 March 2002 the British Council provided such assurances to four national lenders and undertakings to 193 private lenders. The value of the contingent liabilities that remained outstanding as at 31 March 2002 in respect of private lenders was £4,358,822. No contingent liabilities remained outstanding at this date in respect of national lenders.

  Sino-British Declaration
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish the next report to Parliament on Hong Kong and the Sino-British Joint Declaration. [72878]

  Mr. MacShane
  The eleventh report in this series, covering the period January-June 2002, was published today and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. A copy of the report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website, www.fco.gov.uk. The report includes a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I commend the report to the House.

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the annual report of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy will be available. [72879]

  Peter Hain
  I have arranged for copies of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy's annual report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Foundation has continued its crucial work in building and developing democracy overseas during the last 12 months. The Foundation received a grant-in-aid of £4.156 million from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and further £390,056 of funds earmarked for specific purposes. In addition it received funds from the European Union, the United Nations Development Programme and the Department for International Development.

  Most of the Foundation's activities were in its priority areas of central and eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and Anglophone Africa. The Foundation initiated an important technical assistance programme in Sierra Leone, promoting the development of political parties in the principles of peaceful and responsible conduct

  889W
  in political life. The significant contribution that the Foundation has made to the development of democracy in the Balkans was strongly endorsed by an independent evaluation of its Bosnia programme.

  Cayman Islands (Human Rights)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the compatibility of legislation passed in the Cayman Islands with the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and with the European convention on human rights 1972; and what decisions he has made as to whether such legislation is ultra vires with Orders in Council made by the Secretary of State under UK Acts of Parliament. [72161]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Cayman Islands' legislation is scrutinised by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure its constitutionality and its compatibility with the Islands' obligations arising under the European convention on human rights and other international agreements. The UK Human Rights Act 1998 does not extend to the Cayman Islands and is therefore not directly considered.

  No Cayman Islands' legislation has been disallowed in recent years because it was found to be ultra vires with an Order in Council made under a UK Act of Parliament.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what independent reviews of human rights issues obtained in the Cayman Islands have been commissioned by his Department; and if he will place a copy of the reports on such reviews in the Library. [72160]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  An independent review of human rights in the Cayman Islands has been commissioned and is being undertaken by a UK consultancy. Once the report is available and has been released in the Caymans. a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Diplomatic Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many new entrants to the diplomatic service in 2001 were(a) educated at independent school, (b) educated at public school, (c) educated at state school and (d) describe themselves as disabled; and for each category, whether they were (i) policy entrants or (ii) operational entrants. [72052]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien

  (a) and (b) are counted together as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office only differentiates between independent and state schools. 28 new entrants were educated at independent schools. 14 were policy and 14 were operational entrants.

  (c) 48 new entrants were educated at state schools. 16 were policy and 32 were operational entrants.

  (d) Two new entrants described themselves as having a disability. One policy and one operational entrant.

  These figures are published in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's 2002 departmental report.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ambassadors and high commissioners are(a) from an ethnic minority background and (b) describe themselves as disabled. [72051]
  890W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As at 1 July 2002 there were three members of the Senior Management Structure (SMS) who had declared themselves to be from an ethnic minority background. None of them is currently serving as either an ambassador or as a high commissioner.

  Seven members of the SMS had declared themselves to have a disability. Two of these are currently serving as either an ambassador or a high commissioner.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost was of publishing his Department's annual report for each of the past five years. [70478]

  Mr. MacShane
  The table shows the costs incurred by the FCO in publishing our annual departmental report; the figures do not include staff time which could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The table reflects only those costs that fall directly to the FCO, any other printing and publication costs are met directly by the publisher, The Stationery Office Ltd. (TSO), and do not fall to Government.

  £

  2002–03

  35,208

  2001–02

  24,314

  2000–01

  17,829

  1999–2000

  18,000

  1998–99

  20,114

PRIME MINISTER

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister how many complaints have been made by civil servants to the(a) Secretary of the Cabinet and (b) First Civil Service Commissioner regarding the actions of departmental special advisers since May 1997. [71721]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will instruct the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply to the letter to him dated 23 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. J. Greenhalgh. [72137]

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has replied to the right hon. Member's letter.

  Renewable Energy
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals in support of increasing the use of renewable energy he intends to present to the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg; and what recent representations he has received in support of renewable energy. [72297]
  891W
  The Prime Minister
  The UK supports agreement at the World Summit on Sustainable Development on a range of measures to support the increased use of renewable energy, including removing harmful subsidies for the use of fossil fuels, setting a global target for the use of renewable energy, and enhanced international co-operation on research and development and market reform. The Government are investing over £260 million in the development of renewable power over three years,892W
  in addition to the work of the Carbon Trust and others active in this field. As a result of the spending review the DTI will he announcing further investment in renewable technologies.

  I have received over 400 campaign cards from members of the public supporting a campaign by Greenpeace and the Body Shop to provide renewable energy to the two billion people currently without access to energy.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Open Source Software
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is towards using open source software; and what percentage is used in her Department. [69304]

  Clare Short
  Use of open source software within DFID is currently under review. At present no open source software is in operational use.

  CPI Consultancies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide a

  HIV/AIDS related expenditure by country 1997–98 to 2001–021

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Afghanistan

  0

  0

  132

  0

  351

  Albania

  0

  0

  180

  0

  0

  Angola

  0

  0

  0

  106

  0

  Bangladesh

  1,873

  5,358

  15,011

  24,113

  17,886

  Belarus, Republic of

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  Bolivia

  180

  182

  499

  1,189

  2,294

  Brazil

  0

  0

  44

  65

  10

  Burkina Faso

  0

  0

  27

  0

  0

  Burma

  0

  332

  232

  463

  57

  Burundi

  0

  0

  146

  0

  0

  Cambodia

  151

  716

  438

  620

  906

  Cameroon

  19

  35

  70

  13

  0

  China

  0

  0

  1,185

  2,473

  2,426

  Colombia

  0

  95

  80

  0

  0

  Congo, Democratic Republic

  41

  41

  0

  0

  0

  Cuba

  0

  0

  0

  87

  49

  Ecuador

  0

  0

  0

  82

  83

  Ethiopia

  25

  41

  107

  183

  92

  Ghana

  19

  15

  136

  140

  129

  Guatemala

  96

  95

  96

  0

  0

  Guyana

  125

  146

  55

  188

  84

  Haiti

  0

  0

  0

  22

  72

  Honduras

  0

  0

  127

  153

  123

  India

  2,979

  2,571

  3,876

  4,196

  5,894

  Iran

  0

  0

  259

  161

  334

  Kazakhstan, Republic of

  0

  0

  181

  158

  13

  Kenya

  2,863

  5,684

  5,176

  5,986

  8,011

  Laos

  0

  0

  14

  9

  0

  Lesotho

  205

  142

  168

  130

  74

  Macedonia

  0

  0

  46

  12

  0

  Malawi

  5,270

  156

  1,663

  4,409

  14,219

  Mali

  0

  0

  0

  25

  80

  Mexico

  0

  0

  49

  55

  42

  Moldova, Republic of

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  Mongolia

  0

  0

  0

  45

  24

  Montserrat

  0

  33

  256

  300

  424

  Mozambique

  72

  283

  491

  6,500

  7,079

  Namibia

  7

  197

  261

  290

  166

  Nepal

  0

  162

  216

  363

  1,886

  Nicaragua

  0

  37

  181

  193

  90

  Nigeria

  524

  576

  795

  1,939

  2,015

  Pakistan

  595

  746

  1,242

  337

  2,472

  Peru

  650

  400

  499

  378

  118

  Russian Federation

  0

  67

  184

  246

  576

  Rwanda

  0

  0

  0

  34

  1,072

  Senegal

  0

  0

  45

  119

  147

  Serbia and Montenegro

  0

  0

  0

  204

  807

  894W
  breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 1998–99 on CPI consultancies referred to on page 105 of the 2002 departmental report. [67513]

  Clare Short
  This expenditure was incurred on price investigations for contracts funded by DFID, primarily arising out of continuing commitments under the aid and trade provision. A breakdown of these figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding her Department has given for HIV/AIDS projects in each country in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [67867]

  Clare Short
  The information requested is set out in the table. Please note these figures do not include expenditure on regional programmes or non-region specific work on programmes and research from the UK.
  895W

  HIV/AIDS related expenditure by country 1997–98 to 2001–021

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Sierra Leone

  0

  162

  709

  553

  408

  Somali Democratic Republic

  0

  28

  43

  52

  6

  South Africa, Republic of

  1,596

  3,933

  3,499

  6,215

  5,570

  South Pacific

  1,596

  3,959

  3,579

  6,312

  5,662

  Sri Lanka

  0

  25

  80

  97

  82

  States of ex Yugoslavia

  0

  0

  3,326

  417

  0

  Sudan

  0

  99

  107

  166

  452

  Swaziland

  56

  42

  50

  112

  54

  Tanzania

  1,844

  2,212

  3,161

  6,993

  46,944

  Togo

  80

  124

  114

  173

  47

  Uganda

  3,443

  3,382

  3,592

  2,972

  2,103

  Ukraine

  0

  0

  208

  112

  52

  Vietnam

  0

  0

  0

  0

  76

  West Bank and Gaza

  0

  0

  350

  962

  575

  Zambia

  1,808

  3,573

  2,941

  31,621

  32,012

  Zimbabwe

  1,731

  2,038

  3,498

  4,572

  8,778

  1Provisional

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what impact assessments have been made of the projects funded by her Department which seek to tackle the spread of HIV/AIDS in developing countries. [68323]

  Clare Short
  My Department's bilateral programmes are routinely monitored and evaluated as a matter of course. Impact assessments have been conducted on a range of our HIV/AIDS-related work, including condom social marketing programmes, palliative care for people living with HIV/AIDS, and support for adolescent sexual and reproductive health education.

  Yugoslavia
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in de-mining in the former Yugoslavia. [68223]

  Clare Short
  It has proved difficult to obtain the full details requested from all parts of the FRY. I will write with the details and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Education for All
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the UK Government have taken in support of the World Bank's Action Plan to Accelerate Progress Towards Education for All; what input the UK delegation had in the discussions on the Education for All initiative at the recent G8 summit in Kananaskis; and how much financial assistance the UK Government plan to provide to the World bank's proposed fast-tracked countries within the Education for All initiative. [68121]

  Clare Short
  The Government are strongly committed to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on education and are working to mobilise the international community in support of them. The World Bank has a critical role in supporting countries as they seek to give priority to education, and primary education in particular, within the overall context of their poverty reduction strategies. We have been working with the bank to develop its new Action Plan for Accelerating Progress Towards Education for All.
  896W
  We believe the World Bank 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 Government were successful in calling for the fast-track initiative to include Nigeria and Ethiopia, where over 14 million children are out of school. If offers 18 poor 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 five countries can apply for assistance in building capacity, filling gaps in data and developing effective policies for primary education.

  At the Kananaskis summit, where G8 leaders considered the education needs of developing countries, the UK endorsed the action plan as an important opportunity to fast-track progress towards Education for All. G8 leaders approved the G8 Education Task Force report, which makes clear the need for increased support for basic education from the G8 countries and the importance of the bank's fast-track initiative in mobilising financial resources. Under its Africa Action Plan, the G8 agreed to increase significantly the support provided bilaterally to basic education for countries in Africa with a strong policy and financial commitment to the sector.

  The Government are committed to further increasing our support for basic education, particularly in Africa. We will continue to work with the World bank to support their fast track proposals. Further discussions will be held in Washington on 17 July. This meeting, together with the outcome of the spending review to be announced shortly by the Chancellor, will help determine the level of the Government's additional financial support for basic education in the proposed fast-track countries.

  Calgary G8 Meeting
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people attended the G8 meeting in Calgary from her Department; and what the total cost of the visit was. [68392]
  897W
  Clare Short
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: No officials from the Department for International Development attended the G8 summit meeting in Canada.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking towards tackling hunger in Zimbabwe. [69011]

  Clare Short
  I have now allocated £32 million to help meet food and health needs in Zimbabwe in the current humanitarian situation.

  DFID has provided £4 million since September 2001 for a supplementary feeding programme implemented by NGOs, targeting 400,000 people (mainly children) in the worst hit areas of Zimbabwe. At the beginning of January 2002, we made a contribution of £6 million to the UN's Humanitarian Assistance and Recovery Programme; £3.5 million for WFP feeding programmes and £2.5 million for essential drugs and health supplies through the WHO.

  In response to the recent reassessment of needs by the World Food Programme and their new regional appeal, I have allocated a further £22 million for Zimbabwe, of which £7 million will be provided through the WFP appeal; £10 million will be channelled through nongovernmental organisations to extend direct feeding programmes; and £5 million will be spent again through NGOs on agricultural recovery. We are monitoring NGO and WFP feeding programmes closely to ensure that they are targeted on a needs basis, and that complaints about political bias are tackled effectively.

  Agency

  Country

  Project

  Funding 2002–03 (£)

  Islamic Relief

  Mali

  Gourma Rharous Community Development Programme

  44,096

  Christian Outreach

  Cambodia

  Agriculture. Business and Commodity Development Activities

  57,851

  Youth With a Mission

  Uganda

  Community Based Health Care

  9,845

  Quaker Peace

  Lebanon

  Vocational Training

  43,784

  SIL UK

  Ghana

  Adult Education and Development

  79,720

  World Vision

  Burma

  Street and Working Children

  83,329

  World Vision

  Burma

  Community Based Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation

  14,350

  World Vision

  Laos

  Savannekhet Integrated Rural Development Project

  39,180

  World Vision

  Laos

  Creating Opportunities

  29,406

  World Vision

  Angola

  Luanda Civil Society Strengthening Programme

  103,702

  World Vision

  Armenia

  Civic Initiatives Project

  83,969

  World Vision

  Burma

  Community Action for HIV/AIDS Support

  84,355

  World Vision

  Indonesia

  Maluka Peace and Reconciliation Project

  130,584

  World Vision

  Tanzania

  Advocating for FGM Eradication

  58,585

  World Vision

  Uganda

  Pokatusa Peace Project

  58,136

  Aga Khan Foundation

  Uganda

  Programme for Enhancement of Universal Primary Education

  94,588

  Aga Khan Foundation

  Tanzania

  Gender Equity and Children's Rights—Primary Education

  34,403

  Aga Khan Foundation

  Tajikistan

  Health promotion

  33,585

  Leprosy Mission

  Guinea

  Disability Control/Community Awareness

  74,100

  Leprosy Mission

  India

  Community Based Leprosy Control Project

  25,066

  Leprosy Mission

  India

  Access to Health Service and Information

  70,050

  Leprosy Mission

  India

  Vocational Training for Earning Power

  58,564

  Tear Fund

  Uganda

  Kigezi Diocese Water and Sanitation Programme

  75,000

  Tear Fund

  India

  Primary Health Care Training Programme

  16,112

  Christian Outreach (CORD)

  Cambodia

  Agriculture, Business and Community Development Programme

  57,851

  Y-Care International

  South Africa

  Adult Sexual Reproductive Health

  39,432

  Faith Communities
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list projects involving faith communities which are supported by her Department. [71850]

  Clare Short
  A full account of projects supported through my Department with faith communities is not held centrally. To provide full details would involve disproportionate cost.

  Through DFID country programmes we are supporting initiatives through faith based groups in the provision of services (health, micro credit); in peace-building processes; relief, rehabilitation and disaster preparedness; and in election monitoring and voter education.

  We are also providing £7.8 million during 2002–03 to faith based organisations in the UK (Christian Aid, CAFOD and CIIR) through Partnership Programme Agreements. One of the aims of the Christian Aid and CAFOD agreements is to strengthen a global alliance of Christian Churches and other faith groups to eradicate poverty.

  In developing faith-specific literature to promote awareness of the Millennium Development Goals and development issues, a series of booklets have been co-produced with a number of faith based groups: Christian (Protestant and Catholic), Jewish, Islamic and Sikh.

  We are also supporting 26 projects with UK faith based organisations in a variety of sectors through the Civil Society Challenge Fund—total value £1.5 million in 2002–03. Details are as follows:

  Uganda
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the Government of Sudan regarding the Lords Resistance Army in Northern Uganda. [71370]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: I discussed the activities of the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) with the Government of Sudan during my visit to Sudan in January. I have also discussed the LRA with the Ugandans on a number of occasions. Our embassies in Khartoum and Kampala have had regular discussions with the Sudanese and the Ugandans about the LRA in northern Uganda.

  International Development Association
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much the Government will contribute to the 13th Replenishment of the International Development Association. [73105]

  Clare Short
  I have decided that the UK will contribute £900 million to the three-year, 13th Replenishment of IDA (IDA-13)—the concessional lending arm of the World bank. This represents a 10.1 per cent. share of IDA-13 donor resources, up from £511 million (7.3 per cent. share) at the last replenishment. The increase reflects the high importance the British Government attaches to IDA, which is one of the most effective channels for reducing poverty in the poorest countries.

  The UK will also contribute up to an additional £100 million during the course of IDA-13 towards the cost of compensating IDA for the future loss in loan re-flows resulting from the provision of 18–21 per cent. of IDA-13 resources on grant terms. This contribution is conditional on donors agreeing an appropriate system for funding the enlarged grant provision at the IDA-13 Mid-Term Review in 2003.

  Microcredit Summit
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which Ministers will represent the Government at the Microcredit summit plus five meeting in New York in November; and if she will make a statement. [71389]

  Clare Short
  I plan to attend the annual CGAP meeting in September in Morocco to join discussions on how to improve donor effectiveness in micro-finance, but I do not plan to attend the Microcredit summit as well.

  DFID will be represented at the summit at official level. We have invited funding applications to enable would-be participants from developing countries to attend the event.

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the level of forced labour and forced militarisation of refugees in refugee camps in Afghanistan. [71142]

  Clare Short
  We are aware of reports of forcible recruitment of young men, militia domination of camps for internally displaced people (IDPs) and sexual violence. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR), in close co-ordination with the Afghan Transitional 900W
  Administration (ATA), are currently investigating the reported security incidents and discussing what measures might be put in place to prevent further repetition.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether it is her policy to ensure that documents referred to in parliamentary answers are available via her Department's website. [72273]

  Clare Short
  Where documents published by DFID are referred to in parliamentary answers, it is normal policy to have those documents available in print and in electronic form from the date of publication.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for how long she retains documents referred to in parliamentary answers on her Department's website. [72269]

  Clare Short
  Where documents published by DFID are referred to in parliamentary answers, it is normal policy to keep those documents available in print and in electronic form from the date of publication until they are superseded by a subsequent edition or, in the case of consultation documents, by the final version of the document.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the(a) dates, (b) location and (c) sources were of attributable (i) articles, interviews or contributions for the media, books or other journals and (ii) speeches or presentations made in the public domain. by departmental special advisers since March 2001; who in her Department authorised the activity; and on what date this activity was recorded with the departmental Head of Information. [72249]

  Clare Short
  No such attributable activities were undertaken by departmental special advisers.

  Liberia
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the levels of political violence in Liberia; and what discussions she has had with the British High Commission in Liberia regarding political violence. [71146]

  Mr. Straw
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are very concerned at the escalation in fighting in Liberia and have called on all warring parties to declare a ceasefire and enter meaningful dialogue. We are also concerned that President Taylor has used the fighting to justify increased repression, including the imposition of a state of emergency. United National sanctions against Liberia have been effective in disrupting President Taylor's links with the RUF and made it harder for him to obtain weapons. We have urged all countries in the region to implement the sanctions vigorously.

  There is no permanent British representation in Liberia. We monitor the situation closely from our embassy in Abidjan, and hope shortly to have an officer based in the American embassy in Monrovia, reporting to our embassy in Abidjan.

DEFENCE

  Salisbury Plain
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures are in place to inform National Air Traffic Services of(a) military flying exercises and (b) artillery firing exercises in the vicinity of Salisbury Plain. [65196]

  Mr. Ingram
  The procedures for informing National Air Traffic Services Ltd. of all military flying and artillery firing exercises are laid down in the Aeronautical Information Publication. I have placed copies of the most relevant extracts from this document in the Library of the House.

  Overseas Deployments
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK regular forces have been committed overseas in each month since 1 January. [69768]

  Dr. Moonie
  The table shows the average number and percentage of trained service personnel deployed on military tasks overseas in the first six months of 2002. This includes personnel deployed on operations (e.g. in Afghanistan) and ongoing commitments (e.g. in Cyprus).

  Number

  Percentage

  4th quarter 2001–021

  Navy (including Marines)

  5,270

  14.1

  Army

  9,843

  9.7

  Air Force

  4,574

  9.3

  1st quarter 2002–032

  Navy (including Marines)

  5,211

  13.9

  Army

  9,992

  9.9

  Air Force

  4,314

  8.8

  1 January-March 2002

  2 April"June 2002

  In addition to the above, we estimate that around 5–6 per cent. of trained service personnel are either preparing for, or recovering from, deployment on military tasks overseas.

  Royal Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the cost to the defence budget of(a) opening a diagnostic and treatment centre at Haslar and (b) closing it in 2007. [69265]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]: The Ministry of Defence has not incurred any additional costs following the decision to allow the NHS to develop a Diagnostic and Treatment Centre (DTC) on the Royal hospital Haslar site. The NHS would incur any costs associated with the closure of the DTC.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the annual running cost of the Royal hospital, Haslar was in the last year for which figures are available. [69263]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]: The total operating cost of the Royal hospital, Haslar, including the financial arrangements for Ministry of Defence hospital unit, Portsmouth, for the financial year ending 31 March 2002, was £47.145 million.
  902W
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what value the Royal hospital, Haslar is assessed. [69262]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]: As at 31 March 2002 the Defence Secondary Care Agency valued the Royal hospital, Haslar land and buildings at £34.555 million.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the financial arrangements are between the Ministry of Defence and the national health service relating to the Royal hospital, Haslar. [69264]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]: Following the inception of Ministry of Defence hospital unit (MDHU) Portsmouth on 1 April 2001, Portsmouth Hospitals Trust (PHT) assumed responsibility for the delivery of the majority of the clinical services on the Haslar site. Under the financial and contractual arrangements between the MOD and PHT, the Trust is responsible for ensuring sufficient staffing levels for the clinical services it manages on the Haslar site. The Trust has separate financial arrangements with the MOD concerning the employment of military medical and clinical staff and for the provision of treatment for service personnel, both at the RHH and across PHT. These arrangements are broadly similar to those in place in other MDHUs.

  The Royal hospital, Haslar (RHH) is an MOD managed site. The estate and infrastructure is funded by the MOD. PHT pay the cost of any alterations to meet NHS requirements on the site. The financial arrangements also include payments by PHT for the use of RHH infrastructure and support services in MOD-retained Departments.

  Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what messing, accommodation and recreational facilities will be available for service personnel to be based at Queen Alexandra hospital, Cosham if the proposed expansion through a private finance initiative takes place. [69267]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 July 2002]: The Queen Alexandra hospital private finance initiative will include all Ministry of Defence clinical and administrative requirements but not single living accommodation, messing or recreational facilities. A study to determine options for the provision of these services is being carried out.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what dockyard work will need to be carried out to accommodate the two new aircraft carriers; when that work is expected to commence: and if he will make a statement. [70757]

  Dr. Moonie
  The extent and timing of any modifications at Portsmouth will depend on developments in the carrier programme and the dimensions of the final design that is taken forward. In the light of these, consideration will be given to mitigating any access constraints together with some enhancements to shore
  903W
  support facilities, taking account of environmental issues. It is not yet possible to be firm on the timetable for this potential work.

  Consultation
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints his Department has received about its 2001 consultations in electronic or printed form. [70987]

  Dr. Moonie
  12. Of these, 11 were received in writing and one by electronic means.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which consultation documents published by his Department in 2001 were not made available as paper copies. [70988]

  Dr. Moonie
  All of the Ministry of Defence's consultations issued in 2001 were either made available as paper copies or were available in paper copy on request.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long his Department allowed for consultation on each consultation document it published in 2001 in(a) electronic and (b) printed form. [70983]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence published seven consultations in 2001. The amount of time given for responses did not differ according to the format of the consultation. Times allowed for response, either in writing or electronically, were:The Future of the Defence Diversification Agency: six weeks;
  The Military Maritime Graves and the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986: three months;
  Proposed Introduction of the Voluntary Screening Programme Following Health Concerns in Respect of Depleted Uranium: four weeks;
  Armed Forces Pension Scheme Review: five months; Joint Compensation Review: five months;
  2nd Consultative Document on the Introduction of a Voluntary Screening Programme for Depleted Uranium: 12 weeks;
  MOD Police Quinquennial Review: six months.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether consultation documents published by his Department in 2001 carried the consultation criteria a s recommended in the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultations. [70984]

  Dr. Moonie
  All of the consultation documents published by the Department in 2001 were published electronically, and the Ministry of Defence Consultation webpage includes links to the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultations, which contains the consultation criteria.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what format his Department has published the results of its 2001 written consultations. [70985]

  Dr. Moonie
  Of the seven consultations published in 2001, two have not yet reported. Of the remainder, results for one were published on the Consultation webpage of the Ministry of Defence website and in printed format, and two were published on the Consultation webpage of the MOD website but would have been made available in printed format if requested. The results of the last two will be published shortly.

  European Technology Acquisition Programme
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which elements of(a) watchkeeper and (b) the Future Offensive Air Strategy the Government intend to procure through the European technology acquisition programme. [70628]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: The European technology acquisition programme (ETAP) is a collaborative technology development programme related to combat air systems. Its aim is to sustain and develop generic European capabilities over the next two decades. Although United Kingdom decisions on which technologies to pursue under ETAP will take account of our Future Offensive Air System project, it is not aimed at a specific equipment, nor is it intended as a means of procuring equipment.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 221W, on ETAP, when he expects the ETAP joint study assessing the military capabilities the six nations' armed forces will need around 2020 to report. [70668]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: The study report was produced on time and presented to the European technology acquisition programme (ETAP) steering committee on 3 July 2002. The report will provide a focus for future ETAP research and technology programmes.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the criteria to be used in deciding which British procurement decisions to pursue through the European technology acquisition programme. [70629]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: The European technology acquisition programme (ETAP) is about collaborative technology development related to combat air systems rather than procurement of specific equipments. United Kingdom decisions on technology development within ETAP will reflect the key capabilities required of the UK's future offensive air system. If one or more of our ETAP partners identify the same technology area as a priority, we will jointly decide whether a collaborative ETAP technology demonstration programme with European industry represents best value for money.

  Systems Technology
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what mechanisms are in place to ensure that in its procurement of systems technology the UK does not become beholden to one company with the intellectual property. [70766]

  Dr. Moonie
  When the Ministry of Defence funds development of equipment, it does so using intellectual property conditions which will allow for competition for further supplies of that equipment or its spare parts. Apart from an undertaking that the original developer will be invited to tender for such further supplies or its spare parts, there is no obligation on MOD to limit further contracts to the original developer.
  905W
  Most systems coming into defence service now, however, comprise an amalgam of commercially developed items and items for which the MOD has funded both the development costs and integration into the final system. Where commercial items are to be incorporated into a defence system, it is MOD's practice to ensure appropriate arrangements are in place to ensure continued availability of vital items on a fair and reasonable basis.

  In addition to the arrangements made through individual contracts, statutory arrangements exist under the Patent Act 1977 to enable Government use of patents for defence purposes in some circumstances on payment of compensation.

  Military Training (Quantocks)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training was carried out on the Quantocks in 2001; and by whom. [71295]

  Dr. Moonie
  No military training was conducted on the Quantocks between February and July 2001 owing to the outbreak of food and mouth disease. Our records show the following training took place later in the year: a fieldcraft and map reading exercise undertaken by the King's College Combined Cadets Force; a Duke of Edinburgh's Award by Somerset Army Cadet Force; and a Royal Marines load-carrying exercise along roads and bridle paths.

  HMS Albion
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Albion will enter service. [71535]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 736W, to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). I will write to the hon. Member once HMS Albion's in service date has been confirmed.

  Service Accommodation
  Bob Russell

  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many married families are awaiting the allocation of appropriate housing in Colchester; [71473]

  (2) how many married quarters there are in Colchester, broken down by standard of condition; [71475]

  (3) what plans he has to improve the standard of service families' accommodation in Colchester. [71474]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is no waiting list for the 1,207 service families' quarters in Colchester. Their standard for condition is shown in the table.
  906W

  Standard

  Numbers

  Standard 1

  400

  Standard 2

  750

  Standard 3

  57

  Standard 4

  —

  Total

  1,207

  Around 95 per cent. of the properties are at Standard 1 or Standard 2 for condition. Having completed two phases of a long term programme of upgrade to service housing in Colchester, further phases are planned provisionally for financial years 2003–04 and 2004–05, which will raise over 600 more properties to Standard 1 for condition.

  Enhanced Capability Grenade
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the enhanced capability grenade programme; what its size will be; and what weight of explosive will be carried by the new weapon. [71635]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The enhanced performance grenade entered service in July 2001. It is 9.5 cm high, including the fuse assembly, and 6 cm wide. It weights 465 grams, of which the explosives account for 155 grams.

  Weapons Systems
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Spike missile systems, manufactured by Rafael of Israel, have been purchased by the Defence Procurement Agency; [71636]

  (2) when he will make his decision on the Light Forces Anti-Tank Guided Weapon System requirements for a replacement for the Milan missile; [71637]

  (3) when the Light Forces Anti-Tank Guided Weapon System will enter service; [71638]

  (4) what trials of the Spike missile system have been held by the Defence Procurement Agency. [71639]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The Ministry of Defence is considering the Spike and Javelin systems for the requirement in question. The Defence Procurement Agency acquired small quantities of components of both systems for the purpose of conducting comparative assessment trials. We plan to select the preferred weapon around the turn of the year and to introduce it into service in 2005.

  Military Exercises
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the military exercises held in the Llandovery area on 17 June. [71764]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 5 July (D/US of S/LM 3032/02/C) which explained that the exercise was conducted by the Queen's Dragoon Guards (QDG), who were practising wide-ranging deployments, manoeuvres and communications over long distances—skills essential for their operational training. 'This exercise was originally scheduled for Salisbury Plain Training Area (SPTA), but the location was changed at less than one month's notice due to urgent operational training requirements of a higher priority unit. The QDG
  907W
  are themselves a high readiness unit and their training was considered of sufficient importance to relocate to another area rather than to delay until SPTA became available.

  Waste
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of programmes designed to reduce waste and encourage re-use and recycling in each of the dual services in each year since 1997. [71663]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence does not currently collect data on the cost of programmes designed to reduce waste and encourage re-use and recycling. However, data collection on all environmental issues, including waste, should be greatly enhanced once implementation of the Department's corporate environmental management system has been completed in 2003–04.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantities of waste have been diverted from landfill by the environmental policies pursued by his Department in the past five years. [71667]

  Dr. Moonie
  While it is Ministry of Defence policy to divert waste away from landfill by encouraging recycling and minimisation schemes, waste management is handled in practice at a local level by a number of different professional waste contractors.

  As these contractors are employed on an individual basis by various budget holders across the Department, information on the quantities of waste diverted from landfill is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Modernisation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are being undertaken to ensure that Britain's military forces undergo modernisation and have the latest technology available. [72540]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) set in hand a programme of equipment modernisation to ensure that our forces are fully able to meet future challenges. Those conclusions remain valid. But operations in Afghanistan, and work on the SDR New Chapter, have recently demonstrated that our forces will require the controlled, precise and rapid delivery of military effect—particularly through what is called `network-centric capability', bringing together sensors and strike assets. The increase in the defence budget as a result of SR2002 will enable us to make investment necessary to acquire these sorts of capabilities.

  General Service Medal
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the award of a general service medal to those who served in the armed forces in the Suez canal zone from 1951 to 1954. [72881]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Government consider it important to respect the principle that where there is a clear, demonstrable decision taken within five years of a campaign that a general service medal should not be awarded, that decision should not be reopened.
  908W
  The evidence relating to consideration of a general service medal for the Suez canal zone is, however, less clear-cut. A number of representations have been made by the veterans of that campaign with which the Government have considerable sympathy.

  In view of these exceptional circumstances, the Government are setting up a small sub-committee of HD Committee under the chairmanship of General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank to report on the case for an exceptional award of a general service medal for the Suez canal zone without creating wider precedent or breaching long-standing principles which underpin the making of such awards.

  Defence Housing Executive
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Housing Executive for the financial year 2002–03. [72882]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following key targets have been set for the Defence Housing Executive for 2002–03.

  Key Target 1
  To house at least 72 per cent. of families in accommodation that matches their entitlement by posting date or on return to GB from overseas, and at least 93 per cent. within 28 days of their required date;
  and to give notice of address within 14 days of receipt of an application for accommodation.1

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

  Key Target 3
  To complete the upgrade of 1,200 properties by 31 March 2003 as part of the programme to upgrade all core stock required for the longer term.

  Key Target 4
  To complete:

  at least 95 per cent. of emergency repairs within 24 hours of notification;

  at least 90 per cent. of urgent repairs within five working days of notification;

  at least 95 per cent. of routine repairs within two months of notification.

  Key Target 5
  To reduce the management margin progressively towards 10 per cent. by November 2005, to better balance supply and demand while delivering other key targets. (The DHE's interim target for 31 March 2003 is to have a management margin of 12.1 per cent.).

  Key Target 6
  To develop a method for indexing the level of satisfaction of SFA occupants2

  1 The revised notice of address procedure will be introduced in December 2002. Therefore, benchmarking will take place over the last half of FY 2002–03 in order to determine the performance targets for subsequent years.
  2Benchmarking will take place during 2002–03 in order for DHE to be in a position by April 2003 to define precise targets for subsequent years.

  Regarding key target 3 on the upgrade programme, as a result of good progress made to date, over 19,000 properties managed by DHE are now at standard one for condition, and some 90 per cent. of families are housed in properties at Standard one or two. The upgrade programme will

  909W
  continue to progress, with demanding targets set for DHE each year until the programme is completed against the services' long-term core requirements for family housing.

  Copies of DHE's corporate plan will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Gulf War
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the latest figures are for deaths of(a) Gulf veterans and (b) among the control group; and if he will make a statement. [72883]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest data, as al 30 June 2002, are shown in Table 1. Because of concern among some Gulf veterans over deaths caused by cancer, Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown of deaths from cancer (malignant neoplasm) by anatomical site.

  Table 1: Deaths to UK Gulf veterans1

  1 April 1991–30 June 2002—Causes2

  ICD Chapter/Cause of death

  Gulf

  Era

  Mortality rate ratio3

  All deaths

  551

  547

  1.00

  All cause coded deaths

  542

  537

  1.00

  I-XVI—Disease-related causes

  213

  256

  0.83

  I—Infectious and parasitic diseases

  4

  2

  1.99

  II—Cancers

  92

  99

  0.93

  III—Endocrine and immune disorders

  1

  4

  0.25

  V—Mental disorders

  11

  12

  0.91

  VI—Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs

  10

  8

  1.24

  VII—Diseases of the circulatory system

  71

  99

  0.71

  VIII—Diseases of the respiratory system

  10

  5

  1.99

  IX—Diseases of the digestive system

  12

  17

  0.70

  IV, X-XVI—All other disease-related causes

  2

  10

  0.20

  EXVII—External causes of injury and poisoning

  329

  281

  1.17

  Railway accidents

  4

  1

  3.98

  Motor vehicle accidents

  118

  92

  1.27

  Water transport accidents

  4

  1

  3.98

  Air and space accidents

  25

  18

  1.38

  Other vehicle accidents

  0

  2

  0.00

  Accidental poisoning

  11

  14

  0.78

  Accidental falls

  8

  7

  1.14

  Accidents due to fire/flames

  0

  2

  0.00

  Accidents due to natural environmental factors

  2

  2

  1.00

  Accidents due to submersion/suffocation/foreign bodies

  17

  7

  2.42

  Other accidents

  31

  28

  1.14

  Late effects of accident/injury

  0

  2

  0.00

  Suicide and injury undetermined whether accidental

  100

  97

  1.03

  Homicide

  6

  4

  1.49

  Injury resulting from the operations of war

  3

  4

  0.75

  Other deaths for which coded cause data are not yet available

  5

  4

  —

  Overseas deaths for which cause data are not available

  4

  6

  —

  1Service and ex-service personnel only.

  2 (Coded to ICD-9). World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th revision 1977.

  3Mortality rate ratios differ marginally from the crude deaths ratio owing to some small differences between the Gulf and Era cohorts.

  Table 2: Deaths due to neoplasms among UK Gulf veterans1

  1 April 1991–30 June 2002—Major anatomical sites2

  ICD 9

  Site

  Gulf

  Era

  140–239

  All neoplasms

  92

  99

  140–149

  Malignant neoplasm of lip, oral cavity and pharynx

  3

  4

  150–159

  Malignant neoplasm of digestive organs and peritoneum

  18

  23

  160–165

  Malignant neoplasm of respiratory and intrathoracic organs

  15

  21

  170–175

  Malignant neoplasm of bone, connective tissue, skin and breast

  14

  8

  910W
  We are currently discussing with the university of Manchester proposals for a detailed comparative study of the incidence of cancers among Gulf veterans and the Era comparison group and underlying factors, and hope to place a contract shortly. We also plan to commission a study of a cohort of Bosnia veterans on whom data are already available.

  We are also discussing with the university of Manchester a detailed study of the factors underlying the figures for road traffic accident deaths, and hope to place a contract in the near future.

  In addition, we have asked the Medical Research Council (MRC) to undertake an independent review of the research work that has been carried out into Gulf veterans' illnesses and advise on appropriate areas for future research. The MRC's conclusions will be published.
  911W

  Table 2: Deaths due to neoplasms among UK Gulf veterans1

  1 April 1991–30 June 2002—Major anatomical sites2

  ICD 9

  Site

  Gulf

  Era

  179–189

  Malignant neoplasm of genitourinary organs

  2

  4

  190–199

  Malignant neoplasm of other and unspecified site

  18

  26

  200–208

  Malignant neoplasm of lymphatic and haematopoietic tissue

  19

  11

  239

  Unspecified nature

  3

  2

  1Service and ex-service personnel only.

  2Coded to ICD-9. World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th revision 1977.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Aviation Repair Agency for financial year 2002–03. [72884]

  DARA key performance indicators for financial year 2002–03

  Title

  Details

  Target

  KPI 1—Financial performance 1

  The measurement of DARA's ROCE

  To achieve a minimum average ROCE of 6 per cent. over the first three years of trading—subject to the maintenance of current MOD customer planning assumptions, the availability of sufficient funding and the understanding that directed sub-contract work will count towards the obligation.

  KP1 2—Financial performance 2

  The measurement of value of contracts won.

  To achieve order intake to the value of at least £60 million.

  KPI-3—Quality

  The measurement of attributable major customer concerns received from DARA's customers

  To have no more attributable major customer concerns than the baseline set on DARA's performance of financial year 2001–02

  KPI4—Efficiency

  The measurement of the reduction in unit production price of a representative basket of DARA outputs

  To achieve a reduction in the unit production price of 4 per cent. in real terms, of the basket of products (weighted by value of annual task quantity), baselined from financial year 2001–02—subject to the maintenance of current MOD customer planning assumptions, the availability of sufficient funding and the understanding that directed sub-contract work will count towards the obligation.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the public-private partnership for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. [72885]

  Dr. Moonie
  On 1 July 2001 the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency was successfully divided into QinetiQ plc, currently a wholly Government-owned company, and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which remains part of the Ministry of Defence.

  On 6 March 2002, I informed the House that we had decided to sell a substantial stake in QinetiQ to a strategic partner who would help to develop the company in preparation for a future flotation on the stockmarket. Our decision followed a detailed analysis of market conditions, which led us to conclude that this approach offered best value for the taxpayer, and would meet our objectives for a successful public private partnership.

  Immediately following this announcement we initiated an open competition and carried out a pre-qualification process to identify potential partners. Almost 40 expressions of interest were received, and at the end of April 2002 12 organisations were selected to receive an Information Memorandum describing the company. Following an evaluation in late May 2002 of indicative offers from bidders, several companies were then
  912W
  Dr. Moonie
  Key Performance Indicators have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (DARA) for financial year 2002–03 as follows:

  provided with access to more detailed information on QinetiQ and invited to submit final binding bids. In order to maximise competition we do not propose to reveal how many companies were selected to participate in this stage, or their identities.

  We have received a number of responses within the last few days from the shortlisted bidders, and these are now being comprehensively evaluated by officials and specialist advisers. The results of the selection process are not yet available but we remain on track to identify the preferred bidder within the next few weeks, and complete the initial sale later this year.

  QinetiQ
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in respect of his departmental minute concerning the Ministry of Defence's agreement with QinetiQ on the allocation of pre-vesting liabilities dated 8 July, he will withhold final approval of the proposed indemnity for inherited environmental liabilities to be provided for QinetiQ until such time as a detailed financial appraisal of the prospective size of the liabilities is provided to Parliament for debate. [72296]

  Dr. Moonie
  No. It is important to understand that the vast majority of environmental liabilities on freehold sites have transferred to QinetiQ. The small number of liabilities inherited by QinetiQ to which the departmental
  913W
  minute refers is being retained in Government as detailed analysis has shown that this represents best value for money in the light of reasonable commercial insurance not being available. The very low level of past claims and specialist analysis suggest actual risk associated with these specific liabilities is extremely small.

  Lancer Reconnaissance System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Lancer reconnaissance integrated technology system is expected to replace the reconnaissance vehicles in service in the UK military; and if he will make a statement. [70056]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Lancer integrated demonstrator vehicle was one of two developed under the assessment phase of the joint UK/US Tracer programme. This vehicle is undergoing a series of user trials to demonstrate the technical maturity and military utility of a number of key armoured vehicle technologies.

  Although the participating nations decided, jointly, to terminate the Tracer programme at the end of the assessment phase, we expect to be able to apply some of the key technologies to future equipment programmes, in particular the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) programme, which is due to enter service around the end of the decade.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

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

  The Solicitor-General
  The amount spent by each of the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible in each of the last five years is set out below.Crown Prosecution Service

  1997–98: £1,234,217

  1998–99: £1,339,271

  1999–2000: £2,069,216

  2000–01: £2,700,903

  2001–02: £5,620,922

  Serious Fraud Office

  1996–97: £127,051

  1997–98: £134,692

  1998–99: £124,949

  1999–2000: £180,936

  2000–01: £237,996

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

  1998–99: £213,460

  1999–2000: £230,690

  2000–01: £337,900

  2001–02: £402,080

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  1998–99: £13,820

  1999–2000: £8,800

  2000–01: £11,750

  2001–02: £10,500

  914W
  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate
  Information is only available for the year 2001–02 as before 1 April 2001 the inspectorate was part of the Crown Prosecution Service and training costs form part of the figures provided by the CPTs. The sum expended on training in 2001–02 was £26,600.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Radioactive Discharges
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to publish the UK strategy for radioactive discharges. [73103]

  Mr. Meacher
  The strategy is currently being printed and will be published very shortly. Copies will be placed in the Library. The document will also be available on the DEFRA website.

  The strategy demonstrates how the UK will achieve substantial reductions in radioactive discharges in the period to 2020, to implement agreements reached at the 1998 ministerial meeting and subsequent meetings of the OSPAR Commission.

  Radioactive discharges in the UK have already been reduced to around 1 per cent. of peak levels in the 1970s. This strategy represents the next chapter of what has been an increasingly effective policy to minimise such discharges and shows that the Government are determined to maintain the downward pressure and achieve the objective of the OSPAR radioactive substances strategy.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets she has set the Rural Payments Agency for 2002–03. [72961]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have set the Rural Payments Agency the following performance targets for 2002–03:Efficiency Performance

  1. To successfully negotiate Office of Government Commerce (OGC) Gateway 3 by 31 December 2002.

  2. To ensure the main programme contract is ready to let by 31 December 2002, once Gateway 3 is achieved.

  Financial Performance

  3. To operate within the 2002–03 resource budget allocations as agreed with DEFRA.

  4. To ensure that disallowance within the control of RPA due to non-compliance with EU requirement remains below 2 per cent. of the value of CAP payments made by the Agency.

  5. To account accurately and to deadline for EAGGF funds.

  Business Continuity and Service Delivery

  6. To process and pay at least 96.14 per cent. of valid IACS claims by value within the EU deadline.

  7. To process and pay at least 85 per cent. of valid non-IACS claims by volume within ministerial deadlines and all claims within the set EU deadlines or in their absence 60 days.

  8. To process at least 98.5 per cent. of all valid claims correctly.

  Service Quality and Delivery

  9. To publish customer service standards that meet Charter Mark guidelines by 30 June 2002.

  10. To use the customer survey to establish a baseline for customer satisfaction and agree and undertake improvement activities by 31 December 2002.

  915W

  11. To use the EFQM Excellence Model in all RPA business units to assess current enablers' ability to deliver required targets and outcomes, agreeing change action plans by 31 March 2003.

  Reform Initiatives

  12. To use the staff survey to establish a baseline for staff satisfaction by 31 December 2002 and agree and undertake improvement activities by 31 March 2003.

  13. To complete roll out of diversity training across RPA by 31 March 2003.

  14. To reduce sick absence to no more than 7.9 days per staff year by 31 March 2003.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the 2001–02 annual report for the Central Science Laboratory. [72958]

  Mr. Morley
  The 2001–02 annual report and accounts for the Central Science Laboratory were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Enriched Cages
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the public consultation on
  on a possible ban on enriched cages in England will begin. [72959]

  Mr. Morley
  The public consultation will start on 24 July and last for three months.

  Common Land
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to announce the outcome of the review of common land policy and legislation, following the consultation exercise that took place in 2000. [72957]

  Alun Michael
  We have today published a "Common Land Policy Statement" jointly with the National Assembly for Wales. This, together with the "Report on Consultation Responses", is available in the Library of the House, on the DEFRA website, and from the National Assembly for Wales.

  The policy statement contains a comprehensive package of proposals relating to the registration and protection of common land and village greens. It also outlines our objectives for improving the agricultural management of common land and announces our intention to set up as soon as possible a working party of stakeholders to make recommendations on how these objectives can best be met.

  In the rural White Paper, issued in November 2000, the Government gave a commitment to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows. We hope to be able to do so in the 2004–05 session.

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the 2001–02 annual report for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. [72962]
  916W
  Mr. Morley
  The 2001–02 annual report and accounts for th,. Veterinary Medicines Directorate were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the 2001–02 annual report for the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. [72956]

  Mr. Morley
  The 2001–02 annual report and accounts for the Veterinary Laboratories Agency were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the consultation paper on competition in the water industry will be published. [72960]

  Mr. Meacher
  I announced to the House on 19 March 2002, the Government's proposals for increasing competition in the water industry in England and Wales,Official Report, column 265W. I promised to publish a consultation paper with further details of our proposals later in the year.

  I can now confirm that the consultation paper on competition in the water industry will be published in the next few weeks.

  Public Relations Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent by(a) her Department and (b) bodies for which it is responsible on external public relations consultants in each of the last four years. [27387]

  Mr. Morley
  As DEFRA was created in June 2001, retrospective information prior to that date does not exist for the Department. Information on such expenditure by DEFRA's agencies and non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally and to provide it would incur disproportionate costs.

  There have been three DEFRA managed campaigns where PR consultants were employed. The costs of their services over the past financial year were as follows:

  'Are you Doing your Bit?' campaign—£12,000
  UK's Emissions Trading Scheme campaign—E95,000
  'Your Countryside, You're Welcome' campaign—£210,000.

  The delay in supplying this answer to the hon. Gentleman is regretted.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 200, what recent discussions she has had with her French counterpart on reform of the CAP. [63532]

  Mr. Morley
  All member states set out their initial responses to the European Commission's proposals for the next stage of CAP reform at the EU Agriculture Council
  917W
  on 15 July. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be discussing these proposals with all of her EU agriculture colleagues over the coming months.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list the speeches which(a) she and (b) other Ministers from her Department have made to external organisations and businesses since 7 June 2001, in each case saying where the speech is publicly available; if she will place copies of speeches not available in the Library; and if she will make a statement; [56552]

  (2) when she will answer the question of the hon. Member for Gordon, reference 56552, on departmental speeches. [64736]

  Mr. Morley
  All DEFRA Ministers make a number of speeches every week and so it would be only at disproportionate cost that a fully comprehensive list could be assembled. However, a list has been placed in the Library of the House which shows the principal keynote speeches made by DEFRA Ministers since 7 June 2001. Some of these are available on the DEFRA website (as are other, more minor speeches) and, where possible, the others are available upon request although generally not in an 'as delivered' format.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representation the Scottish Executive will have on delegations to meetings with the European Commission to discuss their proposals for reform of the CAP. [70436]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: In accordance with the Concordat on Co-ordination of European Policy Issues (Part IIB of Cm 4444) and a bilateral concordat, the role of Ministers and officials of the devolved Administrations in the CAP reform negotiations will be to support and advance the single UK negotiating line which they will have played a part in developing. How that role is best fulfilled will be a matter for discussion with the devolved Administrations, but it is expected that Scottish Executive representatives wi 11 form part of the UK delegation for appropriate EU meetings.

  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's response is to the European Commission's proposals for the reform of the CAP, as referred to in the mid-term review. [69602]

  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the EU Commission's proposals to reform the CAP. [69605]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government welcome publication of the European Commission's proposals for reform of the CAP which will form a good basis for discussion. We believe that the general thrust of the proposals for further market reform, decoupling of direct payments from production, and reinforcement of the rural development regulation is the right one, although in a number of key areas the Government consider that the proposals do not go far enough and do not adequately respond to the challenges ahead.
  918W
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on what progress she expects on the reform of the common agricultural policy; and what timetable she expects will be agreed for its reform. [71723]

  Mr. Morley
  On 10 July the European Commission published a communication to the European Council and European Parliament on reform of the common agricultural policy. Having been discussed at the Agriculture Council on 15 July, we expect it to be discussed again at future Councils during the Danish presidency. We are still at a very early stage in these complex negotiations, and it is difficult to predict when agreement will be reached. However, it is expected that the Commission will not table legislative proposals until late October at the earliest. The Commission has proposed that any reform agreed will apply from 1 January 2004.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on the incomes of hill farmers in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England of the proposed changes in the common agricultural policy announced by the European Commission; what representations she made to the European Commission relating to the CAP prior to their recommendations; what recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executives on reform of the common agricultural policy; and what meetings she has al ranged with the European Commission to discuss their proposals for reform of the CAP. [70373]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: An assessment has yet to be made of the impact on the incomes of hill farmers in England of the changes outlined in the Commission's CAP reform communication. It would be for the devolved Administrations to make such an assessment for farmers in Scotland and Wales. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, met Commissioner Fischler before publication of the Commission's communication to discuss related issues, and she has met him again since publication to discuss the specific proposals. CAP reform has been a recurring agenda item for the regular meetings my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has with Ministers from the devolved Administrations prior to EU Agriculture Council meetings. The most recent such meeting took place in Brussels on 15 July, focusing on the Commission's communication. No further meetings have been arranged with the EU Commission at this stage.

  Farming Research
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 20 June 2002,Official Report, column 472W, on farming research, how many projects, by category, were funded in each year since 1991–92. [64851]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]: Many hundreds of new research projects are initiated every year. I regret that a breakdown of these projects in the form requested could be supplied only at disproportionate cost. However, details of current DEFRA funded projects can be found on the Department's website at http:// www.defra.gov.uk/research/projects. Information on all rural livelihoods, natural resources and environment projects funded by the Department for International

  919W
  Development since 1992 can be found on the Natural, al Resources Information System (NARSIS) searchable on-line database www.narsis.org.

  Feed Additives
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the use of feed additives for animals reared for country sports; and if she will make a statement. [67251]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]: Any additive used in animal feed for food producing animals (including birds reared to be shot for the table) must he authorised centrally by the European Commission under EU law. Under these arrangements each product is considered on its own merits.

  No general assessment has been made of the use of feed additives for animals reared for country sports. We are aware that dimetridazole (DMZ) is used by game bi;d producers as a veterinary medicinal product in feed. DMZ was also authorised as a feed additive for use in turkeys and quail but this authorisation was withdrawn by the European Commission after a six month selling off period on 15 May 2002 because the manufacturer did not provide sufficient data to support the product under a review of all feed additive authorisations.

  The legality of the UK's authorisation of DMZ as the active ingredient in three veterinary medicinal products for game birds has been challenged by the European Commission. We are seeking early discussions with the European Commission on this issue. In the meantime the marketing authorisations for these three veterinary medicines remain valid.

  Fisheries
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is the UK Government's policy that the principle of relative stability underpinning the CFP is non-negotiable. [67318]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The Government have stated on many occasions that we consider relative stability to be an integral part of the common fisheries policy (CFP), and we have no intention of moving from that position. We shall argue for this, and our other objectives, to be achieved during this year's review of the CFP.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers' markets have not re-opened since the foot and mouth crisis last year; where these markets are; and what information she has collated on the reasons why they have not re-opened. [70269]

  Mr. Morley
  The re-opening of livestock markets has been monitored since the introduction of the interim livestock movement rules on 11 February this year.

  A livestock market has been taken to be a market opening on a non-seasonal basis, selling livestock species susceptible to foot and mouth disease and which had been operating as a livestock market prior to last year's outbreak.
  920W
  As of 1 July 2002, of the 171 livestock markets to which the above definition applied:
  130 (76 per cent.) had re-opened;
  29 (17 per cent.) had indicated they hoped to re-open;
  12 (7 per cent.) had indicated they had no plans to re-open.

  Of those markets with no plans to re-open, the reasons for not re-opening were understood to be:
  Seven (58 per cent.) due to the livestock movement and biosecurity rules;
  Three (25 per cent.) due to commercial reasons not connected with the interim rules;
  Two (17 per cent.) reasons unclear (reasons are being sought).
  These 12 markets are set out in the table:

  Market

  County

  Reason

  Aylsham

  Norfolk

  Interim rules

  Llanfair Caereinion

  Powys

  Interim rules

  Gowerton

  Swansea

  Interim rules

  Broughton

  Cumbria

  Unclear

  Pembroke

  Pembrokeshire

  Unclear

  Gloucester

  Gloucestershire

  Commercial

  Knaresborough

  North Yorkshire

  Interim rules

  Ripon

  North Yorkshire

  Commercial

  Grantham

  Lincolnshire

  Interim rules

  Newport (Isle of Wight)

  Isle of Wight

  Interim rules

  Rye

  Sussex

  Interim rules

  Leominster

  Herefordshire

  Commercial

  These data have been collected from DEFRA Animal Health Offices and are kept under review.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if her Department has plans to form a partnership with countries in central and west Africa to tackle the trade in illegal meat imports. [70304]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has already established links with countries in central and west Africa through the establishment of the CITES Bushmeat Working Group and via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's UK diplomatic missions in Harare, Accra, Abuja, Cairo, Pretoria, Kampala, Abidjan, Maseru, Dakar, Luanda, Nairobi, Kigali, Mbabane and Tunis. We believe the latter approach, in particular, to be important in raising the profile of UK restrictions and rules for personal imports of meat and other food items.

  Egg Industry
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to the EU in respect of the Doha Development Agenda negotiations in order to prevent loss of competitiveness in the UK egg industry from(a) increased domestic regulatory costs and (b) reducing barriers to trade. [70335]

  Mr. Morley
  Reducing barriers to trade is fundamental to Government policy. However, I am concerned that there should be no competitive disadvantage as a result of higher EU regulatory costs than those faced by third country competitors. We have played an active part in formulating EU policy in this area and these concerns are
  921W
  fully reflected in the context of specific proposals on animal welfare that the European Commission has submitted in the Doha Development Agenda.

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to increase the numbers of vets employed by the State Veterinary Service. [70265]

  Mr. Morley
  The State Veterinary Service has recently received additional funding in 2002–03 which will allow the lifting of a moratorium on the recruitment of veterinary staff in the current financial year. We will be reviewing how best to take forward the recruitment of replacement and additional staff in the context of this year's revised budget and anticipated budgets for future years in the light of the SR2002 settlement.

  Due consideration will also be given to any relevant recommendations made by the Lessons Learned and Royal Society inquiries.

  Department-sponsored Organisations
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs further to her answer of 8 July 2002,Official Report, column 685W, on department-sponsored organisations, what plans she has to ensure that organisations sponsored by her Department are given their budgets prior to the beginning of the financial year. [70294]

  Mr. Morley
  The Spending Review 2002 settlement will provide the opportunity to allocate indicative budgets for 2003–04 to 2005–06. This also provides the opportunity to give an indication of the anticipated level of support over the period. Following the crea:ion of DEFRA, we are further examining how the budget planning process can be enhanced, and the timetable we are working to should finalise allocation decisions prior to the start of the financial year.

  Animal Welfare
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has commissioned and what assessment she has made of evidence on how high standards of farm animal welfare can be incorporated in an economically viable manner in her strategy for the future of farming. [70611]

  Mr. Morley
  Developing and maintaining high standards of farm animal welfare are at the heart of Government policy. Comprehensive legislation and species-specific welfare codes will form the basis to any new sustainable strategy for food and farming.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs where health certification was carried out in respect of the five consignments of live sheep exported from Dover to continental Europe on 15 July, how many of the sheep were rejected as unfit for the intended journey; where those sheep were taken; what final destination address was given on the route plan for each of the consignments; and what responsibility she had to check whether the arrangement foreseen in the route plan to rest, feed and 922W
  water the animals, and the requirements of European Community law, were adhered to once the animals left the United Kingdom. [71540]

  Mr. Morley
  Health certification was carried out at four approved assembly centres in North Wales. At the time of inspection for certification, three sheep were rejected as unfit for their intended journey and eight sheep were rejected on animal health grounds. The sheep were transported from the assembly centres to Dover and then via Holland to EU approved slaughterhouses, four in France and one in Italy. All route plans are checked before they are stamped to ensure that the proposed journey complies with requirements for rest, feed and water. Completed route plans must be returned within 15 days of the end of the journey showing details of the actual journey and any deviations from the planned journey. Returned route plans are checked and any queries followed up.

  Livestock Movements
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to review the 20-day standstill rules on animal movement; and if she will make a statement. [70113]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]: No decisions about the future of the 20-day standstill will be taken before the consideration of the report of the Lessons Learned inquiry.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Joint Meetings of Management and/or Regulatory Committees in the field of agriculture-trade mechanisms is next due to meet; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [64898]

  Mr. Morley
  The next meeting of the DG Agri Trade Mechanisms Management Committee is scheduled for 17 September 2002. The Committee oversees a number of import and export CAP market support and control measures. These measures are administered for the UK by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA), an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In view of the RPA's UK wide remit representatives from SERAD do not routinely attend. However arrangements are in place in order to ensure that meeting agendas are notified to SERAD with an invitation to comment on any issues of interest.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Madagascar) 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. [70586]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Madagascar. The European Commission negotiates directly with Madagascar on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting
  923W
  and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these Working Groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State I or Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Angola) 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. [70594]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Angola. The European Commission negotiates directly with Angola on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these Working Groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Comoros) 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. [70592]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Comoros. The European Commission negotiates directly with Comoros on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these Working Groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Gambia) 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. [70936]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Gambia. The European Commission negotiates directly with Gambia on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Equatorial Guinea) is next due to 924W
  meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive (a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [70935]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Equatorial Guinea. The European Commission negotiates directly with Equatorial Guinea on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Russia) 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. [70931]

  Mr. Morley
  A meeting to discuss the possibility of a new fisheries agreement between the EU and Russia will take place on 24 and 25 July 2002. The European Commission will represent member states in the negotiations. Officials in my Department have consulted with SEERAD colleagues and are aware of the interests of Scottish fishermen in any opportunities afforded under any agreement with Russia. UK representation for EU co-ordination for this and other meetings varies according to the agenda for the meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Lithuania) 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. [70585]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Lithuania. The European Commission negotiates directly with Lithuania on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Poland) 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. [70584]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Poland. The European Commission negotiates directly with Poland on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation
  925W
  at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Greenland) 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. [70590]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Greenland. The European Commission negotiates directly with Greenland on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Estonia) 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. [70937]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Estonia. The European Commission negotiates directly with Estonia on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Sáo Tomé and Principe) 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. [70932]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Sáo Tomé and Principe. The European Commission negotiates directly with Sáo Tomé and Principe on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Guinea Bissau) is next due to 926W
  meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive (a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [70934]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Guinea Bissau. The European Commission negotiates directly with Guinea Bissau on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Morocco) 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. [70933]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU Morocco. The European Commission negotiates directly with Morocco on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Cape Verde) 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. [70580]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Cape Verde. The European Commission negotiates directly with Cape Verde on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Côte d'Ivoire) 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. [70579]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Côte d'Ivoire. The European Commission negotiates directly with Côte d'Ivoire on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK
  927W
  representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Mauritius) 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. [70588]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Mauritius. The European Commission negotiates directly with Mauritius on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Seychelles) 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. [70582]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Seychelles. The European Commission negotiates directly with Seychelles on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Latvia) 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. [70587]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Latvia. The European Commission negotiates directly with Latvia on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Senegal) is next due to meet;928W
  whether representatives of the Scottish Executive (a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [70583]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Senegal. The European Commission negotiates directly with Senegal on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Argentina) 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. [70593]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Argentina. The European Commission negotiates directly with Argentina on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Fisheries Joint Committee (EEC-Guinea) 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. [70591]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no scheduled date yet available for the next meeting between the EU and Guinea. The European Commission negotiates directly with Guinea on fishery matters on behalf of the EU. However, fishery issues with third countries are discussed at European Council Working Groups on Fisheries. UK representation at European Council Working Group on Fisheries varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of specific interest. The Scottish Executive regularly attends these working groups.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Advisory Committee on Community Policy regarding Forestry and Forest-based Industries 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. [70578]

  Mr. Morley
  The EU Advisory Committee on Community Policy regarding Forestry and Forest-based Industries meets as and when business arises. The date of its next meeting has not been fixed as yet. The UK is
  929W
  represented by an official from the Forestry Commission, which reports to forestry Ministers in England, Scotland and Wales.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Standing Committee on Propagating Material and Plants of fruit Genera and Species 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. [70569]

  Mr. Morley
  The European Commission has indicated that the EU Standing Committee on Propagating Material and Plants of Fruit Genera and Species is likely to next meet sometime this autumn, although a date for the meeting has yet to be announced. UK representation varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include officials from the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of sufficient interest.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Standing Committee on Plant Health is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive (g) have been and(b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [70571]

  Mr. Morley
  The next meeting of the EU Standing Committee on Plant Health is provisionally on 26–27 September 2002. UK representation varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include officials from the Scottish Executive, other devolved Administrations and the Forestry Commission, where there are items of sufficient interest.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Standing Committee on Propagating Material and Ornamental Plants 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. [70568]

  Mr. Morley
  The European Commission has indicated that the EU Standing Committee on Propagating Material and Ornamental Plants is likely to next meet sometime this autumn, although a date for the meeting has yet to be announced. UK representation varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include officials from the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of sufficient interest.

  New Rural Businesses
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost has been in each of the past five years of programmes designed to start new businesses in rural communities. [71134]

  Alun Michael
  One aim of the England Rural Development Programme is to encourage new business activity which benefits rural economies and communities. This may be helped through the expansion of existing business activity, new business activity within an existing business, or activity in a new and separate business in a rural area. There is no separate funding programme which solely targets new businesses only.
  930W
  Within the ERDP, the Rural Enterprise Scheme supports both farmers diversifying via new and expanded business activity, and non-farmers with projects in the rural tourism and food marketing sectors. Similarly, the Processing and Marketing Grant supports both new and expanded business activity in the processing of primary foods. Equivalent measures also exist in objective one areas. We do not have separate figures for assistance to new business start-ups and it would depend how 'new businesses' were to be defined. For example, if a farm business diversifies into running a children's nursery or selling clothes over the internet, it might either still be a single diversified farm business or the nursery and clothing sales might be considered new businesses.

  Government Funding
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding the Government provide for the(a) Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and (b) Veterinary Laboratories Agency; and if this sum will be increased in 2003. [71018]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA has no research contracts with the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute directly. At present, there is no commitment of funds to them for this year or the future.

  The accounts for VLA show an income of £74,082,000 from DEFRA for the financial year 2001–02. VLA received a further £4,820,000 from other Government sources (e.g. FSA) giving a total income from Government of £78,902,000. These are figures from the VLA annual accounts which are due to be laid in Parliament on 23 July.

  At this stage of the financial year, VLA's anticipated budgets show £78 million receivable from DEFRA and £5 million from other Government sources, giving a total forecast income for 2002–03 from Government of £83 million (an anticipated increase of approximately 5.2 per cent. over 2001–02).

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) cattle and (b) sheep were transported from (i) England to Scottish abattoirs and (ii) Scotland to English abattoirs in each of the last five years; and how many (A) cattle and (B) sheep were transported from (1) the Irish Republic to :abattoirs in Northern Ireland and (2) Northern Ireland to abattoirs in the Irish Republic in each of the last five years. [70374]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: The full range of statistics requested is not available. However, data from the Cattle Tracing Scheme indicates that:

  (a) 56.0 thousand cattle in 2000 and 17.3 thousand cattle in 2001, born in England or Wales and not previously on Scottish agricultural holdings, were slaughtered in Scottish abattoirs; and

  (b) 36.7 thousand cattle born in Scotland were slaughtered in English or Welsh abattoirs in 2001—these may include cattle retained on farm in England or Wales for a period of time and not represent those transported directly to an abattoir.

  Control measures taken during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease last year will have impacted on animal movements. No data are available for movement of sheep between England and Scotland.
  931W
  Data provided by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern Ireland, show that:

  (c) In 2001, 25.1 thousand cattle were imported from the Republic of Ireland for slaughter in abattoirs in Northern Ireland. Data for the last five calendar years are shown in the table:

  Thousand

  1997

  17.0

  1998

  1.4

  1999

  7.0

  2000

  14.4

  2001

  25 1

  1 Excluding the 1,200 cattle slaughtered under the Calf Processing Aid Scheme.

  No cattle born in Northern Ireland were slaughtered in abattoirs in the Republic of Ireland during this period because exports of live cattle were banned as part of BSE control measures.

  (d) In 2001, 22.8 thousand sheep were imported from the Republic of Ireland for slaughter in abattoirs in Northern Ireland. Data for the last five calendar years are shown in the table:

  Thousand

  1997

  108.8

  1998

  93.7

  1999

  127.2

  2000

  169.4

  2001

  22.8

  Recorded sheep exports from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland are available only since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The figures available are:

  Thousand

  2001 (from March)

  161.1

  2002 (to 6 July)

  79.4

  Nuclear Waste (Sellafield)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many shipments of nuclear waste are expected to be made by sea to Sellafield within the next two years. [70369]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: None. The Government's policy is that radioactive waste should not be imported to (or exported from) the UK, except for the recovery of reusable materials, or, in certain circumstances, for treatment that will make its subsequent storage or disposal more manageable. In accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency and Euratom definitions, spent fuel is not categorised as waste while the option of reprocessing it remains open and a future use for the fuel can be foreseen.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the ISG's preliminary analysis of the risk factors associated with cattle TB. [71029]
  932W
  Mr. Morley
  The ISG's preliminary analysis of data from the 'TB99' epidemiological survey is included in its third report which is available on DEFRA's website at: www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/point5/p5prog

  We have accepted the main conclusion that a full analysis of data is not possible at present. The preliminary comparative analyses that have been undertaken do, however, indicate the value of the TB99 questionnaire and the soundness of its design based on ISG advice. The completion of TB99 questionnaires has been delayed by the foot and mouth disease outbreak and the subsequent deployment of veterinary resources to address the backlog of cattle TB testing. However, negotiations are under way to employ contractors to help catch up in this important area of the cattle TB research programme.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average time has been between when cattle are being compulsorily slaughtered under TB control measures and the receipt of compensation payments by the farmer over the last 12 months for which figures are available. [71019]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is not readily available for the GB as a whole and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  The Government believe that compensation for animals slaughtered should be paid promptly. We are aware of payment delays in some areas due to the pressure of work generated by increased bovine TB testing.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what strategy options have been considered regarding the economic difficulties and movement restrictions regarding bovine TB; and when a decision will be made on these options. [71031]

  Mr. Morley
  My officials met industry representatives on 27 June to discuss a range of options for softening the economic impact on farmers of movement restrictions applied to herds as a result of TB breakdowns.

  Our priority is to ensure that disease control will not be compromised by any new measures applied, therefore, objective risk assessments of the proposals made by industry representatives are being commissioned. No decisions can be made until the risk assessments and full cost be refit analyses have been completed. Officials plan to meet with industry representatives again on this matter in September.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many false positives for bovine TB have been recorded in the current year; and how many false positives there were(a) as a percentage of positive tests and (b) as a percentage of all the tests. [71025]

  Mr. Morley
  No test for the diagnosis of bovine TB is 100 per cent. specific.

  In the UK, the diagnosis of bovine TB in live cattle relies on the single intradermal comparative test which involves the use of both avian and bovine tuberculins. This test is designed to exclude animals which react to other, often non-pathogenic bacteria, which would otherwise interfere with the test and produce 'false positive' reactions.
  933W
  Reactors to the skin test, including animals which give an inconclusive reaction after two retests, are slaughtered and examined post-mortem. Infection is confirmed by either the presence of typical, visible lesions or by the laboratory culture of the organism. In the year 2000, of approximately 7,000 reactors slaughtered, post-mortem examination failed to confirm infection in about 45 per cent. of cases. Infection is confirmed in around 60 to 65 per cent. of herds with one or more reactors.

  However, these post-mortem examinations are also less than 100 per cent. sensitive, so failure to detect visible lesions or failure to culture the organism does not confirm the absence of infection. It is not therefore possible to determine how many animals which reacted to the skin test are 'false positives'.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what delays there are in compensation payments for cattle compulsorily slaughtered under TB control; and what extra compensation has been paid for the delays. [71020]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government recognise that compensation for animals slaughtered should be paid promptly. We are aware of some delays in payment in some areas due to the priority given by Animal Health Offices to clearing the backlog of TB testing after the foot and mouth disease outbreak. No extra compensation payments have been made in these cases.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what compensation is provided for cattle that falsely test positive for bovine TB. [71014]

  Mr. Morley
  It is Government policy to pay 100 per cent. of market value, with no upper limit, for cattle that are compulsorily slaughtered under TB control measures.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent research she has commissioned on a bovine TB vaccine that is better than 60 per cent. effective; and if she will make a statement on progress. [71294]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has commissioned an extensive programme of research on the vaccination of animals against bovine TB following recommendations made in the Krebs report. Currently we have four projects which are directly related to generating and testing new vaccine candidates and these involve collaboration between Government agencies, institutes and universities both in the UK and internationally. There are also several allied projects to the vaccine programme which include using information from sequencing the M. bovis genome, studying the immune response and pathogenesis of TB, and developing improved diagnostic tests. However, success in developing a bovine TB vaccine that 's better than 60 per cent. effective cannot be guaranteed.

  The Independent Scientific Group on cattle TB is at present carrying out a scoping study into the feasibility of vaccination and is due to report at the end of the year.

  Flooding
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will ensure 934W
  that special precautions are taken to protect the people of Canvey Island at the time of the high tide expected in October. [71455]

  Mr. Morley
  Responsibility for flood forecasting and warning falls to the Environment Agency (EA) who have well-established arrangements with the Meteorological Office for securing accurate and timely weather forecasts. he emergency response to flooding falls primarily to local authorities, working with the emergency services and in close consultation and liaison with the EA.

  In recent years flood warning has been improved, emergency plans checked and amended and liaison arrangements between the EA, local authorities and emergency services improved.

  Canvey Island is protected by flood defences to a standard which is among the highest in the country. These defences protect against all but the most extreme conditions (those with a probability of occurrence of 0.001 or less in any one year). No special measures are therefore considered to be necessary to provide further protection during October above those already in place.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance his Department gives to local authorities regarding the granting of planning permission on(a) flood plains and (b) areas considered at risk from flooding. [70411]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions published planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 25 Development and flood risk for Transport Local Government and the Regions in July 2001. PPG 25 advises on the consideration of flooding issues that is needed at all stages of the planning system. In particular, it establishes a risk-based sequential test that gives priority to lower-risk areas and advises that built development on the functional flood plain should be wholly exceptional.

  Canoeists
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions, he has had with the new chairs of the regional fisheries, ecology and recreation advisory committees for the(a) Southern, (b) South West, (c) North West and (d) Thames region, on increasing access to water in their legion for canoeists. [71586]

  Alun Michael
  No such discussions have taken place. The new appointees do not take up their posts until 1 October 2002.

  French Beef Ban
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to(a) the European Commission and (b) her French counterpart on the French ban on the import of UK beef since the expiry of the 15 day period imposed by the European Court for the lifting of the ban. [70673]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: The Secretary of State made representations to the French Agriculture Minister on 15 July during the Agriculture

  935W
  Council. The European Commission decided on 17 July to refer France to the European Court of Justice for a second time in order to enforce the judgment given by the Court on 13 December 2001 that the ban should be lifted. The Commission also requested the Court to impose a substantial daily fine on France of 158,250 euro per day for failure to comply with the judgment.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what input the Government have into the process to be followed by the European Court following the refusal of the French Government to lift the ban on the import of UK beef within the 15 day time limit set down by the European Court. [70633]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: The European Commission decided on 17 July to refer France to the European Court of Justice for a second time in order to enforce the judgment given by the Court on 13 December 2001 that the ban should be lifted. Member states may apply to the Court to intervene in the case.

  Pet Passports
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about extending the overseas travel arrangements for pets to the USA and Canada; and when she expects to implement the policy. [70798]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: I announced on 1 July that the Government intend to extend the Pet Travel Scheme to pets entering the UK from the USA and Canada, subject to satisfactory conclusions from further work to assess the risk of importing rabies. I expect this work to be completed in the autumn.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consultations her Department has had with the NFU over the 2002 wages award recommended by the Agricultural Wages Board. [71190]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The president of the National Farmers Union (NFU) wrote on 10 July to Lord Whitty, the Under-Secretary, expressing concern about the decisions made by the Agricultural Wages Board at is meeting on 3–4 July.

  In subsequent discussions with the president of the NFU, Lord Whitty has made it clear that the Agricultural Wages Board is an independent body and it is not for Ministers to interfere in the processes of the Board.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what consultations her Department has had with the Agricultural Wages Board about the 2002 wages award. [71188]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The Department has had no consultations with the Agricultural Wages Board about the 2002 wages award. The Agricultural Wages Board is an independent organisation and it would not be appropriate for Ministers to intervene or seek to influence Board decisions.
  936W
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost to the horticultural industry of the 2002 wages award recommended by the Agricultural Wages Board. [71186]

  Mr Morley
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The Department provides statistical information to the Agricultural Wages Board in advance of its negotiations each year. This includes a ready reckoner showing the cost of a 1 per cent. and a £1 per week increase in pay rates for the agricultural industry as a whole.

  The proposals made by the Board for 2002 involve a number of changes to the wage structure contained in the Agricultural Wages Order. As a result, the ready reckoner cannot be relied on to provide a reliable estimate of the cost of the proposed 2002 award. However, DEFRA officials are working with the Board to cost its proposals and will share this information with the industry as soon as it is available.

  Carbaryl
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if her Department will reconsider its decision to ban the use of Carbaryl (Thinsec). [71187]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The loss of Carbaryl (Thinsec) stems from a commercial decision by the approval holder not to support the compound in the UK review of anticholinesterase pesticides. I see no reason, in the absence of modern safety data, why any pesticide product containing Carbaryl should be allowed back on to the market.

  French Lamb Ban
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) the Scottish NFU and (b) NFU Wales on the potential effects of the ban on the export of lamb as proposed by the French Government. [71676]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: The Government are very well aware of concerns about the potentially serious effects of proposed French measures on sheep SRM in relation to the Scottish and Welsh sheep industries. Not least as a result of representations from the NFU, the MLC and from officials in the devolved Administrations who have been assiduous in representing the concerns of their stakeholders.

  Both Ministers and officials are continuing to emphasise to the French authorities the very considerable importance of complying with EU rules on sheep SRM. We are also in touch with the European Commission about this issue.

  The Government will continue to argue strongly for the cancellation of the French proposals banning spinal cords of animals aged between six and 12 months, which provide no significant consumer protection benefit and are widely regarded as a disproportionate measure. Any further restrictions on sheep SRM must be agreed at Community level, not imposed unilaterally by member states. That is the way to maintain consumer confidence across Europe. It also ensures a level playing field for all member states regarding trade.
  937W
  Nonetheless, there is encouragement in France's recent decision to postpone these measures for six months. This shows that our arguments are having an effect.

  Consultation
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long the Department allowed for consultation on each consultation document it published in 2001 in(a) electronic and (b) printed form. [70087]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department issued 55 consultation documents in 2001 published both in electronic and printed form. 20 out of these had periods given for responses of less than 12 weeks.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in what format her Department has published the results of its 2001 written consultations. [69847]

  Mr. Morley
  The Departmental Guidance Notes for Written Consultations provides that at the end of all consultation exercises, sponsoring divisions should place all documents in the Department's main library where it is made accessible to members of the public on request.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which consultation documents published by her Department in 2001 were not made available as paper copies. [69827]

  Mr. Morley
  All consultation documents published by the Department in 2001 were made available as paper copies.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many complaints her Department has received about its 2001 consultations by(a) electronic and (b) printed means. [69826]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has received nine complaints about its 2001 consultations by electronic means and in addition a further six were received by telephone. No other complaints were received.

  Consultation

  Date issued

  Deadline

  Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: a Practical Guide, 2 edition—published for comment

  28 June 2002

  1 November 2002

  New draft Environmental Information Regulations

  15 July 2002

  4 October 2002

  Consultation on CAP reform: mid-term review of Agenda 2000

  11 July 2002

  4 October 2002

  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications (COM (2002) 119 final)

  5 July 2002

  30 September 2002

  Review of Access in Agri-Environment Schemes

  8 July 2002

  27 September 2002

  Consultation exercise on the bio-energy infrastructure scheme

  25 June 2002

  16 September 2002

  Crime prevention on rights of way: public consultation paper on the designation of areas and other procedural matters

  19 June 2002

  20 September 2002

  Enforcement of highway authorities' duty to prevent obstructions on rights of way consultation paper on the implementation of section 63 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

  19 June 2002

  20 September 2002

  Implementation of Directive 2000/76/EC on the Incineration of Waste

  21 June 2002

  9 September 2002

  Consultation on shrimp trawls: separator trawls (sieve/veil nets) and sorting grids

  18 June 2002

  6 September 2002

  Draft guidance on control of Johne's disease in dairy herds

  31 May 2002

  31 August 2002

  Energy labelling of household air conditioners and electric ovens: Consultation on New Regulations for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

  11 June 2002

  30 August 2002

  Implementation of Directive 2001/18/EC on the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Organisms into the Environment: second consultation on new regulations for England

  31 May 2002

  26 August 2002

  Consultation on Water Grid PPP: Removal of Restrictions on British Waterways' Statutory Powers

  15 May 2002

  16 August 2002

  Statistical methodology review of the monitoring sites used in the air quality headline indicator

  15 May 2002

  8 August 2002

  Consultation on The Government's Strategy for Combined Heat and Power to 2010

  15 May 2002

  7 August 2002

  Policy Review of Woodland Creation in England under the Woodland Grant Scheme and the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

  13 May 2002

  7 August 2002

  LAPC Consultation on Risk-Based Regulation and Inspection Frequency

  3 May 2002

  2 August 2002

  938W
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department for has a designated consultation co-ordinator in accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice oil Written Consultations. [69828]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department's designated consultation co-ordinator is Bronwen Jones. Her contact details are:

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Room 534, Nobel House

  17 Smith Square

  London

  SW 1P 3JR

  Bronwen Jones: 020 7238 5457

  email: "bronwen.jones@defra.gsi.gov.uk"

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether consultation documents published by her Department in 2001 carried the consultation criteria as recommended in the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations. [70088]

  Mr. Morley
  The departmental guidance notes for written consultations provides that consultation documents should include a summary of the criteria set out in the Code of Practice on Written Consultations. Compliance with this criteria is not monitored so information is not available.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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. [69804]

  Mr. Morley
  The Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation applies to all formal national public consultation documents issued by Departments from 1 January 2001. The information requested for consultations undertaken before that date is not available. All consultation documents issued by the Department since 1 January 2001 were made available in print and on-line.

  The table shown sets out the consultations undertaken by the Department since 1 January 2001 indicating the date it was issued and the deadline for responses.
  939W

  Consultation

  Date issued

  Deadline

  Consultation on Stage II Petrol Vapour Recovery

  16 April 2002

  9 July 2002

  Review of seed certification in England: draft seeds regulations and registration, licensing and enforcement regulation

  12 April 2002

  8 July 2002

  Consultation on draft code of recommendations for the welfare of cattle

  26 March 2002

  28 June 2002

  Economic evaluation of the Apple and Pear Research Council

  5 April 2002

  27 June 2002

  Consultation on UK Ratification of the 1998 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Heavy Metals

  20 March 2002

  11 June 2002

  Consultation on proposed Agricultural Development Scheme

  10 April 2002

  31 May 2002

  Consultation on Public Rights of Way: Rules for procedures for Inquiries and Hearings held under The Highways Act 1980, Wildlife And Countryside Act 1981 and Town and Country Planning Act 1990

  1 March 2002

  31 May 2002

  Consultation on proposals for amendment to the Potato Industry Development Council Order 1997 (as amended)

  6 March 2002

  29 May 2002

  Review of agri-environmental schemes in England

  26 March 2002

  27 May 2002

  Consultation on Food And Environment Protection Act 1985 (Part II): Charges for Licences to Deposit Materials At Sea and Approval Of Oil Spill Treatment Products

  28 March 2002

  25 May 2002

  Consultation on proposals for an EU Directive on environmental liability

  12 April 2002

  24 May 2002

  Consultation on flood and coastal defence funding review

  13 February 2002

  17 May 2002

  Consultation on Fees for Seed Certification 2002/03

  11 March 2002

  13 May 2002

  Consultation on Fees for National Listing and Plant Breeders' Rights

  11 March 2002

  13 May 2002

  Consultation on the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (England) Regulations 2002

  8 February 2002

  11 March 2002

  Consultation on developing a draft strategy for antimicrobial resistance in animals (VMD consultation)

  13 February 2002

  7 May 2002

  Consultation on detailed rules for determining the mesh size of fishing nets

  2 April 2002

  6 May 2002

  Consultation on an Animal Welfare Bill

  2 January 2002

  30 April 2002

  Consultation on the environmental impact of growing sugar beet

  28 January 2002

  24 April 2002

  Consultation on the Environment Agency's Objectives and Contribution to Sustainable Development

  25 January 2002

  18 April 2002

  Consultation on proposals for Regulations on Dedication of Access Land under Section 16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

  21 January 2002

  15 April 2002

  National Forest Company Quinquennial Review

  29 January 2002

  20 April 2002

  Consultation on changes to the EU sheepmeat regime

  29 January 2002

  15 March 2002

  Consultation on Better Quality Service review of the Egg Marketing Inspectorate

  29 January 2002

  28 February 2002

  Consultation on proposals for Regulations on Dedication of Access Land under Section 16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

  21 January 2002

  15 April 2002

  Consultation on implementation of powers in Animal Health Bill

  11 January 2002

  15 March 2002

  Consultation on conservation of native freshwater fish stocks—amendments to the Prohibition of Keeping or Release of Live Fish (Specified Species) Order 1998

  4 January 2002

  1 April 2002

  Consultation on quinquennial review and better quality services review of the UK Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS)

  21 December 2001

  31 March 20002

  Consultation on draft guidance to Local Highway Authorities on the preparation of Rights of Way Improvement Plans

  21 December 2001

  28 March 2002

  Consultation on quinquennial review of Horticulture Research International (HRI)

  21 December 2001

  22 March 2002

  Consultation on proposals for regulations on the exclusion or restriction of access to open countryside and registered common land under the Countryside And Rights of Way Act 2000

  21 December 2001

  22 March 2002

  Consultation outlining two options for reducing nitrate pollution of waters from agriculture in England

  20 December 2001

  15 March 2002

  Consultation on proposed national ambient noise strategy for England

  20 December 2001

  15 March 2002

  Amendments to 'The Welfare Of Animals (Slaughter Or Killing) Regulations 1995' (Wask)

  11 December 2001

  5 March 2002

  Consultation on Distribution of the £140 Million Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund

  21 November 2001

  21 January 2002

  Consultation on Proposals for Regulations on Provisional and Conclusive Maps under Section 11 of the

  19 November 2001

  8 February 2002

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

  Consultation on changes in the Protected Zone for Rhizomania

  15 November 2001

  14 January 2002

  Quality town and parish councils—consultation

  7 November 2001

  31 January 2002

  Consultation on review of Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976

  31 October 2001

  31 January 2002

  Consultation on guidance to draft codes of practice to minimise noise

  26 October 2001

  31 January 2002

  Consultation on changes to the BSE Offspring Slaughter Regulations

  25 October 2001

  22 November 2001

  Consultation on amendment to the BSE Monitoring (England) Regulations 2001

  22 October 2001

  14 November 2001

  Pollution Prevention & Control (England And Wales) Regulations 2000: Consultation on a Deferral of the Relevant Period for Applications of certain A2 and B Installations

  19 October 2001

  19 December 2001

  Consultation on extending the National Scrapie Plan and issues relating to scrapie reporting

  9 October 2001

  1 November 2001

  Consultation on implementation of Council Directive 1999/22/EC on the keeping of wild animals in zoos

  5 October 2001

  23 November 2001

  Milk Quotas: Consultation on new consolidated Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations

  5 October 2001

  10 December 2001

  Consultation European Commission proposals on measures for the control and prevention of zoonoses

  5 October 2001

  5 January 2002

  Consultation on a contingency plan for the possibility of BSE in Sheep

  28 September 2001

  21 December 2001

  Code of Practice on the Welfare of Red Meat Animals at Slaughter

  14 September 2001

  7 December 2001

  Consultation on managing radioactive waste safely

  12 September 2001

  12 March 2002

  Consultation on flood and coastal defence managed realignment: land purchase, compensation and payment for alternative beneficial land use

  24 September 2001

  31 December 2001

  Consultation on guidance on the role of flood and coastal defence in nature conservation in England

  24 September 2001

  31 December 2001

  Consultation on Radioactive Substances: Proposed Natural Gas Exemption Order

  19 September 2001

  19 December 2001

  Air Quality Strategy: Particles, Benzene, Carbon Monoxide and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

  17 September 2001

  12 December 2001

  Consultation on DEFRA voluntary Code of Practice for the prevention and control of salmonella in broiler flocks on farm

  3 September 2001

  3 December 2001

  Second consultation on Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Scheme Prioritisation System

  24 September 2001

  26 November 2001

  Consultation on recovery and recycling targets for packaging waste in 2002

  20 September 2001

  7 November 2001

  Consultation on UK implementation of Regulation (EC) 1093–2001, controlling third country imports of hemp

  7 September 2001

  3 December 2001

  Review of Seed Certification in England: draft Cereal Seed Regulations

  12 September 2001

  5 December 2001

  Second Consultation on Implementing the Uncultivated Land and Semi-Natural Areas Provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive

  4 September 2001

  31 October 2001

  Energy Efficiency Commitment—2002–2005: Consultation Proposals

  17 August 2001

  12 October 2001

  Consultation on National Park Authorities and Broads Authority review

  8 August 2001

  2 November 2001

  Consultation on waste management controls: proposed amendment to the duly of care

  10 August 2001

  26 October 2001

  Consultation on implementation of Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste (second consultation paper)

  8 August 2001

  26 October 2001

  Consultation on proposed EC Directive on the Energy Performance of Buildings

  9 August 2001

  26 October 2001

  940W 941W

  Consultation

  Date issued

  Deadline

  Consultation on draft Regulations on vehicular access over common land, under Section 68 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

  8 August 2001

  1 October 2001

  Consultation on DEFRA Aim and Objectives

  August 2001

  28 September 2001

  Consultation on Implementation of Directive 2001/18/EC on deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment

  27 July 2001

  26 October 2001

  Consultation on proposed changes to the Plant Health Directive 2000/29/EC

  31 July 2001

  26 October 2001

  Proposals for regulations on Local Access Forums under sections 94 & 95 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

  31 July 2001

  23 October 2001

  Consultation on draft Groundwater Protection Code for Fuel Dispensing Facilities Involving Underground Storage Tanks

  10 July 2001

  19 October 2001

  Consultation on the Veterinary Surgeon's Act 1966 Equine Dentisiry Exemption Order

  23 July 2001

  12 October 2001

  Consultation on Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Appeals Regulations

  13 July 2001

  23 August 2001

  Technical Amendments to the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994

  28 June 2001

  23 August 2001

  Consultation on the proposed reform of the EU sheepmeat regime

  5 June 2001

  20 July 2001

  Consultation on scallop technical conservation

  26 April 2001

  20 July 2001

  Consultation on the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 Artificial Insemination of Marea Exemption Order

  27 April 2001

  20 July 2001

  Consultation on MAFF's Welsh Language Scheme

  19 March 2001

  25 May 2001

  Consultation on new surveillance and testing measures over TB in cattle

  16 February 2001

  17 May 2001

  Quinquennial review of the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew

  16 January 2001

  9 April 2001

  Consultation on External Waters licences for Redfish at Iceland

  January 2001

  16 March 2001

  Consultation on a Statutory Instrument controlling Waste Waters from Rendering Plants

  8 January 2001

  5 March 2001

  Further information on all of the consultations shown in the table can be obtained from the DEFRA website (www.defra.gov.uk)

  Landfill
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with(a) the European Commission, (b) the Environment Agency, (c) local authorities, (d) industry and (e) others on building developments on former landfill sites; and if she will make a statement. [65961]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have had no such recent discussions on the subject of building on former landfill sites but officials are in regular contact with these organisations.

  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions published planning guidance that included building on former landfill sites in Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 14 "Development on unstable land" Annex 2 "Subsidence and planning" and in the Consultation document on draft planning technical advice on land affected by contamination in February 2002.

  In addition, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently revising Part C "Site preparation and resistance to moisture" of the Building Regulations 2000, which includes the precautions to be taken to avoid danger to health and safety caused by substances found on or in the ground to be covered by the building.

  Public Finance Initiative
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) guidance (i) has been given and (ii) is planned from her Department to local authorities and (b) legislation (1) is in place and (2) is planned regarding the environmental implications of developments through the Public Finance Initiative; and if she will make a statement. [65601]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local government PFI projects seeking central government support are required to indicate how they promote sustainable development, by demonstrating an integrated approach to the social. environmental and
  942W
  economic well-being of the area served, now and for future generations. They should also reflect the objectives of any Local Agenda 21 strategy for the area. Advice on enhancing environmental benefits is available in the context of design quality in the OGC guidance "How to achieve Design Quality in PFI Projects" and the 4ps "Achieving Quality in Local Authority PFI Building Projects" and authorities are expected to take account of this. This department plans to issue guidance on 'Green Public Private Partnerships' shortly. No legislation specifically concerning PFI is in place or planned.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Association of Citizen's Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the recent quinquennial review of the National Association of Citizen's Advice Bureaux. [72972]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The review, which started in January 2002, was recently completed and the subsequent report produced by our consultants was extremely positive about both NACAB and the CAB Service. The report concluded that NACAB is an organisation that represents significant value for money, has made real improvements in its governance and organisation since the last review and is making a very useful contribution in terms of the modernisation and e-Government agendas.

  The review demonstrates that, in all areas, both NACAB and the CAB Service make a significant and positive contribution, to individuals and Government at both a local and national level, are performing well and the report gives some useful examples of this.

  I am arranging for a comprehensive summary of the report, its findings and recommendations to be made available on the DTI website. Copies of the full report will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Radioactive Metals (Civil Stocks)
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish figures for the United Kingdom's stocks of civil plutonium and uranium as at 31 December 2001. [72966]
  943W
  Nigel Griffiths
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House figures for the United Kingdom's national holdings of civil plutonium and uranium as at 31 December 2001. In accordance with our commitment under the "Guidelines for the Management of Plutonium", I have today also sent the figures to the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who will be circulating them to member states in due course.

  Science, Engineering and Technology
  Albert Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her plans are for the future of science, engineering and technology in the United Kingdom. [72212]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government is today publishing "Investing in Innovation: a strategy for science engineering and technology". This document sets out tht Government's strategy for science, underpinned by the substantial new investment in science announced on 15 July by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).

  It sets out what the Government proposes to do. in partnership with other stakeholders, to ensure the long-term sustainability of our university research base. It provides details of how the Government intends to implement the recommendations of the Roberts Review. It makes clear the Government's commitment to continuing to expand our research base by strengthening existing research programmes through the Research Councils and allowing for research into exciting and promising new areas of science.

  The document shows how Government will further encourage collaboration between universities and the business sector through increased investment in knowledge transfer activities, and in particular, through an expansion of the Higher Education Innovation Fund. It also sets out how the DTI will increase the diffusion of advances in science and technology in the economy.

  Finally, it shows what steps the Government will take to improve the quality of the science done by Government Departments, and commissioned from others.

  Copies of the document have been placed in the Libraries of the House and may be viewed at http://www.ost.gov.uk/whatsnew.htm.

  Nuclear Energy
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations her Department has received regarding the economic competitiveness of nuclear energy. [69445]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his question on 17 July 2002,Official Report, column 346W.

  Energy Policy
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures her Department will implement to solicit public involvement in the development of energy policy; and if she will make a statement. [71522]
  944W
  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. The consultation paper has been sent to a wide range of stakeholders and is also available on the Department's website. A series of conferences and seminars associated with the consultation paper are being conducted.

  In addition, we are undertaking an innovative programme of events to engage members of the general public, including a stand at the Tomorrow's World Live Roadshows where the public can feed in their views on energy policy via a questionnaire which is also on the Department's website. We are also using focus groups and interactive workshops as a way to explore public views and understanding in more depth.

  Renewable Energy
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's methods are for assessing price imbalance exposure of(a) CHP and (b) renewable energy generators. [71581]

  Mr. Wilson
  The DTI does not make formal or detailed assessments of CHP and renewable generators' exposure to the imbalance prices that exist as part of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA). This is a commercial matter for generators.

  On 4 April 2002 the Government published its response to the consultation on NETA and smaller generators of 1 November 2001 http://www2.dti.gov.uk/energy/domesticmarkets/electricitytrading/netaresp.pdf.

  This identified the following actions that would be taken:

  (i) work with OFGEM to look at whether so-called "embedded benefits" could or should be made directly available to smaller generators;

  (ii) address some of the administrative burdens faced by smaller generators;

  (iii) ask OFGEM to ensure that imbalance prices are genuinely cost-reflective; and

  (iv) allow all generators to notify their predicted output closer to "real time".

  The Government continues to monitor the situation closely.

  Sub-post Offices
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices were closed due to a lack of suitable sub postmasters at the latest available date. [70875]

  Mr. Timms
  Sub-postmaster vacancies are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate her Department has made of the number of sub-post offices that are expected to close in the next year in(a) the UK and (b) Scotland. [72011]

  Mr. Timms
  The programme to restructure the urban post office network has not yet started and I am advised by Post Office Ltd. that, until it does, there are no specific plans for post office closures in the UK or in Scotland. When the programme starts it will be taken forward
  945W
  in consultation with individual sub-postmasters, the community, local stakeholders and Postwatch. Under the Code of Practice, Post Office Ltd. is required to consult Postwatch on individual changes and is briefing it on the process envisaged for reaching decisions.

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

  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she had made of the effect of the closure of sub-post offices on the provision of universal banking in(a) the UK and (b) Scotland. [72020]

  Mr. Timms
  The Performance and Innovation Unit recommended a programme of modernisation and restructuring designed to ensure that urban sub-post offices can operate as viable businesses for their owners and offer improved services from the right locations to serve their communities. The programme to restructure the urban post office network will be taken forward in consultation with individual sub-postmasters.

  In some urban areas, there are too many post offices in very close proximity to each other for them all to be viable, regardless of the provision of universal banking services at the Post Office, Universal Banking Services are due to be introduced in 2003 when migration of benefit payments to automated credit transfer (ACT) is scheduled to begin.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that on migration to ACT, those people who wish to do so will be able to continue to get their benefits in cash at post offices, in full without charge.

  Information Campaigns
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [70216]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: The cost of external publications as notified to my Department's Publications Unit and advertising expenditure through COI in 2001-02 was £4,553,677 and £6,630,590 respectively. Expenditure on campaign material is not held centrally.

  The following advertising campaigns cost more than £250,000 in 2001–02:

  £

  UK Online for Business

  2,509,823

  Business Link Awareness

  2,450,781

  Quality Mark Scheme

  908,179

  National Minimum Wage

  324,906

  Home Safety

  299,558

  Diesel Directive
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effects on UK diesel engine marinising companies and on UK agents for EU manufacturers of recreational craft engines of(a) the proposed EU Directive Com (2000) 639
  946W
  and (b) an amendment exempting producers of less than 5000 engines per annum from compliance for five years after the directive comes into effect. [71643]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: A Regulatory Impact Assessment submitted to the European Scrutiny Committee on 5 July 2001 provided an assessment of the effect of COM (2000)639 on affected parties including engine marinisers. No specific assessment has been made in respect of UK agents for EU manufacturers of recreational craft. Also no assessment has been made of the effect such an amendment would have on either of the two groups. COM (2000)639 has been under discussion within the Council and European Parliament for some time and the Council reached a Common Position, the text of which was published on 22 April 2002. The European Parliament made no such amendment during the first reading and it is unlikely that such an amendment would be considered at this late stage if it was not already proposed during the first reading. However, it is my understanding that a Council Working Group will meet some time in September to consider any second reading amendments. Once all these amendments have been forwarded to the Council, we will with our partners take a view on the whole package of amendments. Following that, and before the European Parliament second reading takes place, the UK Government will as usual issue briefing to UK MEPs which will make our position clear. In addition, the UK Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees will be kept informed.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Grade and Industry if she will make it her policy to support an amendment exempting diesel marinisers producing less than 5000 engines per annum from compliance with Com 2000) 639 for five years after it comes into force. [71642]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: COM (2000)639 relating to exhaust gas and noise emissions from recreational craft has been under discussion within the Council and European Parliament for some time and the Council reached a Common Position, the text of which was published on 22 April 2002. The European Parliament made no such amendment during the first reading and it is unlikely that such an amendment would be considered at this late stage if it was not already proposed during the first reading. However, it is my understanding that a Council Working Group will meet some time in September to consider any second reading amendments. Once all these amendments have been forwarded to the Council, we will with our partners take a view on the whole package of amendments. Following that, and before the European Parliament second reading takes place, the UK Government will as usual issue briefing to UK MEPs which will make our position clear. In addition, the UK Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees will be kept informed.

  Air and Noise Pollution
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effects of Corn (2000) 639 on air and noise pollution. [71641]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: No specific assessment has been made. COM (2000) 639 indicated that there would he a slight decrease in overall

  947W
  pollution as a result of implementation. However, this measure is proposed under Article 95 of the Treaty and is mainly concerned with the reduction of technical barriers to trade within the EU. It was on this basis that the UK supported the proposal while noting that in the long term there was likely to be some improvement in air quality and reduction in noise levels.

  Developing Countries
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to encourage developing countries(a) to conduct an impact assessment before deciding whether to liberalise service sectors and (b) to consult civil society and carry out an assessment before the March 2003 deadline for offers. [70939]

  Ms Hewitt
  The United Kingdom is fully committed to helping developing countries to carry out impact assessments on the liberalisation requests they are receiving. The Department for International Development is providing funding to both the World bank and UNCTAD to support projects aimed at helping to build the capacity of developing countries to carry out such assessments and to participate effectively in the GATS negotiations. We are also working with the key international agencies to make the most appropriate and effective use of the funding that has been made available to help with the assessment question.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 8 July 2002,Official Report, column 672W, what evidence she draws on to suggest that liberalisation of business, financial, telecommunications and transport services are most likely to contribute to development in developing countries. [70938]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are a number of studies on the actual or potential impact of liberalisation of services on developing countries. The World Bank's report "Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries 2002" gives a useful overview of the available evidence.

  Post Office
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the report evaluating the results of the pilot of the Your Guide service. [72968]

  Mr. Timms
  The report evaluating the results of the Your Guide service has been published today. Copies are now available in the Libraries of the House.

  Manufacturing (Productivity and Competitiveness)
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department will respond to the Trade and Industry Select Committee inquiry into the productivity and competiveness of manufacturing. [72971]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am delighted to report that my Department is today publishing a Command Paper in response to the report by the Trade and Industry Select Committee's report into the productivity and competitiveness of UK manufacturing.
  948W
  I warmly welcome the Committee's report, which has made a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate about the future of UK manufacturing. There is much in the Committee's excellent analysis with which the Government agrees, not least the importance of manufacturing to the UK economy.

  Manufacturing matters hugely. It produces a fifth of our national income, directly employs almost four million people and millions more in dependent businesses; and it supports many good jobs in some of the poorer regions of Britain. Manufacturing accounts for 60 per cent. of our exports and 80 per cent. of commercial research and development, so it is a driver of innovation and technology uptake. It is a key to future prosperity, our economy and the society in which we live.

  There are great opportunities for British manufacturers. The UK has real strengths to build on. We have many world-class companies. We have a stable macro-economic environment, a first class science base and membership of the EU giving access to the world's largest single market. But we recognise that we also have significant weaknesses; lower levels of skills, investment, R & D and innovation. Companies that rely mainly on labour intensive products and processes will find it ever more difficult to compete unless they evolve to meet the challenges. Companies must increase the value they add through innovative management, products and processes to succeed in the longer term.

  In particular, if UK manufacturers could match the productivity performance of France, Germany and the US, all else remaining equal, we would be £70 billion better off. Returns on investments would be higher, jobs better paid and companies more competitive. That is why the Department of Trade and Industry has put manufacturing at the heart of its agenda—a fact reflected in the Command Paper—and we have set challenging targets on productivity and are taking significant action across a wide front to deliver on them in the longer term.

  I welcome the Committee's call to give a greater focus across the DTI on the importance of the manufacturing industry and its needs, and to work with other Government departments in pushing forward the manufacturing agenda. Much progress has been made since the Committee began its inquiry and published its conclusions. A significant amount of what Government—and particularly DTI—does, supports manufacturing and has done for many years. But I have also instigated a step change by increasing both departmental and ministerial resources focused on manufacturing. The role of the Minister of State for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions has been strengthened—effectively creating a Minister with responsibility for manufacturing. The Department also has a strengthened structure with a new Manufacturing Policy Team and a new Director General for Innovation, when appointed, will play an important role as Chief Adviser on Manufacturing, reinforcing the importance of innovation as a key driver of manufacturing productivity. These changes are already meeting the Committee's recommendation that DTI should have a stronger and more strategic focus, commensurate with the importance of manufacturing.
  949W
  The Government also published, on 16 May, its Manufacturing Strategy; the first comprehensive and cohesive framework for manufacturing set out by any UK Government for over 30 years.

  A key role highlighted in the strategy will be to ensure that DTI champions more effectively the importance and needs of manufacturing and provides a vigorous lead on manufacturing issues. We are working to strengthen communication and co-operation between Whitehall departments and the regions to help UK manufacturers build on the opportunities of renewed world growth. Much progress is already being made here: at Ministerial level, a close working partnership with DTI, DfES, Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Treasury has already been established on training and skills issues. This is already yielding benefits, including a better skills policy balance between the supply side—what schools and colleges provide—and the demand side—what employers need from their work forces. We have also seen a joined-up UK approach to strengthening demand side leadership by employers through the creation of new Sector Skills Councils and better co-ordination of regional delivery through initiatives such as the DTI Manufacturing Advisory Service already being delivered in most regions by their designated regional centres for manufacturing excellence (RCMEs).

  I am confident that, as outlined in the Command Paper, the combination of a clear and coherent manufacturing strategy with enhanced and better focused Departmental resources in DTI provides a fresh basis for a stronger, better co-ordinated approach and more effective action to contribute to a successful UK manufacturing sector.

  Employment Businesses Regulations
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will finalise the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations. [72973]

  Alan Johnson: I have today published a consultation document on certain aspects of the draft regulations. After the end of the consultation period on 1 November 2002, I intend to lay the draft regulations, subject to any final amendments, with a view to bringing them into force in the first half of 2003. Copies of the consultation document have been sent to those who responded to the previous consultation and I have also placed copies of the document in the Libraries of the House and on the DTI website.

  The Government's response to the recent fixed-term public consultation on the draft Fixed-term Employees' (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 was also published today. We intend the fixed-term regulations to come into force on 1 October 2002.

  Broadband
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements she intends to make for the licensing of broadband fixed wireless access at 3.4 GHz. [72970]

  Mr. Timms
  Following extensive consultation with interested parties, I intend to award licences by auction later this year for the provision of public fixed wireless access at 3.4 GHz. There will be seven metropolitan and 950W
  seven provincial licences for England, Scotland and Wales and a single licence for Northern Ireland. Each licence will have a forward and return channel both of 20 MHz. There will be no roll-out obligations included in the licences and the proposed service restrictions have been removed. Licences will be for a term of up to 15 years.

  Regulations providing for the running of the auction have been made and will be laid before the House this week. I will issue a notice under the regulations that will set out the procedures to be followed during the auction. Once the regulations have come into force, I expect to invite applications for licences in September so that the auction may begin by early October.

  Coal Authority
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Coal Authority's report and accounts for 2001–02 will be laid before Parliament. [72967]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have today laid a copy before each House of Parliament.

  Consultation
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether consultation documents published by her Department in 2001 carried the consultation criteria as recommended in the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations. [70991]

  Ms Hewitt
  Consultation documents published by the Department are required to comply with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations. Internal DTI guidance also enforces the compliance requirements in the code.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints her Department has received about its 2001 consultations in electronic or printed form. [70994]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department received 11 complaints in 2001 regarding its compliance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations.

  Other complaints regarding consultation exercises are not held centrally.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how long her Department allowed for consultation on each consultation document it published in 2001 in(a) electronic and (b) printed form. [70990]

  Ms Hewitt
  Criterion 5 of the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation requires that 12 weeks should be the standard minimum period for a consultation. If the period is less than 12 weeks, the document should state Ministers' reasons for departing from the code, and what special measures—for example advance notice of at least the broad issues covered—have been taken to ensure that consultation is nevertheless as effective as possible.

  The Department is committed to the code and makes every effort possible to ensure that its consultation exercises comply with criterion 5. Data on the Department's performance in complying with the code is

  951W
  currently being compiled. I will write to the hon. Member with the requested information as soon as possible and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment her Department has made of the time horizons for the likely impact of hydrogen fuel cell technology on road vehicles; [72194]

  (2) what contracts her Department has awarded to (a) TNO (Netherlands), (b) IAV (Germany), (c) AVL (Austria), (d) FEV (Germany) and (e) IKA (Germany); [72193]

  (3) what funding her Department is providing for development of hydrogen fuel cell technology. [72208]

  Mr. Wilson
  In support of the objective to promote productivity and competitiveness, the DTI part funds collaborative R&D in the Foresight Vehicle programme to help accelerate the transfer of technology from the science base and promote its subsequent exploitation by industry. Foresight Vehicle is open to all UK-based companies and universities to submit proposals which if successful may receive grant funding. The programme does not commission research and therefore does not invite tenders from any company either in the UK or elsewhere in Europe. No DTI contracts have been awarded to TNO, IAV, AVL, FEV or IKA. Foresight Vehicle, as the national automotive R&D programme, issues calls for proposals based on rigorous technology road mapping conducted in partnership with industry. The latest technology road map, which has a 20 year time horizon, is in preparation and takes account of various options for powering future vehicles, including hydrogen fuel cells. The road map, which we hope to publish in the autumn, identifies enabling technologies and stages in the development of hydrogen fuel cells that are seen as prerequisites for the successful introduction of fuel cell road vehicles. The DTI is also a partner in the "Powering Future Vehicles" strategy and I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  The Department of Trade and Industry has been supporting work on fuel cells and hydrogen under the DTI Advanced Fuel Cells Programme since 1992. The total DTI spend is £12.2 million, and the current expenditure approximately £2 million pa. The programme supports work related to both stationary power generation and transport applications for fuel cells. It is estimated that approximately £6 million of the expenditure to date has been on transport-related fuel cell work.

  The Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) also supports fundamental research in universities on topics that relate to fuel cell/hydrogen research. Funding in these areas amounts to £15.7 million in the period 1992–93 to 2002–03.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Accounting Directives Contact Committee 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. [70901]
  952W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The EU Accounting Directives Contact Committee is next due to meet on 10 and 11 October 2002. Company accounting is not a devolved issue and therefore members of the Scottish Executive are not members of the Committee.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Advisory Committee on opening up public contracts 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. [71822]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Advisory Committee on opening up public contracts is next due to meet on 8 November 2002. The Committee is composed of independent experts appointed by the European Commission after consultation with business and industry. There are no Government officials on the Committee.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of directives on the removal of technical barriers to trade in the sector of electroinedical equipment used in human or veterinary medicine 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. [66421]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am not aware that the Committee has ever met, or of any plans for it to meet.

  Solar Power
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans she has to expand her Department's support of photo-voltaic solar power; [72818]

  (2) if her Department will continue to provide support for the installation of photo-voltaic solar panels in the UK. [72817]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government's aim is to work with industry and others to achieve a UK solar photovoltaic demonstration programme in line with those of our major competitors.

  I announced the first phase of this major Photovoltaics Demonstration Programme (PV MDP) on 26 March. The £20 million made available under the first phase is expected to increase tenfold the number of domestic PV installations in the UK by 2005.

  Decisions on the next phase will be taken in the light of experience gained with the first phase.

  Town Planners
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many registered(a) town planners and (b) landscape designers work in each Regional Development Agency. [71871]

  Alan Johnson
  There are 34 registered town planners working in the Regional Development Agencies at present. This figure is broken down as follows.
  953W

  Regional development agency

  Number of town planners

  Advantage West Midlands

  12

  East of England Development Agency

  3

  East Midlands Development Agency

  5

  North West Development Agency

  3

  One NorthEast

  0

  South East of England Development Agency

  5

  South West of England Development Agency

  5

  Yorkshire Forward

  1

  There are no landscape designers working in the agencies.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the timescale for the development of the universal bank; and whether it will be fully operational by 2003. [70845]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: Detailed work is being carried out on implementing universal banking services for delivery in advance of the migration of benefit payment to automated credit transfer from April 2003.

  Ex-miners (Compensation Claims)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims by(a) ex-miners and (b) widows of families of ex-miners suffering from vibration white finger, chronic bronchitis and emphysema have been processed; and how many still await to be processed, broken down by nation and region of the UK. [69574]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]: The figures are as follows. They are constantly changing due to the fact that claims continue to be received at the rate of 800 per week for vibration white finger (VWF) and respiratory disease respectively. Claims received very recently are therefore included in the total of "outstanding claims".

  Full and final settlements and outstanding claims by region as at 11 July 2002 for VWF

  VWF outstanding claims

  Live

  Widows/families

  Total

  Wales

  10,312

  962

  11,274

  Scotland

  5,377

  195

  5,572

  Nottinghamshire

  5,966

  1,026

  6,992

  Yorkshire

  35,895

  2,444

  38,339

  North East

  28,817

  906

  29,723

  North West

  2,564

  73

  2,637

  Midlands

  5,836

  192

  6,028

  South

  2,367

  84

  2,451

  Other

  321

  59

  380

  VWF full and final settlements (including denied/withdrawn)

  Live

  Widows/families

  Total

  Wales

  6,771

  219

  6,990

  Scotland

  3,015

  138

  3,153

  Nottinghamshire

  4,267

  91

  4,358

  Yorkshire

  12,384

  364

  12,748

  North East

  10,790

  449

  11,239

  North West

  1,714

  48

  1,762

  Midlands

  2,014

  38

  2,052

  South

  1,163

  9

  1,172

  Other

  117

  22

  139

  954W
  In addition there are over 10,000 VWF general damages offers with solicitors for consideration.

  The Department's claims handlers are unable to provide the breakdown of outstanding offers for VWF by region in the time given.

  Full and final settlements and outstanding claims by region for respiratory disease as at 11 July 2002

  COPD outstanding claims

  Alive

  Widows/families

  Total

  Wales

  15,165

  15,231

  30,396

  Scotland

  5,862

  5,645

  11,507

  Nottinghamshire

  5,906

  711

  6,617

  Yorkshire

  31,626

  16,817

  48,443

  North East

  20,858

  28,492

  49,350

  North West

  2,881

  2,200

  5,081

  Midlands

  4,475

  2,134

  6,609

  South

  2,540

  1,428

  3,968

  Other

  920

  701

  1,621

  COPD full and final settlements (including denied/withdrawn) as at 14 July 2002

  Alive

  Widows/families

  Total

  Wales

  5,019

  1,756

  6,775

  Scotland

  1,572

  172

  1,744

  Nottinghamshire

  1,799

  110

  1,909

  Yorkshire

  9,017

  1,314

  10,331

  North East

  5,118

  1,031

  6,149

  North West

  913

  164

  1,077

  Midlands

  1,358

  202

  1,560

  South

  890

  103

  993

  Other

  10

  6

  16

  In addition there are over 13,000 full and final offers with solicitors for consideration. The breakdown is:

  COPD outstanding offers (including denied) as at 15 July 2002

  Total

  Wales

  5,303

  Scotland

  1,644

  Nottinghamshire

  1,288

  Yorkshire

  6,916

  North East

  4,089

  North West

  491

  Midlands

  1,084

  South

  741

  Other

  1

  Employment Tribunals
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the length of time it takes to convene an employment tribunal. [71793]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: Cases are dealt with on an individual basis by the judiciary of the Employment Tribunals and it is not possible to state how long a case will wait before being heard. In 2001–02, 69 per cent. of single Employment Tribunal cases reached a first hearing within 26 weeks of receipt.

  0870 Telephone Numbers
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on using 0870 telephone numbers for inquiries by the public to the Department and its agencies. [66190]
  955W
  Ms Hewitt
  [pursuant to my reply, 11 July 2002, c. 1092W]I can now provide the individual Chief Executive replies.

  Letter from Julia Fraser to Mr. John Randall, dated July 2002:

  Radiocommunications Agency does not use any 0870 telephone numbers for enquiries from the public to the Agency.

  We do, however, have an 0845 local-call rate telephone number advertised as the number to call for members of the public wanting to report radio or TV interference, which connects to our main telephone enquiry point.

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. John Randall, dated July 2002:

  I am Chief Executive of The Insolvency Service and have been asked by the Secretary of State to reply to your question (2001/5280) on our policy on using 0870 telephone numbers.

  The Insolvency Service is an Executive Agency of the DTI and operates from 33 nationwide locations. Each office has a local telephone number, rather than a central 0870 number, which together with an extensive catalogue of information booklets comprises our primary information-giving service.

  Additionally The Service operates a central enquiry line from London with calls charged at the national rate.

  Letter from Roger Heathcote to Mr. John Randall, dated July 2002:

  You tabled a Parliamentary Question on I July 2002 to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry concerning the policy on using 0870 numbers for enquires by the public to the department and its agencies. I have been asked to reply in respect of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS) which is an executive agency of the DTI.

  The ETS does not use any 0870 numbers and has no policy on their usage.

  Our public enquiry line and its companion minicom line are operated on 0845 numbers. Calls to these two lines are charged at the local rate regardless of where in the United Kingdom from the call originates.

  Letter from Dr. J. W. Llewellyn to Mr. John Randall, dated July 2002:

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) to your question regarding the policy on using 0870 telephone numbers for enquiries by the public to the Department and its Agencies.

  The national Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) does not employ any 0870 numbers.

  Letter from Claire Clancy to Mr. John Randall, dated July 2002:

  I am responding on behalf of Companies House Executive Agency to your Parliamentary Question on the Department of Trade and Industry's policy on the use of 0870 telephone numbers for public enquiries.

  Companies House uses an 0870 telephone number for our national public enquiry call centre. The decision to employ this type of number is consistent with the guidance set down by the Office of e-Envoy, which states that the choice of a national rate, local rate, freefone or premium rate number should be determined by individual business requirements. As a Trading fund the Agency has to cover the cost of providing services and to avoid cross subsidy. These factors led to the decision to use an 0870 number.

  Letter from Caren Fullerton to Mr. John Randall, dated July 2002:

  I am replying on behalf of the Patent Office to your Parliamentary question, tabled on 1 July 2002, relating to the use of 0870 telephone numbers for enquiries by the public.
  956W
  The Patent Office does not use 0870 telephone numbers. It provides 0845 numbers to be used for enquiries by the general public, who are charged local call rates for their telephone calls. This policy, determined by the business requirements of the Patent Office, conforms with the e-Envoy-s Guidelines for UK Government Call Centres.

  Letter from Martin Wyn Griffith to Mr. John Randall, dated July 2002:

  To ask the SoS what her policy is on using 0870 telephone numbers for enquiries by the public to the Department and its Agencies.

  In response to the above Parliamentary Question, please note that:

  The Small Business Service's Small Firms Finance team contracts with EC Logistics who distribute Late Payment Guidance and other publications for the SBS via an "0870" number; and

  The SBS' Business Services directorate uses an "0870" number for the following purposes:
  The "CONNECT" hotline
  a) for Business Advisors—
  to enable direct contact for Business Advisors to the CONNECT team for booking equipment/technician for shows;
  for ordering CD-ROMS, technical advice, requests for presentation and clip finding service; and
  for general advice and requests for literature.
  b) for small business customers—
  for advice on how they can access the CONNECT series via their local Business Link
  The Benchmark Index hotline
  a) for Business Advisors—
  to enable direct contact with the Benchmark Index team for technical queries;
  for advice on questionnaires;
  for advice on the make up of data sets; and
  requests for literature and other general support.
  And b) for our small business customers–
  sign-posting them to their nearest Business Link operator for access to the Benchmark Index and general help and information.
  The Small Business Service uses these 0870 numbers in accordance with DTI central guidelines.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Deregulation Task Force
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how often the Deregulation Task Force has met in the last 12 months: what recommendations they have made; how many recommendations have been implemented; what savings businesses have made as a result; and if she will make a statement. [72156]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Better Regulation Task Force meets every month but August. Since July 2001, the Task Force has produced six reports, on regulatory issues concerning: Local Shops, Economic Regulators; Housing Benefit; Employment Regulations; Local delivery of Central Policy; and Higher Education. These reports together made 54 recommendations. The Government have, to date, responded to three of these reports and has rejected only one recommendation. The Task Force is an advisory body and cannot itself directly reduce costs on business.

  Nuclear Industry
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will exempt the nuclear energy industry from the climate change levy. [71549]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  The climate change levy is designed to encourage energy efficiency across the business and public sectors and to increase the use of sustainable forms of energy. The Government have no plans to exempt nuclear energy from the levy.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directive on the Removal of Technical Barriers to Trade in Electromedical Equipment used in Human or Veterinary Medicine 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. [55212]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directives for Removing Technical Barriers to Trade in Electromedical Equipment used in Human or Veterinary Medicine was established under Council Directive 84/539/EEC on the approximation of laws of the member states relating to Electromedical Equipment used in Human or Veterinary Medicine to give an opinion on:
  any amendments to Annex 1 of the Directive made necessary by the adaptation to technical progress of the harmonised standards by the relevant standards organisation,
  any amendments to Annex 1 which are desirable because of adaptation to technical progress where the relevant standards of the organisation has not made the corresponding amendments to the harmonised standard.

  We are not aware that the Committee has ever met.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Ombudsman
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to lay before each House the first annual report of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. [72872]

  Jane Kennedy
  Copies of the Police Ombudsman's first annual report, covering the period from November 2000 when the office was created to March 2002, have today been placed in the Library. It is a general report on the discharge of the Ombudsman's function during this period which is submitted to me for laying before Parliament in accordance with Section 61 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.
  958W

TREASURY

  Regional Funding
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer., pursuant to his answer of 9 July 2002,Official Report, column 862W, on regional funding, if his staff are working on potential changes to the way the departmental expenditure level is al located to the devolved regions. [72605]

  Mr. Boateng
  No. The Government's funding policies for the devolved administrations were set out in the updated Statement of Funding Policy published by the Treasury on 15 July.

  Withholding Tax
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Swiss Government about the reclaiming of the withholding tax on dividends by UK residents; and if he will make a statement. [72473]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government has held no such discussions with the Swiss Government.

  UK Debt Management Office
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the UK Debt Management Office's annual report and accounts. [72873]

  Ruth Kelly
  The DMO's annual report and administrative accounts for 2001–02 are being laid before the House of Commons and published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Reports
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the 2002 departmental reports were published. [72876]

  Mr. Boateng
  The publication dates of the 2002 departmental reports are as follows.

  Departmental report

  Date

  Department for International Development

  24 April

  Department for Work and Pensions

  23 May

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  10 June

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  10 June

  HM Treasury

  10 June

  Inland Revenue

  10 June

  Department for Education and Skills and Office for Standards in Education

  11 June

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  11 June

  Charity Commission for England and Wales

  12 June

  Department for Culture. Media and Sport

  12 June

  Lord Chancellor's Departments

  12 June

  Home Office

  13 June

  Office for National Statistics

  13 June

  Scotland Office

  13 June

  Wales Office

  13 June

  British Trade International

  14 June

  Department of Trade and Industry

  14 June

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  14 June

  Food Standards Agency

  14 June

  Government Actuary's Department

  14 June

  Law Officers' Departments

  14 June

  National Savings and Investments

  14 June

  Northern Ireland Office

  14 June

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  19 June

  Cabinet Office

  26 June

  Office of Fair Trading

  27 June

  959W

  Departmental report

  Date

  Ministry of Defence

  9 July

  Department of Health

  18 July

  Criminal Finances
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further measures he proposes to take on disclosure of beneficial ownership of companies in attacking criminal finances. [73099]

  Ruth Kelly
  In response to a recommendation in the report "Recovering the Proceeds of Crime", the Government are today publishing a Consultation Document on the findings of a Regulatory Impact Assessment. This assessment examines ways in which greater disclosure of beneficial ownership of companies could assist law enforcement in tackling serious organised crime and funding of terrorism. The assessment identifies a range of benefits and gauges the potential additional burdens on companies; it concludes that advantages could be derived from enhanced disclosure while imposing limited additional costs on industry. The Government wish to consider the proposals further and welcome responses to the Consultation Document from those with interests in this area.

  Publication of the assessment marks the Government's continuing determination that the UK should remain at the forefront of the international fight against organised crime and terrorist funding. At the same time, the Government wish to ensure that UK companies are not subject to disproportionate new burdens and will carefully consider the impact of potential changes in the field of company law.

  Copies of the Consultation Document and Regulatory Impact Assessment have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Double Taxation Protocol
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to submit to the House the double taxation protocol that the Government recently concluded with Lithuania; and if he will make a statement. [73101]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Protocol with Lithuania was signed on 21 May 2002. The text of the Protocol with Lithuania has been published today as a schedule to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House. After signature the text was deposited in the Library of the House and made available on the Inland Revenue's website.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the new double taxation convention with South Africa. [72875]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The double taxation convention was signed on behalf of the two governments on 4 July. The text has been deposited in the Library of the House and made available on the Inland Revenue's website. It will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid for consideration by the House at the earliest convenient opportunity.

  Tax Benefit Reference Manual
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the next edition of the Tax Benefit Reference Manual will be published. [72874]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Copies of the 2002–03 edition of the Tax Benefit Reference Manual are today being deposited in the Library of the House.

  Pool Re Scheme
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how negotiations are progressing with industry on changes to the Pool Re scheme to take account of changes in the terrorism insurance and reinsurance markets since 1993 and in particular since 11 September 2001. [73100]

  Ruth Kelly
  Today I am announcing changes to the Pool Re scheme which will enable insurers to offer terrorism insurance across a wider range of risks. The outcome is part of a package of reforms which have been agreed by a government-industry working group set up to look at changes to Pool Re needed after 11 September.

  The working group has reached agreement on the main changes to the scheme. The changes include extension of Pool Re cover from "fire and explosion" only, to an "all risks basis", to ensure that a terrorist attack involving, for example contamination, impact by aircraft, or flood damage could be covered by the scheme. This increased cover will be available in the next few weeks and will be reflected in higher premiums for the period covered. There will be an option to backdate to 1 January 2002. The existing exclusion for nuclear risks will also be removed as soon as practicable, and by 1 January 2003 at the latest.

  Other changes to the scheme include changes to the financing of Pool Re to encourage competition, and changes to make governance arrangements more transparent in the public interest. These will take effect from 1 January 2003.

  The details will need to be finalised over the coming months. Further information about these changes are published on the Treasury's website and in an explanatory statement in the House Library.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the EU Contact Committee—European economic interest grouping 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. [70905]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply. I am not aware of any plans for a meeting.

  The Committee consists of representatives of the Member States and the EU Commission. The Scottish Executive is not separately represented on the Committee.

  E-commerce
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Treasury is taking to introduce public-private partnerships into the e-commerce sector; and if he will make a statement. [71600]
  961W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government has no specific policy to bring public-private partnerships into the e-commerce sector. All Departments when assessing the funding options for a project will consider the possibility of a PFI. However, the final decision will always be based upon which option offers the best value for money for the taxpayer.

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Contracts
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contracts his Department has recently awarded to(a) TNO (Netherlands), (b) IAV (Germany), (c) AVL (Austria), (d) FEV (Germany) and (e) IKA (Germany). [72200]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has no contracts with those companies.

  Cranford Agreement
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 616W, if he will place a copy of the Cranford Agreement in the Library; when he expects to have completed the review of it; if he will list the parties involved in the Cranford Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the status of the agreement. [72431]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The arrangement normally referred to as the Cranford Agreement is believed to date from 31 July 1952. It would appear that it was an undertaking given by a senior airport official during a local public meeting of the Cranford Residents and District Amenities Association, which was attended on that occasion by the Minister of Civil Aviation ("Mr. Lenox-Boyd"). If there was a written record, it appears not to have survived. The evidence given by the former DETR to the Terminal 5 Inquiry in July 1997 includes a fuller account and history of the undertaking, and I have placed an extract from that evidence in the Library. Our aim is to complete the technical review stage this year. I will then issue a consultation paper.

  Press Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [70535]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: Detailed information on the numbers of permanent press officers employed in departmental press offices during the financial years 1997–98 were provided in a memorandum dated 16 June 1998 to the select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report on The Government Information and Communication Service (HC 770) in July 1998. Copies are in the Libraries of the House.
  962W
  The number of full time equivalent press officers employed in the relevant departmental press office on 1 January for subsequent years were:

  Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Central)

  Year

  Numbers

  1999

  34.3

  2000

  40.8

  2001

  38.0

  Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Central)

  Year

  Numbers

  2002

  27.8

  Secondees to the press office during the full calendar years for which information is available were:

  Year

  Numbers

  1999

  0

  2000

  1

  2001

  5

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the speeches made by Ministers with responsibility for transport issues to external organisations between 1 January and 31 May. [71449]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers responsible for transport issues have undertaken a very wide range of speaking engagements between 1 January and 31 May 2002. A record of all speeches is not held centrally. Archived DTLR speech material can be viewed at www.dtlr.gov.uk/about/ministers/speeches/index.htm

  Departmental Reorganisation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes there have been in the total wage expenditure budget since the departmental reorganisation in June; and if he will make a statement. [70712]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been no changes in the total pay budget associated with the Department of Transport., Local Government and the Regions' total administration resources. The division of these resources between the two new departments—the Department for Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—is currently being finalised. However, no additional resources are being made available from the Exchequer as a result of the departmental reorganisation.

  European and International Business
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what work is being undertaken in his Department by the division responsible for European and International Business; and if he will make a statement. [70655]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 18 July 2002,Official Report, columns 455–56W.

  Travel Times
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the differences between travel times road users would achieve in free-flowing conditions and the travel times they actually achieve, in average time lost per kilometre driven(a) on inter-urban trunk roads, (b) on roads in large urban areas, (c) in other urban areas, (d) in London, (e) in all other areas and (f) on all roads in each of the last three years. [71316]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: We hope to publish a year 2000 baseline figure for congestion.

  Transport Benchmarks
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the benchmark is for(a) accessibility, (b) punctuality, (c) reliability and (d) use of local public transport against which the PSA targets for transport contained in the 2002 Spending Review are set. [71620]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The underlying target of increasing the use of local public transport (bus and light rail) by more than 12 per cent. by 2010 will be measured against the baseline figure of 3,881 million passenger journeys by light rail and local bus services in England in 2000–01.

  We are considering the most appropriate means of measuring improvements to accessibility, punctuality and reliability in relation to this target.

  Fuel Reduction Technology
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department's policy is on providing collaboration funding for development of fuel reduction technology with British companies; and whether it is the policy of his Department to seek tenders for other European companies before awarding such funding. [72317]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department's New Vehicle Technology Fund supports the development of clean and low-carbon vehicles and technologies The Fund invites proposals and provides funding towards the costs of successful projects.

  Invitations and funding are not restricted to British companies and applications currently being assessed involve a range of British, European and international collaborators.

  Alternatively Fuelled Vehicles
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of road journeys in the UK were made by vehicles powered by biodiesel and alternatively fuelled vehicles in 2001. [72820]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is not possible to provide figures in the form requested; traffic data collected by the Department for Transport (DfT) is collected according to vehicle type not propulsion type. Calculating the proportion of journeys for cars powered by alternative fuels such as biodiesel is extremely difficult as they are almost always capable of running on pure conventional fuels.
  964W
  The DfT publishes figures for the total number of vehicles registered according to propulsion type based on DVLA records. As table 1 shows, in 2001, of a total of 29,747,100 vehicles licensed in the UK, 46,700 were alternatively powered, representing 0.16 per cent. of total registrations. This figures does not include vehicles capable of being solely or partially powered by biofuels for the reason outlined earlier.

  Table 1. Breakdown of vehicles licensed in the UK in 200] according to propulsion type

  Thousand

  Number

  Petrol

  23,219.0

  Diesel

  6,481.5

  Petrol/gas

  24.0

  Gas/gas Bifuel/Gas-diesel

  6.0

  Electric and hybrid electric

  15.1

  Steam/fuel cells

  1.6

  All

  29,747.1

  Further information is available from the DtT's traffic statistics website at: http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk.

  But this understates the number of alternatively-fuelled vehicles because not all conversions to alternative fuelling are notified to DVLA. There are currently estimated to be over 100,000 alternatively fuelled vehicles in the UK, the vast majority of which are LPG cars.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the future of the Traffic Area Network and the Vehicle Inspectorate. [72955]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following an internal departmental review, I intend to establish a new executive agency (name to be determined) on 1 April 2003 to bring together the work of the Traffic Area Network and the Vehicle Inspectorate. The new agency will play a key role in promoting safe, fair and environmentally responsible road haulage and bus industries. It will also provide support for Traffic Commissioners in their role of regulating the road haulage and bus industries.

  The agency will be one of four executive agencies which make up the Driver, Vehicle and Operator (DVO) group of agencies within my Department. The other agencies are the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) and the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA). The creation of this new agency within the DVO group will allow a more joined up and customer-focused approach to the services provided to road transport industry, and better targeted enforcement to the benefit of road safety. Traffic Commissioners will be wholly independent of the new agency in the same way that they are independent of TAN and VI now.

  The new agency is a positive, practical demonstration of the Government's commitment to promoting road safety and delivery of modern customer services.

  Hydrogen Fuel
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the time horizons for the likely impact of hydrogen fuel cell technology on road vehicles. [72201]
  965W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government in December published and invited comment on its proposed "Powering Future Vehicles" strategy for promoting the development, introduction and take-up of new low-carbon vehicles and fuels, including hydrogen fuel cell technology. Following wide consultation, the strategy will be finalised and issued shortly. I shall send the hon. Member a copy of the document.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funding his Department is providing for development of hydrogen fuel cell technology. [72202]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Mmister for Energy and Construction.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of the number of fraudulent driving licences in circulation. [72108]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is not possible to provide the estimate which the hon. Member is seeking.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the bar code on the(a) driving licence card and (b) counterpart driving licence accesses information additional to the information contained on the face of the driving licence card and the counterpart driving licence. [72116]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The bar codes on these two documents are only for processing purposes. They do not allow access to any additional information.

  Cycling
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will initiate a bicycle awareness campaign. [71929]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department is currently developing a cycle safety campaign for teenagers which it intends to launch in early 2003. This is a new departmental commitment and complements existing material for younger cyclists.

  Roads
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what national guidelines there are on the use of road signs alerting road users to the presence of cyclists. [71718]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The primary guidance on the use of traffic signs to alert road users to the presence of cyclists is contained in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Signs Manual, "Warning Signs". Further general guidance on cycle signing is given in Local Transport Note 2–87 "Signs for Cycle Facilities". There is also a wide range of Traffic Advisory Leaflets dealing with the provision of special facilities for cyclists, including guidance on how these should be signed.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road users in the Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr constituency had accidents in the last year for which figures are available; and what the UK average is. [71763]
  966W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Information is not available for parliamentary constituencies. The table gives the number of casualties in road accidents in 2000 and the number of casualties per 100,000 population in the Carmarthenshire unitary authority and the UK.

  Road casualties and casualty rates per 100,000 population: 2000

  Carmarthenshire

  UK

  Road casualties

  856

  335,003

  Casualty rate per 100,000

  506

  560

  The casualty rate is the number of casualties per 100,000 people.

  Congestion
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the loss of time per kilometre in hours for drivers and passengers on roads in(a) England and (b) Great Britain in each of the last three years as a result of congestion. [71323]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: We hope to publish the year 2000 baseline for congestion in the autumn.

  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 668W, on road and bridge maintenance, if he will place copies of the assessment made by his Department on the condition of roads and bridges as set out by the local transport plans and annual progress reports submitted by the highways authorities last year in the Library; and what assessment he has made of the annual progress reports, submitted by the highways authorities last year, as to the progress made in road and bridge maintenance. [71376]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: The individual assessments of the highway maintenance elements of the Local Transport Plans and Annual Progress Reports were rough working documents. For this reason I have not placed them in the Library. Feedback on the assessments is provided to authorities in their decision letters.

  The Annual Progress Reports (APRs) for 2001 showed that most authorities had made progress towards halting the deterioration in the condition of principal roads by 2004, and were tackling the strengthening and structural maintenance work outstanding on bridges. This is of course as a result of the increased investment in roads.

  A140
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are for(a) bypasses, (b) road widening and (c) road schemes on the A 140. [71866]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The A140, from Norwich to the A14 in Suffolk, was detrunked in May 2001 and is now the responsibility of Norfolk and Suffolk county councils. The Councils are jointly developing a route management strategy for the A 140, which is expected to be completed later this year. The Strategy will identify a future programme of improvements along this route. Any road
  967W
  improvement schemes, which are identified through this study, will be for the local authority to take forward within the context of their local transport plan.

  "In Town Without My Car! Day"
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to promote and facilitate local authorities participation in the "In Town Without My Car! Day"; and if he will make a statement. [71228]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department established a website www.itwmc.gov.uk and appointed a national co-ordinator to give advice to local authorities and others who wish to participate in the European "In Town Without My Car!" campaign on 22 September 2002. The closing date for local authorities to register formal participation is Friday 19 July. By 18 July, 36 authorities had registered.

  Drink-driving
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many crashes in which people were(a) killed, (b) seriously injured, (c) slightly injured and (d) not injured on roads in England and Wales were caused by a driver who was over the drink-drive limit in each of the last 10 years. [70956]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Estimates of the numbers of road accidents in Great Britain which involved personal injury and where at least one driver was over the drink-drive limit are given in the table. Information on the number of accidents involving drink-driving where injuries did not occur is not available.

  Estimates of accidents involving illegal alcohol levels: Great Britain 1991–2000

  Number of accidents

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1991

  570

  2,590

  8,530

  11,690

  1992

  540

  2,360

  7,890

  10,790

  1993

  460

  1,870

  7,160

  9,480

  1994

  470

  2,090

  7,330

  9,900

  1995

  460

  2,140

  7,590

  10,180

  1996

  480

  2,150

  8,240

  10,870

  1997

  470

  2,140

  8,100

  10,710

  1998

  410

  1,860

  7,840

  10,100

  1999

  400

  1,850

  8,800

  11,050

  20001

  430

  1,950

  9,410

  11,780

  1 Provisional

  Harbours
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) fishing and (b) non-fishing harbours there are in each country and region of the UK. [72563]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department does not keep information on the exact overall numbers of harbours in the UK. There are 74 Fishery Harbours in England and 21 in Wales, listed in Schedule 4 to the Sea Fish Industry Act 1951. Responsibility for fishery harbours in Scotland is a devolved matter and related questions should therefore be addressed to the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what basis he classes harbours as(a) fishing and (b) non-fishing. [72562]
  968W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Fishery Harbours in England and Wales are designated by virtue of being listed in Schedule 4 of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1951. There is no process of designating general harbours. Responsibility for harbour legislation in Scotland is a devolved matter and related questions should therefore be addressed to the Scottish Parliament.

  Housing
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on the transport implications of the Deputy Prime Minister's oral statement on housing of 18 July. [72111]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister have regular discussions on a range of issues of mutual interest.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to revise(a) the 10-Year Transport Plan and (b) the SRA 10-Year Plan to accord with the Deputy Prime Minister's oral statement on housing strategy on 18 July. [72113]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Deputy Prime Minister's statement on housing strategy will be taken into account in any future review of either Plan.

  Mersey Passenger Transport Authority
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the experience and qualifications in rail expertise in the Mersey Passenger Transport Authority. [72486]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 11 July 2002,Official Report, column 1114W.

  Rail Freight
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guarantee he has had from the French Government that previous levels of cross channel rail freight will be resumed; and when he expects the full and reliable 100 services each way each week to be achieved. [72093]

  Mr. Spellar
  After their meeting on 12 July, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the French Interior Minister announced that they would visit in September to confirm the effectiveness of security measures taken to ensure normal service.

  A full and reliable service is one which meets demand. Immediately prior to the current disruptions the scheduled inbound service was 96 trains per week.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made towards rail freight targets under the 10-year plan. [72092]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority set out in its Freight Strategy last year the detailed plans for achieving the significant rail freight growth envisaged by the Government's 10-year plan for Transport. During the financial year 2001–02, the first full year of the plan, the amount of rail freight moved has grown by 9 per cent.

  We will be producing a review of the 10-year plan later in the year.

  West Coast Main Line
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Strategic Rail Authority to present its report on the upgrading of the West Coast Main Line. [71725]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA are currently expecting their draft strategy for the West Coast Main Line to be issued for consultation in September.

  Train Operating Companies
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much revenue has been lost by train operating companies in each of the past five years as a result of(a) no staff being available to collect fares on services and (b) staff being unable to proceed along trains owing to overcrowding. [71538]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. Revenue protection is a matter for the train operating companies. It is in their commercial interest to ensure that passengers travel with valid tickets.

  Rail Journey Times
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the reduction in rail journey times in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [71155]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: The Strategic Rail Authority generally considers journey time improvements at the level of specific routes or investment propositions.

  Trains (Punctuality)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what figures he has collated relating to the(a) punctuality and (b) reliability of trains as given under the former Passenger's Charter measure, in each of the last three years. [71059]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: Passenger's Charter data are still published by individual TOCs but are no longer collated by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA). They have been superseded by Public Performance Measure (PPM) which, unlike the Passengers' Charter data covers all trains, on all lines, all days of the week.

  Performance data are published quarterly by the SRA in 'On Track' (copies of which are in the Libraries of the House).

  Annual Rail Freight Conference
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place a copy of the speech made by the Minister for Transport on 20 June to the annual rail freight conference in the Library. [70644]

  Mr. Spellar
  A copy has now been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Rail Investment Programmes
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in real terms(a) rail investment programmes for 2002 and (b) projected plans for 2003. [72462]
  970W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The prioritised programme for rail investment was set out in the SRA's Strategic Plan. Individual investment projects within programmes such as the Rail Passenger Partnership fund and the freight grant scheme are appraised on an on-going basis.

  Air Services (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Government will publish the transportation document on the future of Scotland's air services and airports. [72439]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are today publishing the consultation document on the future of air transport in Scotland, which has been prepared jointly with the Scottish Executive.

  Aviation White Paper
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to meet the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems Association to discuss the forthcoming Aviation White Paper. [71849]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has no plans to meet the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems Association. The UAVSA will, however, be sent a copy of the Department's consultation paper on development options at airports around the UK, to which the Association may respond. If the Association has other concerns it wishes to raise then it should make representations to the relevant departmental officials.

  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what forecast he has made of the change in the numbers of unmanned aerial vehicles over the next five years; what assessment he has made of the safety and economic benefits of unmanned aerial vehicles; and what assessment he has made of the civilian and commercial[ applications of unmanned aerial vehicle systems. [71841]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is difficult to forecast the change in numbers of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) over the next five years, but the CAA has established a framework to help ensure that any future UAV operations are integrated safely and with minimal impact on existing, airspace users.

  The CAA's Directorate of Airspace Policy has published a guidance document, "Guidance for UAV Operations in UK Airspace", designed to provide consolidated information for UAV operators, both military and civil. The CAA is awaiting applications from Industry to fly UAVs but to date there has been little Interest.

  Flight BA 2069
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who invited the Civil Aviation Authority to participate in the investigation of the incident on flight BA 2069; on what date the Civil Aviation Authority began its investigation; and what the brief was of that investigation. [71233]

  Mr. Jamieson
  British Airways notified the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of the incident on the day it occurred, 29 December 2000, and immediately began its own investigation. The CAA has monitored and reviewed
  971W
  the British Airways investigation throughout as part of its ongoing regulatory oversight of UK airlines. As a result, 12 new safety requirements were issued to all UK operators on 18 September 2001.

  The Government asked the CAA to keep it advised of the progress of its review and the completed review was sent to the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on 23 January 2002. An abbreviated version was placed in the Libraries of bosh Houses.

  Thameslink
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his predecessor received the report of the inspector following the public inquiry into proposals by Thameslink; and what the earliest and latest dates are which he has set for a decision. [72087]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Inspector provided his report on the inquiry into the Thameslink 2000 scheme in January this year. He later provided two addenda reports in May and June. These reports will be published when we make an announcement on this scheme, which we expect to do shortly.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Car and Despatch Agency
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he will publish the Government Cm and Despatch Agency's annual report and accounts 2001–02. [73104]

  Title

  Opening date for responses

  Closing date for responses

  National Gallery/National Portrait Gallery Review: stage one consultation

  8 January 2001

  30 January 2001

  National Heritage Memorial Fund Review: stage one consultation

  4 April 2001

  25 May 2001

  Report of the Gambling Review Body

  17 July 2001

  31 October 2001

  National Museum of Science and Industry Review: stage one consultation

  1 August 2001

  19 October 2001

  Geffrye Museum/Horniman Museum/Museum of London Review: stage one consultation

  8 August 2000

  12 October 2001

  Consultation on the draft Digital Television Action Plan

  12 October 2001

  2 January 2001

  English Heritage Review: stage one consultation

  16 October 2001

  11 January 2002

  Public Lending Right. Quinquennial Performance Review: Consultation Paper

  13 November 2001

  1 February 2002

  Quinquennial Review on the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art

  19 November 2001

  8 February 2002

  National Maritime Museum Quinquennial Performance Review

  22 November 2001

  8 February 2002

  Consultation on Media Ownership Rules

  26 November 2001

  25 January 2002

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester: Quinquennial Performance Review

  5 December 2001

  28 February 2002

  Spectrum Planning Consultation

  11 December 2001

  12 April 2002

  Council of Europe—Convention on the Protection of Audiovisual Heritage*

  20 December 2001

  19 March 2002

  Review of Progress toward digital switchover

  14 February 2002

  8 May 2002

  Regent's Park Sports Facilities Consultations

  18 March 2002

  10 May 2002

  UK's Open General Export Licensing (OGEL) Limits

  19 April 2002

  14 June 2002

  Changes to Licensing Hours during All New Year's Eves

  24 April 2002

  19 June 2002

  The Draft Communications Bill

  7 May 2002

  2 August 2002

  Prize Competitions

  23 May 2002

  31 August 2002

  National Lottery Licensing and Regulation Consultation

  27 June 2002

  30 September 2002

  Note:

  All consultations were available in print and all were available on-line except for those indicated with a *.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which consultation documents published by her Department in 2001 were not made available as paper copies. [70981]

  Dr. Howells
  None—all consultation documents were made available as paper copies.
  972W
  Mr. Alexander
  I have today laid the GCDA annual report and accounts 2001–02 before Parliament, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Regulatory Assessment
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the baseline measures for overall compliance with the regulatory assessment process will be published; and if he will make a statement. [69535]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office is currently undertaking work to calculate a baseline measure for overall compliance with the regulatory impact assessment process. Some further work remains to be done to validate the data underlying the baseline. However, it is currently expected that the Cabinet Office will be in a position to publish the baseline measure before the end of the financial year.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Consultation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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 (cl) the date the time period given for responses closed [69794]

  Dr. Howells
  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. Since 2001, the details are as follows:

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many complaints her Department has received about its 2001 consultations in electronic or printed form. [70980]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department received two complaints in electronic or printed form about the consultation process of its 2001 consultations.
  973W
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how long her Department allowed for consultation on each consultation document it published in 2001 in(a) electronic and (b) printed form. [70976]

  Document name

  Total time allowed for consultation

  National Gallery/National Portrait Gallery Review: stage one consultation

  3 weeks

  National Heritage Memorial Fund Review: stage one consultation

  7 weeks and 2 days

  Report of the Gambling Review Body

  15 weeks

  National Museum of Science & Industry Review: stage one consultation

  11 weeks and 2 days

  Geffrye Museum/Horniman Museum/Museum of London Review: stage one consultation

  9 weeks and 2 days

  Consultation on the draft Digital Television Action Plan

  12 weeks

  English Heritage Review: stage one consultation

  12 weeks

  Public Lending Right. Quinquennial Performance Review: Consultation Paper

  11 weeks

  Quinquennial Review on the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art

  12 weeks

  National Maritime Museum Quinquennial Performance Review

  11 weeks and 1 day

  Consultation on Media Ownership Rules

  9 weeks

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester Quinquennial Performance Review

  12 weeks

  Spectrum Planning Consultation

  Extended to 17 weeks

  Council of Europe—Convention on the Protection of Audiovisual Heritage*

  12 weeks and 5 days

  Review of Progress towards digital switchover

  12 weeks

  Regent's Park Sports Facilities Consultation

  8 weeks

  UK's Open General Export Licensing (OGEL) Limits

  8 weeks

  Changes to Licensing Hours during All New Year's Eves

  8 weeks

  The Draft Communications Bill

  12 weeks

  Prize Competitions

  14 weeks

  National Lottery Licensing and Regulations Consultation

  13 weeks and 2 days

  Note:

  All of these were available in both electronic and printed form, except for the one marked with an*, which was available only in printed form.

  National Lottery
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimates her Department has made of the effect on the income for good causes of the rebranding and relaunch of the National Lottery. [71726]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has made no separate assessment of the financial impact of this part of Camelot's marketing expenditure; and it would be difficult to make a meaningful assessment at this stage.

  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements she has made to take forward the review of the National Lottery announced on 20 March. [72871]

  Tessa Jowell
  The review is to be in two parts, one dealing with licensing arrangements and the other looking at distribution of Lottery funding to good causes. A consultation paper on the licensing process was published on 27 June.

  I will publish a consultation document on the distribution of Lottery funding to good causes on 29 July. The document is intended to initiate a process of public consultation and I wish to encourage as many people as possible to contribute to the debate.

  I will arrange to deposit copies of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Title of public consultation

  Closing date

  Website address

  UK's Open General Export Licensing (OGEL) Limits

  4 June 2002

  www.communicationsbill.gov.uk

  Changes to Licensing Houses during All New Year's Eve

  19 June 2002

  www.culture.gov.uk

  The Draft Communications Bill

  2 August 2002

  www.culture.gov.uk

  Prize Competitions

  31 August 2002

  www.culture.gov.uk

  National Lottery Licensing and Regulation Consultation

  30 September 2002

  www.culture.gov.uk

  974W
  Dr. Howells
  The following table indicates the length of time allowed for consultation on each consultation published in 2001.

  Sporting Talent
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what she is doing to nurture future sporting talent among young people. [72045]

  Mr. Caborn
  This Department is working in partnership with the Department for Education and Skills to improve access to and the quality of PE, school sport and club links for 5 to 16-year-olds. Gifted and talented sportspeople, specifically, will benefit from: a national support network based around specialist sports colleges; a programme of summer schools and performance camps; a much stronger emphasis on sporting talent within all parts of our national strategy for gifted and talented education; improved coaching; and stronger links between schools and sports clubs. As far as the last is concerned, we aim to increase the numbers of children and young people moving into sports specific junior clubs in seven major sports from 386,000 now to 1 million by 2006.

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what public consultations have been commenced by her Department since 1 April; and what the(a) closing date and (b) website address of each were. [72072]

  Dr. Howells
  The following table shows all public consultations commissioned by the Department since 1 April, and the(a) closing date and (b) website address of each consultation.

  Sport
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether the Interdepartmental Group on Sport has discussed the relationship of sport and health; and what conclusions were reached. [72235]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Interdepartmental Group on sport which includes my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health, has discussed a wide range of issues related to sport policy, including the relationship of sport and health. It is agreed that the promotion of sport can play a valuable role in improving health across the population and we have been working closely with the Department of Health to ensure the co-ordination of sport and health policy.

  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about progress achieved towards meeting the aim of significantly raising the time spent on sport and physical activity by five to 16-year-olds. [72234]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have no data on overall progress as yet. The baseline was set by Sport England's Young People and Sport survey, last carried out in 1999. The survey will be repeated this year in June (with results available in December) and again in 2004. However, there are indicators of performance from individual programmes that suggest a positive trend overall. For example by September this year there will be 142 Specialist Sports Colleges supporting 742 SSCos and 3,576 Primary Link Teachers and 45 Sports Partnerships have been established to enable young people to participate in sport more frequently, improve their skills, and compete at various levels.

  Sport England
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether she expects the number of staff positions at Sport England which have a remuneration package worth over £50,000 per annum to increase by 2005–06. [72472]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England expect that the number of staff receiving remuneration packages worth over £50,000 will increase from 14 to 26 by 2005–06. This is due mainly to the regrading of the Regional Director posts and the creation of a new post of Head of Placements and Alliances under the proposed restructuring of Sport England.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grant-in-aid to(a) Sport England, (b) UK Sport, (c) Sports Scotland, (d) the Sports Council for Wales and (e) the Sports Council for Northern Ireland has been in each year since 1972. [72467]

  Mr. Caborn
  Grant-in-aid provided to Sport England and UK Sport is as follows. Funding for sport in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is a devolved matter and an issue for those administrations.

  £ million

  Year

  GBSC

  ESC

  UKSC

  1972–73

  3.6

  —

  —

  1973–74

  5.0

  —

  —

  1974–75

  6.6

  —

  —

  1975–76

  8.3

  —

  —

  1976–77

  10.2

  —

  —

  1977–78

  11.5

  —

  —

  976W

  £ million

  Year

  GBSC

  ESC

  UKSC

  1978–79

  15.2

  —

  —

  1979–80

  15.6

  —

  —

  1980–81

  19.3

  —

  —

  1981–82

  21.0

  —

  —

  1982–83

  28.0

  —

  —

  1983–84

  27.1

  —

  —

  1984–85

  28.6

  —

  —

  1985–86

  30.1

  —

  —

  1986–87

  37.4

  —

  —

  1987–88

  37.2

  —

  —

  1988–89

  38.4

  —

  —

  1989–91

  41.9

  —

  —

  1990–91

  44.8

  —

  —

  1991–92

  46.7

  —

  —

  1992–93

  48.6

  —

  —

  1993–94

  50.6

  —

  —

  1994–95

  48.9

  —

  —

  1995–96

  49.3

  —

  —

  1996–97

  28.2

  15.2

  4.0

  1997–98

  —

  33.7

  11.8

  1998–99

  —

  136.5

  11.6

  1999–2000

  —

  137.9

  12.6

  2000–01

  —

  138.0

  12.6

  2001–02

  —

  143.2

  17.6

  2002–03

  —

  153.3

  19.6

  2003–04

  —

  178.3

  19.6

  1Includes funding for Sportsmatch

  Notes:

  GBSC Great Britain Sports Council;

  ESC = English Sports Council;

  UKSC:= United Kingdom Sports Council (established in September 1996 and became fully operational in January 1997)

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 1 July 2002,Official Report, column 123W, what assessment has been made of the impact on national governing bodies of the reduction in their Exchequer grant aid from 2000–01 to 2002–03. [72595]

  Mr. Caborn
  The grant that it pays to national governing bodies of sport is a matter for Sport England. The total amount that Sport England has paid to national governing bodies has increased each year from 2000–01 to 2002–03.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 1 July 2002,Official Report, column 123W, if she will provide a breakdown of Sport England's regional support, listing the budget heads for (a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03. [72503]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information is set out in the following table.

  Sport England grant-in-aid regional support

  £000

  2002–03

  2003–02

  2004–01

  Activities

  School sports co-ordinators

  15,000

  5,038

  —

  Sportsmatch

  3,550

  3,550

  3,373

  Active schools

  1,625

  1,587

  1,999

  Active sports

  —

  843

  1,680

  Equity and social inclusion

  801

  770

  959

  Active communities

  1,098

  1,169

  529

  Positive futures

  320

  508

  235

  Training

  436

  772

  828

  Regional sports boards

  297

  247

  255

  Places—participation

  378

  365

  348

  Places-environment

  553

  454

  525

  977W

  Sport England grant-in-aid regional support

  £000

  2002–03

  2003–02

  2004–01

  Other

  114

  44

  129

  Total

  24,172

  15,347

  10,860

  £

  Exchequer grants to NGBs

  2002–031

  2001–022

  2000–012

  Angling—National Federation of Anglers

  40,000

  80,500

  45,625

  Angling—National Federation of Sea Anglers

  47,000

  38,250

  30,000

  Angling—Salmon/Trout Association

  40,000

  32,000

  25,000

  Archery—Grand National Archery Society

  15,000

  —

  —

  Association Football—Football Association

  144,000

  108,000

  132,000

  Athletics—Amateur Athletics Association

  293,000

  293,000

  193,000

  Badminton—Badminton Association of England

  280,000

  280,000

  280,000

  Basketball—English Basketball Association

  454,000

  473,334

  457,500

  Boxing—Amateur boxing Association

  95,000

  98,000

  49,333

  Canoeing—British Canoe Union

  208,000

  200,000

  200,000

  Cricket—England and Wales Cricket Board

  205,000

  284,500

  266,917

  Cycling—British Cycling Federation

  300,000

  270,000

  270,000

  Equestrian—British Equestrian Federation

  40,000

  40,000

  40,000

  Fencing—British Fencing Association

  65,000

  50,000

  45,000

  Fitness—Exercise Association of England

  —

  —

  28,000

  Golf—Golf Foundation

  92,000

  92,000

  94,000

  Gymnastics—British Amateur Gymnastics Association

  200,000

  201,000

  200,000

  Hockey—English Hockey Network

  450,000

  450,000

  470,000

  Ice Skating—National Ice Skating Association

  25,000

  16,750

  25,000

  Judo—British Judo Association

  125,000

  121,000

  79,550

  Karate—English Karate Governing Body

  35,000

  16,250

  31,250

  Lacrosse—English Lacrosse Association

  140,000

  151,250

  213,750

  Mountaineering—British Mountaineering Association

  65,000

  65,000

  72,000

  Movement and Dance—English Amateur Dancesport

  8,000

  8,500

  8,500

  Movement and Dance—English Folk Song and Dance Society

  17,000

  17,000

  17,000

  Movement and Dance—Health and Beauty Exercise Association

  15,000

  15,500

  15.000

  Movement and Dance—Keep Fit Association

  36,000

  36,667

  37,333

  Movement and Dance—Margaret Morris Movement

  10,000

  10,000

  10,000

  Movement and Dance—CCPR

  42,000

  42,000

  27,913

  Movement and Dance—Medau Society

  20,000

  20,000

  20,000

  Netball—All England Netball Association

  442,000

  460,000

  447,500

  Rowing—Amateur Rowing Association

  265,000

  250,000

  200,000

  British Amateur Rugby League Association

  150,000

  320,000

  320,000

  Rugby League Joint Policy Board

  190,000

  —

  —

  Rugby Football—Rugby Football Union

  200,000

  225,312

  297,188

  Rugby Football—RFU for Women

  141,000

  150,000

  131,666

  Sailing—Royal Yachting Association

  135,000

  130,000

  100,000

  Shooting—English Shooting Council

  6,750

  24,125

  7,000

  Skiing—English Skiing Council

  40,000

  30,000

  50,000

  Squash—Squash Rackets Association

  248,000

  242,500

  252,500

  Swimming—Amateur Swimming Association

  340,000

  340,000

  330,000

  Table Tennis—English Table Tennis Association

  435,000

  435,000

  450.000

  Triathlon—British Triathlon Association

  75,000

  40,000

  30,000

  Volleyball—English Volleyball Association

  208,000

  208,000

  208,000

  Water Skiing—British water Skiing Federation

  35,000

  35,000

  35,000

  Weightlifting—British Amateur Weightlifting Association

  40,000

  40,000

  40,000

  Wrestling—British Amateur Wrestling Association

  10,000

  10,000

  10,000

  Petanque—British Petanque Association

  5,000

  —

  3,750

  Caving—National Caving Association

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Handball—British Handball Association

  7,000

  7,000

  7,000

  Orienteering—British Orienteering Federation

  90,000

  90,000

  82,500

  Rounders—National Rounders Association

  32,000

  32,000

  23,500

  Surfing—Surf Life Saving Association

  7,000

  4,612

  6,787

  Real Tennis—Tennis and Racquets Association

  11,000

  12,000

  12,000

  Tug-of-War Association

  3,000

  6,583

  4,567

  Softball—British Softball Association

  25,000

  25,000

  25,000

  Yoga—British Wheel of Yoga

  10,000

  10,000

  7,084

  Baseball—British Baseball Federation

  16,000

  16,000

  16,000

  British Roller Sports Federation

  20,000

  —

  —

  English Ice Hockey Association

  20,000

  —

  —

  Modern Pentathlon Association

  5,000

  —

  —

  Governing Body Development Grants

  6,722,750

  6,658,633

  6,485,713

  1 Annual budget

  22 Actual

  978W
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for (Culture, Media and Sport what the value of Sport England's Exchequer grant aid is to each national governing bodies for(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03. [72475]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information is set out in the following table.
  979W
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list how many staff positions at Sport England have a remuneration package worth over £50,000 per annum for(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03. [72474]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is as follows:

  2000–01: 14

  2001–02: 14

  2002–03: 23.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what instructions Sport England has been given about senior executive salary ranges. [72471]

  Mr. Caborn
  No instructions have been given to Sport England on the salary ranges of its senior executives.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on staffing levels in(a) Sport England headquarters and (b) its regional offices for (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03. [72468]

  Mr. Caborn
  Details of staff levels are in the table.

  Headquarters

  Regional offices

  Complement

  In post

  Complement

  In post

  2000–01

  328

  268

  170

  159

  2001–02

  345

  272

  209

  178

  2002–031

  182

  —

  291

  —

  1 Proposed

  Sport England estimates that its restructuring will result in savings of £1.2 million a year.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission whether the Commission has considered the National Audit Office's Corporate Plan for 2003–04 to 2005–06. [73004]

  Mr. Alan Williams
  At its meeting on 9 July 2002 the Commission examined the Comptroller and Auditor General and officials of the National Audit Office on the NAO's Corporate Plan for 2003–04 to 2005–06. The plan envisages an increase in spending by the NAO for 2003–04 of some 10 per cent. compared with the current financial year. The additional funding is required for four main purposes: to implement the wide-ranging recommendations of the Sharman report on public expenditure audit: to maintain service to Parliament at a time of rapid public expenditure growth and more complex service delivery mechanisms; to strengthen the audit of revenue departments; and to enable the NAO to increase from 50 to 60, over time, the number of Value for Money studies it carries out annually, as proposed by the Commission and agreed with the Public Accounts Committee.

  After satisfying itself on a number of points, including the robustness of the NAO's expenditure plans and its response to comments contained in external evaluations of its Value for Money studies, the Commission approved the Corporate Plan.
  980W
  A transcript of the evidence given by the NAO to the Commission will be placed in the Library shortly. A report containing more details about the Commission's activities, including its own response to the Sharman report, together with further information provided by the NAO in response to questions from the Commission, will be published in due course.

SCOTLAND

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost of refurbishing each ministerial private office was in each year since May 1997. [37824]

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

  Ministerial offices are decorated or refurbished as part of a rolling programme. in accordance with the terms of the buildings' lease. Redecoration work was carried out during 2001–02 in ministerial offices in my Department's London building. Final costs are not yet available but are likely to be around £20,000.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been employed by her Department in each of the last three years under(a) the New Deal for Young People, (b) the New Deal for the Over 50s and (c) the New Deal for Lone Parents; and at what cost, listed by category, to public funds. [44920]

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

  Since that date my Department has employed one person under the New Deal for Young People, one under the New Deal for Over 50s and two under the New Deal for Lone Parents. The only costs to my Department have been salary costs.

  Staff Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost in 2001–02 was of the pay increase to staff in her Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible; and what the cost of the forthcoming increase will be in 2002–03. [50402]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The cost of pay increases to staff in my Department in 2001–02 was £91,000. Details of the cost of pay awards for 2002–03 are not yet available.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters were received by each Minister in her Department in each month since June 1997. [59309]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. The Cabinet Office publishes an annual report on Parliament on the volume of Members' correspondence received by Departments. The report for 2001 was published on 24 May 2002,Official Report, columns 673–76W. Copies of previous reports are available in the Library of the House.
  981W
  Records of other correspondence by my Department are not kept centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Press Releases
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many press releases were issued by her Department in each month from the creation of her Department in July 1999 to 2001 inclusive. [59471]

  Mrs. Liddell
  From July 1999 to end 2001, the following number of press releases have been issued by my Department (this does not include operational notes issued to the media):

  July 1999: 11

  August 1999: 6

  September 1999: 13

  October 1999: 16

  November 1999: 32

  December 1999: 20

  January 2000: 20

  February 2000: 20

  March 2000: 30

  April 2000: 15

  May 2000: 33

  June 2000: 34

  July 2000: 22

  August 2000: 15

  September 2000: 27

  October 2000: 30

  November 2000: 42

  December 2000: 27

  January 2001: 26

  February 2001: 25

  March 2001: 33

  April 2001: 23

  May 2001: 11

  June 2001: 12

  July 2001: 17

  August 2001: 20

  September 2001: 20

  October 2001: 20

  November 2001: 33

  December 2001: 20.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many press releases have been issued by her Department in each month of 2002. [59472]

  Mrs. Liddell
  All news releases issued by the Scotland Office are published on the Department's website. The number of news releases issued in 2002 is as follows, and does not include operational notes issued to the media in connection with public engagements carried out by Ministers:

  Up to 19 July:8

  June: 9

  May: 20

  April: 16

  March: 20

  February: 18

  January: 17.

  Eurostar
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the importance of securing a Eurostar link from Scotland to the continent. [60789]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government believe that all areas of the country should have good access to Channel Tunnel rail services.

  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) have said that they plan to publish a strategy later this year on facilitating rail services through the Channel Tunnel from various parts of Great Britain.

  The SRA announced last year that a consortium led by WS Atkins Consultants has been awarded the contract to undertake a feasibility study to ascertain the need for, and viability of, a new dedicated high speed line between London and the "north".

  The study should report in the latter half of this year. The resultant report will feed into proposals for the implementation of the Government's 10-year plan and will inform an SRA strategy document regarding long-term capacity between London, the Midlands, the north of England and Scotland.

  Outcomes from this study may identify options for greater interconnection between high speed Channel Tunnel services and those from London to Scotland.

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland hat information is held by her Department on each hon. Member in relation to(a) personal relationships, both current and past, (b) financial status and dealings, (c) connections with companies and interest groups, (d) connections with Governments and (e) published works; and what was held in January 2002. [61831]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Ministers and officials in this Department have access to published reference sources, as, well as to the information about hon. Members made publicly available by the House authorities, for the purpose of parliamentary business.

  Ministerial Visits (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the(a) date, (b) location and (c) purpose was of visits by Ministers in her Department to Wales since 1997; and when she next intends to visit Wales. [62072]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]:The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  I attended a join ministerial committee in Cardiff on 30 October 2001. All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Ministerial Code and Travels by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Neither of my Scotland Office ministerial colleagues has visited Wales in an official capacity and none of us has, at present, any immediate plans to do so.

  Female Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the staff of her Department are women; and what the percentage was in June 1997. [66912]

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

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [68737]

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

  Since that date no officials have undertaken overseas trips on departmental business, other than to accompany Scotland Office Ministers.

  Hewlett Packard
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with(a) Scottish Enterprise and (b) the Scottish Executive regarding the recent redundancies announced by Hewlett Packard. [72442]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with Scottish Executive and Scottish Enterprise colleagues on a range of issues, including the recent disappointing announcement by Hewlett Packard of the loss of 450 permanent and 180 temporary jobs at its facility in Erskine.

  The Scottish Executive takes the lead in responding to local redundancies. Support will be provided to those affected through the Renfrewshire local response team (LRT) in conjunction with the Executive's PACE (Partnership Action for Continuing Employment) framework. This will ensure a rapid response from local agencies in terms of offering advice, support and guidance on the range of retraining/upskilling and employment opportunities.

  Air Services
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Government will publish the transportation document on the future of Scotland's air services and airports. [72435]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made to the House earlier today at column 848–50.

  Unemployment
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with(a) Scottish Enterprise and (b) the Scottish Executive regarding unemployment in Scotland. [72434]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I last met Scottish Enterprise on 2 July. I also have regular discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers on a wide range of issues. The latest figures show that claimant count unemployment in Scotland has 984W
  fallen by 1,900 over the last year to its lowest level for 25 years. There are 2,388,000 people in work in Scotland, the highest for a generation.

  Funding Policy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer prior to publication of the third Statement on Funding Policy as it affects Scotland. [72408]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have discussions with Treasury Ministers on a range of subjects. The Statement of Funding Policy sets out the arrangements that govern funding for the devolved administrations. These arrangements provide a fair, transparent and flexible basis for deciding spending plans in Scotland.

  North Sea Tax
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has received from oil companies since the announcement of the North Sea tax changes. [72409]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Following the Chancellor's Budget statement, I have had contact with a number of companies involved in oil and gas operations and held a meeting with UKOOA, which represents 31 oil and gas exploration and production companies operating in the UK.

  Anglo-Irish Ministerial Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when and where Ministers in her Department have held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 June 2000; 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. [72697]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, on 20 June 2002,Official Report, col. 533W.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regards to public expenditure in Scotland prior to the publication of the most recent comprehensive spending review. [72407]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have discussions with Treasury Ministers on a range of subjects. I welcome the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, which produced an excellent settlement for Scotland. Our successful management of the economy and sound public finances mean hat, by 2005–06, spending will be £4.1 billion higher in Scotland than in 2002–03. This shows that Scotland continues to benefit from being part of the United Kingdom and that devolution is working for the benefit of all Scotland's people.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General how many people have been employed by her Department in each of the last three years under(a) the New Deal for Young People, (b) the New Deal for the Over-50s and (c) the New Deal for Lone Parents; and at what cost, listed by category, to public funds. [44915]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland at column 981W.

  Staff Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General what the cost in 2001–02 was of the pay increase to staff in her Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible; and what the cost of the forthcoming increase will be in 2002–03. [50401]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland at column 981W.

  Female Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General what percentage of the staff of her Office are women; and what the percentage was in June 1997. [66913]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 5 July 2002,Official Report, column 622W.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Consultation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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 ire print, (c) the date the time period given for responses opened and (d) the date the time period given for responses closed. [69795]

  Estelle Morris
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which consultation documents published by her Department in 2001 were not made available as paper copies. [69824]

  Estelle Morris
  All consultation documents published by my Department in 2001 were made available in both paper and electronic formats.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether consultation documents published by her Department in 2001 carried the consultation criteria as recommended in the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations. [70086]
  986W
  Estelle Morris
  My Department reproduced the consultation criteria from the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations in 25 per cent. of the consultation documents published in 2001. All on-line consultations have two available links to the Cabinet Office Code of Practice.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether her Department has a designated consultation co-ordinator in accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations. [69825]

  Estelle Morris
  Yes, my Department does have a designated consultation co-ordinator.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [69822]

  Estelle Morris
  All 66 consultations carried out by my Department in 2001 were available electronically, in printed form and were included in the Cabinet Office monitoring and evaluation return for 2001.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many complaints her Department has received about its 2001 consultations by(a) electronic and (b) printed means. [69823]

  Estelle Morris
  I have not received any formal complaints about my Department's 2001 consultations. However, I have responded to feedback from respondents to improve consultations.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in what format her Department has published the results of its 2001 written consultations. [69846]

  Estelle Morris
  The favoured format for publication of results is electronic, via the Consultation website at www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations. Other methods have also been used including: press releases, notifying individuals and by placing results in the House of Commons Library.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how long her Department allowed for consultation on each consultation document it published in 2001 in(a) electronic and (b) printed form. [70085]

  Estelle Morris
  Of the 66 consultations my Department published in 2001,36 per cent. allowed 12 weeks or more for consultation, 27 per cent. allowed 8–12 weeks and 18 per cent. under 8 weeks. All consultations were available in printed and electronic formats. In planning consultations with the public, my Department complies with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation, applying formal exemptions where appropriate. The introduction to the Code of Practice also states that"occasionally, being a responsive government means acting quickly, because it is clearly in the public interest to do so".

  Student Funding
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much capital was made available to(a) FE and (b) HE in each of the years 1992–93 to 2001–02 as expressed at 2001–02 prices. [65396]
  987W
  Margaret Hodge
  The capital funding made available was as follows:

  £ million

  Capital funding FE1

  Capital funding HE1

  1992–93

  171

  281

  1993–94

  185

  389

  1994–95

  189

  387

  1995–96

  187

  409

  1996–97

  0

  0

  1997–98

  0

  0

  1998–99

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  42

  167

  2000–01

  56

  243

  2001–022

  136

  381

  1 2001–02 prices

  2 Estimated

  Notes

  1. All figures are in 2001–02 prices, are rounded to £ million and exclude student loans.

  2. All figures from 1992–93 to 2000–01 cover the separately identified capital grants made available by the Department to the Funding Councils.

  3. The division between FE and HE in 1992–93 is based on allocations made by the then Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council (PCFC) and the Universities Funding Council (UFC) respectively.

  4. The figure for HE in 1992–93 includes £9 million expenditure Higher Education outside of the Universities Funding Council.

  5. For 1996–97,1997–98 and 1998–99 no separate capital payments were made and the capital was funded from the Councils' allocations and not disaggregated.

  6. For 1999–2000 and 2000–01, figures cover some additional capital grants made available separately by the Department. Figures for HE in the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 include moneys made available to higher education institutions by the Office of Science and Technology (OST) through the Joint Infrastructure Fund (JIF).

  7. The figures for 2001–02 cover total capital expenditure by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and Higher Education Funding Council (HEFC) themselves which, under resource budgeting form 2001–02, counts as departmental expenditure.

  Sixth Form Colleges
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much of the additional funding in the spending review will be allocated to sixth form colleges; and when she expects funding for sixth form colleges to be increased to match the level allocated to sixth forms in schools. [71606]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  As a result of the spending review, the core unit of funding per full-time equivalent student for further education colleges will increase 1 per cent. in real terms in each of the next three years in return for improved outcomes from colleges. We will be agreeing new improvement targets with colleges to make sure we maximise the return on these resources. We are now considering further the outcome of the spending review and other decisions on allocations, including to further education, will be announced in the autumn. We remain committed to bringing up the level of funding for colleges towards that of school sixth forms. This will take time and can be done only as resources allow.

  Children's Centres
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the 988W
  activities to be carried out in the Children's Centres referred to in the Chancellor's Comprehensive Spending Review; and what funding will be available for them. [71081]

  Estelle Morris
  Children's Centres will provide a core offer of services including high quality early years education and child care. They will also provide extensive parental outreach, family support services and child and family health services.

  The Comprehensive Spending Review announced a £1.5 billion combined budget for child care, early years and Sure Start by 2005–06, which will be committed to the development of integrated services, including the development of new Children's Centres.

  Additional Investment
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much additional investment will result from the spending review for each(a) primary and (b) secondary school in Cheltenham. [71753]

  Estelle Morris
  I will take the decisions on the distribution of the additional resources provided by the spending review between and within the various sectors of education later in the year. Decisions on how each primary and secondary school on Cheltenham will be funded will continue to be taken by Gloucestershire local education authority but typical primary and secondary schools in Cheltenham, as in the rest of England, will get a year-on-year increase of "£10,000 and £50,000 in direct funding through School Standards Grant and devolved formula capital.

  Press Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [70536]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: The following table shows the average number of Press Office-s employed in the DfEE/DfES press office in each of the last 5 years:

  Total (fte)

  1997

  20.5

  1998

  29.5

  1999

  27.5

  2000

  28

  2001

  23

  2002

  26

  In addition, for each of the years an average of eight administrative staff were also employed in the Press Office. Since 2001 there have been two posts available in the press office for short-term secondments for staff from other areas of the Department (posts filled sporadically so not included in table). In 2001 there was one press officer on long-term secondment to the Press Office. Currently there are two. They are included in the table.

  Higher and Further Education
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the expected total of spending
  989W
  on (a) higher and (b) further education was (i) in 2002–03 and 2003–04 before the CSR and (ii) in 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 after the CSR. [71388]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: Prior to the Spending Review 2002, the total publicly planned funding to higher education institutions and on further education in England was:

  £ billion

  Higher education1

  Further education

  2002–03

  6.1

  4.3

  2003–04

  6.4

  4.6

  1 These figures are taken from the grant letter issued to the Higher Education Funding Council for England in November 2001

  The new total allocations for higher and further education in 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 following the Spending Review 2002 will be announced later.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what regulations exist on the space provided for the education of students in further education colleges. [65363]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are no such regulations for further education colleges.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school playing fields have been sold since 1997. [68971]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was introduced on 1 October 1998 to stop the indiscriminate sale of school playing fields that occurred in the 1980s and early to mid 1990s. There are no central records of how many school playing fields were sold before October 1998.

  A total of 115 applications to sell areas of school playing field larger than a small sports pitch for the under 10s—that is, over 2,000m2, have been approved since October 1998. Some 50 of these approved applications involved sports pitches at closed schools, while a further 17 were at operating schools where the playing fields were no longer used by the schools and were not needed by other local schools. In a further 15 cases, alternative sports pitches have been provided to replace those that have been lost. In all cases, we have ensured that the remaining playing fields would meet the full needs of the schools involved and of other schools in the local area.

  Applications to sell school playing fields are only approved where it is clear that any proceeds will be used to improve school sports provision or education facilities. Some of the proceeds from these approved applications have been earmarked to provide new sports halls and to improve other sports facilities at schools, such as new all-weather pitches and to bring other, poorly drained pitches back into use. The rest of the proceeds are being used to help lever up standards in our schools—for example, by providing modern, up to date, teaching accommodation, such as science and technology classrooms. In a number of cases, the proceeds are to be used to help build new schools or to enable multi site schools to consolidate on to one site.
  990W
  All applications made since 16 July 2001 are scrutinised by the School Playing Fields Advisory Panel to make sure that they meet our published criteria. The panel comprises representatives from the National Playing Fields Association, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, Learning through Landscapes, the National Association of Headteachers and the Local Government Association.

  Dyslexia
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she is taking to assist adult students who have ADHD and dyslexia. [70157]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government is committed to encouraging more students, including those with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia, to continue in education and training and to raising attainment levels.

  We have introduced a range of legislation designed to ensure that people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities are not discriminated against in respect of their access to education and training. As a result the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) is required, under section 13 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, to consider the needs of people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities in the discharge of its duties to secure facilities for education, training and work experience.

  From September 2002, it will be unlawful for those bodies responsible for the provision of further education, higher education, adult and community learning and youth services to discriminate against disabled students and other disabled people and they will be required to make reasonable adjustments to provision where disabled students or other disabled people might otherwise be substantially disadvantaged.

  In addition we have made available a range of learning and learner support funds to enable access to and participation in post-16 learning. These funds recognise the need for additional support that may arise for an individual with a learning difficulty and/or disability and help us to provide equality of opportunity and tackle social exclusion.

  The department and the LSC are currently reviewing the arrangements for the funding of additional learning support across the post-16 education and training sector and will consider any necessary changes as part of the review.

  Apprenticeships
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the(a) past, (b) current and (c) future funding of (i) HNDs and (ii) HNCs within apprenticeship training. [70296]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Before 1999–2000 the further education funding council provided funding for HNDs and HNCs to colleges and universities; since then funding has come from the higher education funding council for England and is allocated through the council's normal funding method for teaching. HND and HNC courses do not form a compulsory part of apprenticeship training.
  991W
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many modern apprenticeships there were in each of the past 10 years; what the average cost is of a modern apprenticeship; and what percentage of modern apprenticeships are(a) commenced and (b) completed by (i) men and (ii) women. [71133]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  (a) Advanced Modern Apprenticeships (AMA, formerly known as Modern Apprenticeships) were fully operational from September 1995. Foundation Modem Apprenticeships (FMA, formerly known as National Traineeships) were introduced nationally in September 1997.

  The numbers of Modern Apprenticeships (Foundation and Advanced) started are as follows:

  AMA and FMA starts

  % men

  % women

  1995–96

  25,800

  66

  34

  1996–97

  70,300

  54

  46

  1997–98

  84,200

  53

  47

  1998–99

  119,100

  50

  50

  1999–2000

  170,700

  49

  51

  2000–01

  188,300

  49

  51

  2001–021

  167,800

  50

  50

  1 Starts after 25 March 2001 exclude transfers between AMA, FM A and Other (work-based) Training.

  (b) Information on completion of modern apprenticeship (MA) framework is not available.

  An average figure for the cost of a model n apprenticeship is not available because the funding paid to training providers varies according to the length of stay, apprenticeship framework, the occupational sector, the age of the apprentice and from year to year.

  In 2001–02 payments by the Learning and Skills Council to learning providers for AMAs and FMAs amounted to approximately £432.5 million but this does not include other costs such as administration, learner expenses or publicity.

  The funding rates for those in learning on MAs 2002–03, and completing training, are based on the following:

  Advanced modern apprenticeship

  Learners aged 16–18 years

  Learners aged 19–24 years

  Occupational Sector

  Total Funding (£)

  Total Funding (£)

  Agriculture

  6,081

  4,061

  Construction

  13,783

  7,685

  Engineering

  14,560

  8,850

  Manufacturing

  13,135

  8,364

  Transportation

  11,191

  7,423

  Management and Professional

  6,981

  4,304

  Business Administration

  5,822

  4,077

  Retailing and Customer Service

  4,736

  3,552

  Leisure, Sport and Travel

  5,498

  3,834

  Hospitality

  5,316

  3,552

  Hair and Beauty

  6,657

  4,061

  Health, Care and Public Services

  8,181

  5,825

  Media and Design

  9,107

  4,993

  Foundation modern apprenticeship

  Learners aged 16–18 years

  Learners aged 19–24 years

  Occupational Sector

  Total Funding (£)

  Total Funding (£)

  Agriculture

  4,587

  2,379

  Construction

  5,630

  3,641

  Engineering

  6,579

  3,411

  Manufacturing

  4,595

  3,252

  Transportation

  6,878

  3,670

  992W

  Foundation modern apprenticeship

  Learners aged 16–18 years

  Learners aged 19–24 years

  Management and Professional

  4,117

  2,467

  Business Administration

  3,717

  2,353

  Retailing and Customer Service

  3,018

  1,829

  Leisure, Sport and Travel

  3,586

  2,110

  Hospitality

  3,018

  1,829

  Hair and Beauty

  5,622

  2,845

  Health, Care and Public Services

  3,586

  2,379

  Media and Design

  4,000

  2,379

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to replace individual learning accounts with a successor programme; and if she will make a statement. [70450]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: The Government is committed to introducing a successor scheme to Individual Learning Accounts. An announcement will be made in the autumn.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many learning providers have been investigated by the Individual Learning Accounts Compliance Unit since 1 November 2001; and how many prosecutions have taken place. [70447]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: Since 1 November 2001, 698 registered Individual Learning Account (ILA) providers have been referred to the ILA Compliance Unit. Currently 145 providers are being followed up through correspondence; three of these have been referred to the Department's Special Investigation Unit (SIU) and a further 17 providers have been subject to visits by the audit review team. 96 other providers have been referred directly to SIU. 77 of those referred to SIU have been passed to the police. So far no prosecutions have resulted from this action. A further 440 providers are awaiting follow-up.

  In total 132 cases have been passed to the SIU; of these, 98 have been referred to the police. To date there have been 45 arrests, which have resulted in 10 people accepting cautions and charges being brought against 13 individuals, 12 of whom are awaiting court appearances. One person has been convicted.

  Arts and Humanities Research Funding
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the results were of the review of Arts and Humanities Research Funding announced by the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education in September 2001. [72880]

  Margaret Hodge
  The review, which was commissioned in conjunction with education Ministers in the devolved Administrations, concluded that the current Arts and Humanities Research Board has done much since its creation in 1998 to establish an effective system for awarding research grants and funding for postgraduate students. It recommended that there should now be a
  993W
  further step, the creation of an Arts and Humanities Research Council. It concludes that this body should have UK-wide responsibilities and the same status as the existing Research Councils, with which it should be closely linked. A copy of the review report has been placed in the Library. The Government will respond to the report in due course, when there has been chance fully to consult the devolved Administrations on the, way forward.

  SMEs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many SMEs have lost their Investors in People Award status as of January; and if she will make a statement. [70195]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: The numbers of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) that have lost their EP award at January 2002 are as follows:

  Size of enterprise (UK wide)

  Total revoked since the first liP recognitions in October 1991

  Less than 10

  289

  10–49

  908

  50–249

  975

  Investors in People has a very high customer retention

  Percentage1 of three-years-olds2 by type of early education provider 1997-2002 (provisional estimates) position in January each year—England

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Private and voluntary providers3

  4—

  4—

  4—

  44

  47

  47

  Independent schools

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Nursery and primary schools:

  34

  35

  37

  38

  37

  37

  Nursery schools and nursery classes in primary schools

  34

  35

  37

  37

  4—

  37

  Infant classes in primary schools5

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  4—

  0.2

  Special schools6

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.3

  All providers7

  38

  40

  42

  86

  89

  89

  1 Number of three-year-olds attending provider expressed as a percentage of the three-year-old population.

  2 Any child attending more than one provider may have been counted twice.

  3 Includes some local authority providers (other than schools) registered to receive nursery education grants; excludes independent schools and providers not registered to receive nursery education grants.

  4 Not available.

  5 Includes reception and other classes not designated as nursery classes.

  6 Includes general hospital schools.

  7 Private and voluntary provider information was not available for the years 1997–99.

  We are committed to providing all three-year-olds, whose parents want one, with a free nursery education place by September 2004.

  Latest figures on three-year-olds in early years education providers were published by the Department in the Statistical First Release "Provision for Children Under Five Years of Age in England—2002 (Provisional Estimates) (09/2002)" in May 2002, a copy of which is available from the Library. An electronic copy of this publication is also available on the Department's website (www.dfes.gov.uk/ statistics).

  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual cost is of providing a child with five full days per week in a nursery school in the latest year for which figures are available [69749]
  994W
  rate. Over the past decade it has maintained a customer retention rate of over 90 per cent. on organisations that have been recognised.

  Child Care (Regulation)
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many child care professionals the Government estimate are working in the U K. [69139]

  Estelle Morris
  The latest published Childcare Workforce Survey shows that in spring 2001 there were 274,520 paid employees, working in nurseries (94,294), playgroups (79,800), Out of School Clubs (28,126) and child minders (72,300), in England.

  The latest quarterly Labour Force Survey for spring 2001, which uses a wider definition of child care and covers the whole of the UK, shows that there were 305,000 paid employees within the child care sector.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of three-year-olds were in nursery education on(a) 1 May 1997, (b) 31 December 1998, (c) 31 December 2001 and (d) the latest date for which information is available; and if she will make a statement. [69296]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The available information on three-year-olds in early years education provision is shown in the following table.

  Estelle Morris
  My Department does not collect the information requested.

  In England all funding for full and part-time nursery education places for four-year-olds, along with the majority of funding for three-year-olds, in the local authority maintained sector, is determined locally.

  The balance of funding for three-year-olds comes through the Nursery Education Grant. In 2002–03 the grant for a free, part-time early education place for three-year-olds is £1,218 per child. This funding purchases five, two and a half hour sessions per week, for 33 weeks per year.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidelines exist on the provision of pre-school education to children with special educational needs. [69721]

  Estelle Morris
  All children in the early years should be treated as individuals to ensure each has equal opportunity to develop their full potential. This message is reinforced throughout the joint DfES/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority publication, "Curriculum guidance for the foundation stage", which has been made available to all early years practitioners. The guidance stresses the importance of early intervention and the key role practitioners play in identifying learning needs, and in the planning required to support those needs.

  The requirements of the Nursery Education Grant require all early years settings that receive it to have an SEN policy and have regard to the revised SEN Code of Practice. We included a new chapter in the revised SEN Code of Practice entitled, "Identification, Assessment and Provision in Early Education Settings", which expands significantly on SEN provision for children under five years of age. In addition, the SEN and Disability Act 2001 enables private, voluntary and independent sector settings to request statutory assessments for the four year olds in their care, and for three year olds by 2004 when we expect universal provision for this age group.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what financial support is available to children with special educational needs to attend mainstream pre-school in the same circumstances as other children. [69722]

  Estelle Morris
  In March 2001, we announced a £25 million three year programme to support children with disabilities or special educational needs in the early years. This funding supports a number of DIES SEN and disability initiatives all of which are focused on enabling children with SEN to participate in mainstream provision. These initiatives include £9.5 million for local training over three years of identified Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators (SENCOs) in the private, voluntary and independent sector early years settings; £11 million additional funding for LEAs and Early Years Development and Child care Partnerships (EYDCPs) this financial year and the next, to support and improve existing SEN support activities; £3 million for support services such as Portage schemes, projects aimed at early identification and intervention for SEN, and better resources for children with low incidence disability; and £1 million for the development of national training materials to support local SEN training activity. The funding has also resourced 4 Area SENCO pilot projects in 2001–02. We are drafting guidance following the conclusion of the pilot projects on the role and objectives of Area SENCOs, and encouraging EYDCPs to start developing networks of "Area SENCOs" who will work with early years settings by the autumn of this year.

  The Department continues to work closely with EYDCPs who are making SEN and disability support a priority over the three financial years 2001–02 to 2002–03 and 2003–04. In 2002–03 we asked them through the statutory planning process, to develop local joined up SEN and disability support/resource strategies, and to build
  996W
  networks with local education, social and health support services and other key local agencies. We also asked EYDCPs to provide us with details on planned working groups in 2002–03 involving key local services and to highlight the difficulties in bringing these services together.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. May
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission when he will answer the questions from the hon. Member for Maidenhead of 11 March(a) on the electoral systems used for elections to (i) the office of London Mayor, (ii) the Greater London Assembly, (iii) the Scottish Parliament and (iv) the Welsh Assembly, (b) on the closed list electoral system for the European Parliament, (c) concerning the electoral system used for electing the House, (d) concerning electoral systems that may be used for electing the elected element of a reformed second chamber in Parliament and (e) concerning electoral systems used for electing directly-elected mayors in England and Wales. [71490]

  Mr. Beith
  I have already written to apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in replying to her questions of 11 March. At the time she asked similar questions of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I regret that her separate questions to the Speaker's Committee were not noticed. Each of her questions sought information on the plans of the Electoral Commission for work in the areas listed. This answer deals with all five of them.

  I understand that the Electoral Commission has no plans to carry out any reviews of existing or proposed electoral systems in the UK. However, the Commission will, in accordance with its statutory duties, report on the administration of elections to the European, United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments, and elections to the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies. No such duty exists in relation to other elections mentioned, although the Commission is required to keep under review, and from time-to-time submit reports to the Secretary of State on, a range of elections and referendums including local elections in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  It is expected that these statutory election reports from the Electoral Commission will examine a wide range of issues linked to the administration and conduct of the election in question, including levels of voter participation and public understanding of the voting system. However, the Commission has taken the view that it would not be appropriate for it to adopt any policy view in relation to the merits of current or alternative systems of voting while there is a prospect of the Government asking the Commission to conduct a referendum on the use of a form or proportional representation for voting in elections to the House of Commons.

  Financial Contributions to Political Parties
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, on behalf of the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what plans the Commission has to review legislation regarding financial contributions to political parties. [71030]
  997W
  Mr. Beith
  I understand from the Chairman that the Electoral Commission will be launching this summer a review of the funding of political parties, which will examine a number of issues including the capping of donations. The Commission is also undertaking a review of the operation of the financial regulatory framework set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and a separate review of the policy development grants scheme that it administers.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) affirmative and (b) negative resolutions his Department plans to make in the next 12 months. [61616]

  Mr. Leslie
  The negative and affirmative resolutions planned over the next 12 months will be announced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in the normal course of business in the usual manner.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what statutory powers are vested in(a) local housing authorities, (b) local social services authorities and (c) other authorities to offer financial assistance to intentionally homeless families with a child in order to secure for that child a permanent home with his or her family. [69240]

  Mr. McNulty
  Under section 190(2)(b) of the Housing Act 1996, local housing authorities have a duty to ensure that applicants who are eligible for assistance, intentionally homeless and who have dependant children are provided with advice and assistance in any attempts they may make to secure accommodation for themselves. Advice and assistance may include the provision of financial assistance.

  Under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, social services authorities have a duty:

  (a) to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area who are in need; and

  (b) so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families.

  Where the child is a child in need solely as a result of family homelessness the social services authority can assist the family to obtain accommodation, possibly by providing temporary accommodation or a rent deposit, if they consider that this is the best way of meeting his needs.

  Under section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, local authorities have a power to promote the economic, social or environmental well-being of their area, which includes a power to give financial assistance. If the authority chooses, the power in section 2 can be exercised for the benefit of individuals in the area. This power does not apply where an activity is prohibited by other legislation.
  998W
  The Government have introduced an amendment to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, currently being considered by Parliament, that will curtail the support that local authorities can provide to certain categories of new arrivals in the UK who seek support.

  Sub-post Offices
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry regarding the need to maintain sub-post offices in deprived urban areas; and if he will make a statement; [69510]

  (2) what action he is taking to support sub-post offices in deprived urban areas. [69509]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been working closely with the Department of Trade and Industry to develop a scheme to maintain sub-post offices in deprived urban areas. In particular ring-fenced funding of £15 million has been set aside to support a fund that is being set up to contribute to practical measures to improve and modernise post office premises in deprived urban areas.

  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the degree to which cost of living elements are adequately weighted in the local government funding formula; and by what mechanism sparsity and rurality elements are included in the present mechanism. [71853]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The cost of living is allowed for within the local government grant distribution system by the Area Cost Adjustment. We are currently consulting on options for a new grant distribution formula, and this includes a range of alternatives to the existing Area Cost Adjustment. We will be carefully considering all the views that are put to us during the consultation period before making a final assessment on the best way forward.

  In the existing formula, sparsity and rurality are reflected by using a population sparsity indicator that reflects the number of hectares per capita in each authority. This indicator is used in the current formulae for education, elderly domiciliary social services, police and environmental, protective and cultural services. Full details are in the Local Government Finance Report that we publish each year, and which is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how he will ensure that the new financial system for local authorities will provide an effective framework within which councils can initiate innovative ways of delivering customer-food services. [69986]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our comprehensive agenda for reform of the local government finance system was set out in last December's White Paper "Strong Local leadership—Quality Public Services". Our finance reforms will give councils more space to innovate in all areas of service delivery by providing local authorities with greater freedom to borrow, invest, trade, charge and set spending priorities.

  Local Government Act
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress on the review of access to information in local authorities relating to the Local Government Act 2000. [73109]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The implementation plan which we issued, following the publication of the 2001 White Paper "Strong Local Leadership, quality Public Services" indicated that we would be reviewing the local authority access to information regime from June 2002. Officials have now begun discussions with the Information Commissioner, the Local Government Association and others to identify key issues for analysis in the review.

  We intend, as the next step, to publish during the summer a policy paper to examine the key issues involved, including the future implications for the local government sector of the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The paper will seek to identify practical issues which local authorities are now facing and invite views, in particular from councils, the Local Government Association and the Campaign for Freedom of Information, on the issues discussed and to come forward with examples of good practice. We will place copies of the policy paper the House Library.

  We plan to continue working with the Local Government Association, the Information Commissioner and others to secure the most sound and practical implementation by local government of the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We want to link this with a streamlining of the current access to information requirements to maintain and re-enforce the culture of openness and transparency which is essential to effective, democratic local government.

  Local Councillors
  Paul Clark
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he intends to make regulations governing the local investigation and determination of misconduct allegations concerning local councillors. [73108]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department issued a consultation paper on 20 May, setting out a proposed framework within which the Standards Board for England would refer certain allegations of misconduct for local investigation and determination by standards committees. We have received around 1,000 responses to that consultation which we are now considering carefully. We intend in October, having had regard to these responses, to make regulations putting in place a regime for local investigation and determination of misconduct allegations.

  Annual Report
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost was of publishing his Department's annual report and those of the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions in each of the past five years; and if he will provide a breakdown of the costs incurred. [70104]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Before June 2002, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was part of the Cabinet Office, and its expenditure and work were therefore not separately reported. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was created in June 2001, from the former Department of the Environment,
  1000W
  Transport and the Regions (DETR). The publication costs of the DETR Annual Reports for 1998–2000 can be identified only at disproportionate cost; those for the 2000–01 report were approximately £5,200. The final publication costs for the DTLR report for 2001–02, which was published last month are not yet known. I will write to the right hon. Member with the details when they are available.

  Office Accommodation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been spent in relation to changes in office accommodation which have taken place as a result of the change in Department structure since June; and if he will make a statement. [70743]

  Mr. Leslie
  Expenditure since June to date on changes in office accommodation resulting from the change in Department structure amounts to £16,000 plus VAT.

  Rebranding
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been spent by his Department in rebranding his Department, broken down by(a) design of the departmental logo, (b) design and orders of new stationery, (c) Department signage and (d) website designs, as a result of the Department structural change in June; and if he will make a statement. [70746]

  Mr. Leslie
  ODPM uses the Royal Crest as the main part of its corporate identity and has incurred no 'design' costs as such. A nominal amount has been spent on originating artwork for print and electronic publishing.

  My Department's costs have been low as it makes extensive use of electronic templates, keeps low stocks of stationery and generally uses out of date stationery for purposes such as internal photocopying and notepads.

  Cost breakdown is as follows:

  (a) logo £525 plus VAT

  (b) stationery £7,400 including value of existing stock

  (c) signage £3,600 plus VAT

  (d) website £3,145.

  The figure of £3,145 for the website represents half the cost of dividing one site into two sites. The other half of the cost is attributable to the Department for Transport.

  Consultancy Fees
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been spent on consultancy fees in relation to the change in Department structure since June; and if he will make a statement. [70744]

  Mr. Leslie
  Additional consultancy costs of £10,858 (plus VAT) have been incurred, under an existing contract, for estates advice following the creation of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Transport.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those unitary authorities that made representations regarding the review of the SSA formula. [70951]
  1001W
  Mr. Leslie
  We have had at least one written representation making at least one point relating to the SSA system from the following shire unitary authorities since the publication of the Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance" in September 2000:

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackpool

  Bournemouth

  Bracknell Forest

  Brighton and Hove

  Bristol

  Darlington Derby

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Halton

  Hartlepool

  Isle of Wight Council

  Kingston upon Hull

  Leicester

  Luton

  Medway

  Middlesbrough

  Milton Keynes

  North East Lincolnshire

  North Lincolnshire

  North Somerset

  Nottingham

  Peterborough

  Plymouth

  Poole

  Portsmouth

  Reading

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Rutland

  Slough

  South Gloucestershire

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Swindon

  Telford and the Wrekin

  Thurrock

  Torbay

  Warrington

  West Berkshire

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Wokingham

  York

  Others may have made representations either before that point, via representative groupings of authorities, in meetings with Ministers, or when talking to officials. As of Tuesday 15 July, we have not yet received any formal responses from unitary authorities to the current consultation.

  Firefighters' Pay
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the formula is for calculating firefighters' pay; and what other public servants have their pay determined by similar calculations. [71017

  Mr. Leslie
  Firefighters' pay is negotiated between the local authorities employers and the Fire Brigades' Union in the National Joint Council for Local Authority Fire Brigades. Annual pay increases since 1978 have been determined by a formula linking the pay of a fully qualified fire-fighter to the earnings of the top quarter of adult male manual workers.

  No other public service pay group has their pay determined by the same formula but Police forces in England and Wales also have their pay determined by a formula. The formula used since 1994 is the median of private sector non-manual pay settlements in the past year.

  Departmental Reorganisation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what changes there have been in the total wage expenditure budget of his Department since the departmental reorganisation in June; and if he will make a statement. [71450]

  Mr. Leslie
  There have been no changes in the total pay budget associated with the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions' total administration resources. The division of these resources between the two new Departments—the Department for Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—is currently being finalised. However, no additional resources are being made available from the Exchequer as a result of the departmental reorganisation.

  Air-conditioning
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 2002,Official Report, column 584W, on air-conditioning, what his policy is on implementation of the ban on the use of chlorofluorocarbons in chiller plant in buildings owned by his Department; when a decision will be taken on a choice of air-conditioning for the QEII building to replace the present refrigerants of chlorofluorocarbon provenance; and whether it is intended that the new provision will contain not-in-kind and HFC refrigerants. [71597]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends not to purchase products that contain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons ( HCFCs) or any other ozone-depleting substances, where there are suitable alternatives.

  In respect of the QEII conference centre, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on 9 July 2002, Official Report, column 874–75W.

  Town and Country Finance
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to meet the leaders of the Town and Country Finance Issues Group. [71852]
  1003W
  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no meetings fixed at present, but I would be happy to meet the TACFIG group to discuss the current consultation on the system to distribute general grant to local authorities.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2002,Official Report, column 196W, on children in care, what figures his Department holds on the number of children that are (a) homeless, (b) in bed and breakfast accommodation and (c) in temporary accommodation. [171887]

  Mr. McNulty
  Summary information on activity under statutory homelessness provisions is reported to the Department by local authorities in England. This includes the number of households accepted under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts as being eligible for assistance. unintentionally homeless and in priority need, and the number of these households resident in various types of temporary accommodation, including bed and breakfast, at the end of each quarter.

  Precise information on the total number of children is not collected, but from data reported we estimate there were some 112,500 children in households accepted as homeless during 2001–02. Available information indicates that on 31 March 2002 there were some 6,500 households living in bed and breakfast style accommodation, and the Bed & Breakfast Unit have estimated that this represents around 11,000 children. There were 40,700 households with dependent children in all forms of temporary accommodation provided by local authorities for the homeless, but no estimates for the number of children are available.

  Mobile Phone Operators
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he plans to review the mobile phone operators' voluntary code of operation on planning. [71790]

  Mr. McNulty
  My noble Friend the then Minister for Housing, Planning and Regeneration met representatives of the five mobile phone network operators on 8 May 2002 to discuss their progress in meeting their commitments to best mast siting practice and the audit arrangements that they have put in place to assess continuing compliance with the commitments.

  Work currently under way to revise the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Masts is building on the commitments and on our guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (Telecommunications) to improve consultation on mast proposals with local communities and local planning authorities. The Working Group established to take that work forward will monitor the operation of the revised code and effectiveness of the commitments themselves.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many empty homes there are(a) in England and (b) in each county or metropolitan district; and what each represents as percentage of housing stock. [72282]
  1004W
  Mr. McNulty
  The number of empty homes in England at 1 April 2001 (latest data available) was 755,100. This figure represents 3.5 per cent. of all housing stock.

  The number of empty homes in each county, unitary or metropolitan district at 1 April 2001 is shown in the table. Also given is the percentage of housing stock the vacant dwellings represent.

  Region/county/local authority

  Total number of vacant dwellings

  Percentage of stock vacant

  North East

  Metropolitan districts

  Gateshead

  3,220

  3.7

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3,767

  3.1

  North Tyneside

  3,814

  4.2

  South Tyneside

  2,578

  3.8

  Sunderland

  4,934

  4.0

  Unitary authorities

  Hartlepool

  1,708

  4.3

  Middlesbrough

  1,977

  3.4

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2,822

  4.6

  Stockton-on-Tees

  3,046

  4.0

  Darlington

  2,095

  4.8

  Counties

  County Durham

  11,341

  5.1

  Northumberland

  1—

  1—

  North West

  Metropolitan districts

  Bolton

  4,643

  4.1

  Bury

  1,299

  1.6

  Manchester

  17,081

  8.8

  Oldham

  3,362

  3.6

  Rochdale

  4,817

  5.4

  Salford

  5,543

  5.5

  Stockport

  4,255

  3.5

  Tameside

  1—

  1—

  Trafford

  2,386

  2.6

  Wigan

  5,146

  3.9

  Knowsley

  2,700

  4.0

  Liverpool

  18,734

  9.1

  Sefton

  4,433

  3.6

  St. Helens

  1—

  1—

  Wirral

  6,493

  4.6

  Unitary authorities

  Halton

  1,842

  3.6

  Warrington

  1,425

  1.8

  Blackburn with Darwen

  4,374

  7.5

  Blackpool

  3,498

  5.2

  Counties

  Cheshire

  1—

  1—

  Cumbria

  8,540

  3.8

  Lancashire

  23,462

  4.7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Metropolitan districts

  Barnsley

  4,602

  4.8

  Doncaster

  6,086

  4.7

  Rotherham

  1—

  1—

  Sheffield

  11,980

  5.3

  Bradford

  9,980

  5.0

  Calderdale

  5,382

  6.1

  1005W

  Region/county/local authority

  Total number of vacant dwellings

  Percentage of stock vacant

  Kirklees

  5,798

  3.5

  Leeds

  14,338

  4.6

  Wakefield

  5,197

  3.8

  Unitary authorities

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  4,516

  3.3

  Kingston upon Hull

  8,388

  7.3

  North East Lincolnshire

  3,303

  4.8

  North Lincolnshire

  2,511

  3.8

  York

  3,062

  3.9

  Counties

  North Yorkshire

  11,044

  4.4

  East Midlands

  Unitary authorities

  Derby

  4,470

  4.5

  Leicester

  6,585

  5.6

  Rutland

  543

  3.9

  Nottingham City

  3,328

  2.8

  Counties

  Derbyshire

  10,919

  3.4

  Leicestershire

  1—

  1—

  Lincolnshire

  1—

  1—

  Northamptonshire

  8,129

  3.1

  Nottinghamshire

  10,609

  3.3

  West Midlands

  Metropolitan districts

  Birmingham

  21,538

  5.3

  Coventry

  4,807

  3.8

  Dudley

  3,191

  2.5

  Sandwell

  4,542

  3.7

  Solihull

  891

  1.1

  Walsall

  4,178

  3.9

  Wolverhampton

  5,424

  5.3

  Unitary authorities

  Herefordshire

  2,375

  3.2

  Telford and Wrekin

  2,247

  3.6

  Stoke-on-Trent

  6,141

  5.7

  Counties

  Hereford and Worcester

  4,941

  2.2

  Shropshire

  4,211

  3.5

  Staffordshire

  1—

  1—

  Warwickshire

  1—

  1—

  East

  Unitary authorities

  Luton

  2,456

  3.4

  Peterborough

  2,517

  3.6

  Southend-on-Sea

  1,889

  2.5

  Thurrock

  1,981

  3.4

  Counties

  Bedfordshire

  3,815

  2.4

  Cambridgeshire

  1—

  1—

  Essex

  1—

  1—

  Hertfordshire

  1—

  1—

  Norfolk

  1—

  1—

  Suffolk

  1—

  1—

  London

  Metropolitan districts

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,329

  2.0

  Barnet

  3,153

  2.3

  Bexley

  1,982

  2.1

  Brent

  5,504

  5.3

  Bromley

  4,318

  3.3

  Camden

  4,335

  4.7

  City of London

  31

  0.6

  Croydon

  4,401

  3.2

  Ealing

  2,449

  2.1

  1006W

  Region/county/local authority

  Total number of vacant dwellings

  Percentage of stock vacant

  Enfield

  1—

  1—

  Greenwich

  3,058

  3.3

  Hackney

  3,254

  3.8

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4,557

  5.9

  Haringey

  4,815

  5.1

  Harrow

  1,218

  1.5

  Havering

  2,702

  2.9

  Hillingdon

  2,511

  2.5

  Hounslow

  1,050

  1.2

  Islington

  3,237

  3.8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6,067

  6.9

  Kingston upon Thames

  1—

  1—

  Lambeth

  2,572

  2.1

  Lewisham

  4,025

  3.5

  Merton

  2,114

  2.8

  Newham

  5,102

  5.5

  Redbridge

  1—

  1—

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,757

  2.3

  Southwark

  6,367

  5.6

  Sutton

  2,238

  2.9

  Tower Hamlets

  5,429

  6.6

  Waltham Forest

  2,739

  2.9

  Wandsworth

  2,079

  1.7

  Westminster

  2,957

  2.7

  South East

  Unitary authorities

  Bracknell Forest

  801

  1.8

  Reading

  2,221

  3.8

  Slough

  575

  1.3

  West Berkshire

  1,596

  2.7

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  865

  1.5

  Wokingham

  1,139

  1.9

  Milton Keynes

  2,259

  2.6

  Brighton and Hove

  2,167

  1.8

  Portsmouth

  1,675

  2.1

  Southampton

  4,411

  5.0

  Isle of Wight

  1,969

  3.2

  The Medway Towns

  2,687

  2.6

  Counties

  Buckinghamshire

  3,953

  2.1

  East Sussex

  10,000

  4.4

  Hampshire

  1—

  1—

  Kent

  1—

  1—

  Oxfordshire

  5,355

  2.2

  Surrey

  1—

  1—

  West Sussex

  1—

  1—

  South West

  Unitary authorities

  Bath and North East Somerset

  550

  0.8

  Bristol

  6,168

  3.6

  North Somerset

  3,015

  3.8

  South Gloucestershire

  1,842

  1.8

  Plymouth

  4,508

  4.3

  Torbay

  355

  0.6

  Bournemouth

  4,120

  5.4

  Poole

  2,151

  3.5

  Swindon

  1,826

  2.3

  Counties

  Cornwall

  5,035

  2.2

  Devon

  15,970

  5.1

  Dorset

  3,843

  2.2

  Gloucestershire

  1—

  1—

  Somerset

  1—

  1—

  Wiltshire

  5,131

  2.8

  1 Unknown (missing or only partial data provided by one or more local authorities within a county).

  Sources:

  ODPM's 2001 Housing Strategy statistical appendix returns and Housing Corporation's 2001 Regulatory and Statistical Return (RSR).

  Sustainable Communities
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what changes will take place to the planned total house numbers in each county or unitary authority as a result of his statement on sustainable communities; and how many houses there were in each in 1997. [72285]

  Mr. McNulty
  We expect all local authorities to deliver the housing strategy set out in regional planning guidance. We will work with regional and local partners in the four growth areas identified in regional planning guidance for the South East to accelerate the proposals for significant growth. Information on the number of dwellings is given in the Department's Annual Housing Investment Programme Operational Information return submitted by local authorities. A copy of this information is held in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Access for Disabled People
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the Government proposes to amend Part M of the Building Regulations relating to access for disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [72303]

  Mr. Leslie
  My officials, with the assistance of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, have been preparing proposals for amendments to Part M of the Building Regulations relating to access for disabled people. The proposals for public consultation will be published during the summer recess. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House, and the document will be available online on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and in hard copy on request. The document will be available in a range of formats to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities.

  Planning
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what were the median and upper and lower decile periods between(a) the receipt and determination of planning applications, (b) appeals against refusal of planning permission and inquiries into those appeals, (c) inquiries into appeals against refusal of planning permission and inspectors' reports thereon and(d) publication of inspectors' reports and determinations by Ministers in the last year for which information is available. [72320]

  Mr. McNulty
  Available information for the last financial year (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) is as follows:

  (a) Data are not collected from local authorities on the time taken to determine every planning application. Information from district authorities is collected on the number of applications decided within eight weeks of receipt, between eight and 13 weeks and over 13 weeks.

  2001–02

  Percentage

  Planning applications decided

  Less than eight weeks

  65

  Eight to 13 weeks

  18

  More than 13 weeks

  17

  1008W
  (b) and (c)

  2001–02

  Upper decile

  Median decile

  Lower decile

  (b) From start date (notice of appeal) to inquiry in weeks

  15

  19

  31

  (c) From start date to submission of report in weeks

  28

  58

  160

  (d) Information on cases which fall to be determined by the Secretary of State (recovered appeals and called in planning applications) is available on the following basis:

  Number of recovered appeals decided within eight weeks, between eight and 13 weeks, and over 13 weeks from receipt of inspector's report

  2001–02

  Percentage

  Recovered appeals cases determined by the Secretary of State

  Less than eight weeks

  44

  Eight to 13 weeks

  13

  More than 13 weeks

  43

  Number of called in planning applications decided within 13 weeks, between 13 and 20 weeks, and over 20 weeks from
  receipt of inspector's report

  2001–02

  Percentage

  Called in planning applications cases determined by the Secretary of State

  Less than 13 weeks

  36

  13 to 20 weeks

  18

  More than 20 weeks

  46

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the proposals for the revision of Part M of the Building Regulations will be published for consultation. [72870]

  Mr. Leslie
  My officials, with the assistance of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, have been preparing proposals for amendments to Part M of the Building Regulations relating to access for disabled people. The proposals for public consultation will be published during the summer recess. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House, and the document will be available online on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and in hard copy on request. The document will be available in a range of formats to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received on his proposals for planning reforms. [72091]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has published a comprehensive statement on the outcome of consultation on the planning Green Paper and copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he intends to bring forward to use the planning system to raise the required density of dwellings in new developments. [72816]

  Mr. McNulty
  Planning Policy Guidance note 3: Housing, states in paragraph 58 that local authorities should "avoid developments that make inefficient use of land (those at less than 30 dwellings per hectare net)".
  1009W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to intervene in planning applications for housing that involve a density of less than 30 dwellings per hectare.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the way in which proposals to reconcile provision for the retention by local authorities of tariffs for the granting of planning permission on major developments as set out in the document, "Reforming Planning Obligations", can be implemented alongside proposals for the reform of the local authority capital finance system as set out in the document, Local Government Finance Formula Grant Distribution-A Consultation Paper. [70111]

  Mr. Leslie
  We do not consider that there is a significant relationship between proposals on the retention of receipts from planning tariffs and the options for reforming how revenue support for capital finance is distributed, as set out in the Formula Grant distribution consultation paper. Therefore no such assessment has been made.

  Parish Councillors
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many resignations of parish councillors he has received notice of by reason of the new Model Code of Conduct for Parish Councils. [72806]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer to the answer the Minister for Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), gave to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on 21 June 2001,Official Report, column 629W.

  Since that answer, some 20 more parish councillors (making around 50 in all) have written saying that they have resigned in response to the introduction of the code.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he is intending to review next the new Model Code of Conduct for Parish Councillors. [72805]

  Mr. Leslie
  We will decide the timing and form of any review of the Model Code in the light of the experience of councils' adopting and implementing their own codes of conduct in accord with the Model Code.

  Telecommunications Working Group
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the remit is of the Telecommunications Working Group set up by his Department. [72803]

  Mr. McNulty
  The mobile phone operators have made a series of commitments to improve the handling of telecommunications development.

  The Telecommunications Working Group was set up to update the existing Code of Best Practice for Telecommunications.

  The terms of reference for the group are:

  to produce a Mobile Phone Network Development Code of Best Practice;

  to oversee the implementation of the operators' 10 commitments;

  and to monitor the effectiveness of the operators' 10 commitments and the Code of Best Practice.

  National Land Use Database
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local authorities have submitted returns to National Land Use Database; and which authorities have not made a submission. [72845]

  Mr. McNulty
  344 local authorities submitted returns to the National Land Use Database, reporting on previously-developed sites in England in 1998. The following authorities did not make a return then:

  Aylesbury Vale District Council

  Bradford City Council

  Council of the Isles of Scilly

  Croydon LBC

  Kettering Borough Council

  Lake District National Park

  Maldon District Council

  Mid Devon District Council

  North Yorkshire Moors National Park

  Peak District National Park Authority

  Redbridge LBC

  Ryedale District Council (outside National Park)

  South Bedfordshire District Council

  South Oxfordshire District Council

  Southwark LBC

  Teesdale District Council

  Tendring District Council

  Tower Hamlets LBC

  227 local authorities have made a return updating the data to 31 March 2001. 135 authorities, as follows have not made a return for 2001:

  Arun District Council

  Aylesbury Vale District Council

  Babergh District Council

  Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

  Bassetlaw District Council

  Berwick upon Tweed Borough Council

  Boston Borough Council

  Bradford City Council

  Braintree District Council

  Brent LBC

  Brighton and Hove Borough Council

  Broadland District Council

  Bromley LBC

  Broxtowe Borough Council

  Calderdale Borough Council

  Carrick District Council

  Castle Morpeth Borough Council

  Castle Point Borough Council

  Chelmsford Borough Council

  Chester City Council

  Chester Le Street District Council

  Chichester District Council

  City of Canterbury

  City of Oxford

  City of Worcester

  Colchester Borough Council

  1011W

  Congleton Borough Council

  Council of the Isles of Scilly

  Craven District Council

  Dacorum District Council

  Dartmoor National Park

  Derby City Council

  Derbyshire Dales District Council

  Durham City Council

  Ealing LBC

  Easington District Council

  East Devon District Council

  East Dorset District Council

  East Hampshire District Council

  East Hertfordshire District Council

  East Lindsey District Council

  East Staffordshire Borough Council

  Eden District Council

  Enfield LBC

  Erewash Borough Council

  Exeter City Council

  Forest Heath District Council

  Gateshead Borough Council

  Gedling Borough Council

  Gloucester City Council

  Gravesham Borough Council

  Great Yarmouth Borough Council

  Harlow District Council

  Hart District Council

  Hastings Borough Council

  High Peak Borough Council

  Kerrier District Council

  Kettering Borough Council

  Lake District National Park

  Lewes District Council

  Lichfield District Council

  Maldon District Council

  Mansfield District Council

  Mendip District Council

  Merton LBC

  Mid Bedfordshire District Council

  Mid Devon District Council

  Mid Suffolk District Council

  Mid Sussex District Council

  North Devon District Council

  North Hertfordshire District Council

  North Shropshire District Council

  North Somerset Unitary Authority

  North Tyneside Borough Council

  North Warwickshire Borough Council

  North Wiltshire District Council

  North Yorkshire Moors National Park

  Northampton Borough Council

  Norwich City Council

  Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

  Oadby and Wigston Council

  Peak District National Park Authority

  Pendle Borough Council

  Peterborough City Unitary Authority Council

  Reading Borough Unitary Authority Council

  1012W

  Richmond Upon Thames LBC

  Rochdale Borough Council

  Rochford District Council

  Rother District Council

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Rugby Borough Council

  Rushcliffe Borough Council

  Ryedale District Council

  Scarborough Borough Council

  Sedgefield District Council

  Sedgemoor District Council

  Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council

  Slough Borough Council

  Sough Cambridgeshire District Council

  South Hams District Council

  South Holland District Council

  South Northamptonshire District Council

  South Oxfordshire District Council

  South Tyneside Borough Council

  Spelthorne Borough Council

  Staffordshire Moors District Council

  Stevenage Borough Council

  Stroud District Council

  Sutton LBC

  Taunton Deane Borough Council

  Teesdale District Council

  Teignbridge District Council

  Tewkesbury Borough Council

  The Broads Authority

  Three Rivers District Council

  Thurtock Borough Council

  Torbay Borough Council

  Torridge District Council

  Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

  Warwick District Council

  Watford Borough Council

  Wealden District Council

  Wear Valley District Council

  Welwyn Hatfield District Council

  West Devon Borough Council

  West Lindsey District Council

  West Oxfordshire District Council

  West Somerset District Council

  West Wiltshire District Council

  Westminster City Council

  Winchester City Council

  Wokingham Council

  Wolverhampton Borough Council

  Wycombe District Council

  Wyre Borough Council.

  Ordnance Survey
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Quinquennial Review of Ordnance Survey. [72983]

  Mr. McNulty
  I am pleased to announce today the outcome of the second and final stage of the Quinquennial Review of Ordnance Survey.
  1013W
  On 19 December 2001 it was announced that the Government were minded to accept the recommendation from stage 1 of the Review of Ordnance Survey, that it should move to become a Government-owned public limited company (G0p1c). Ordnance Survey is a Government Department and Executive Agency operating within a trading fund regime. The stage 1 review considered that it needed additional freedoms and flexibilities to enable it to use its full potential to develop the geographic information and e-business marketplace, and concluded that a change in status could offer such freedoms.

  Subsequently, a Steering Group chaired by this Department, including representatives from Ordnance Survey, HM Treasury, Cabinet Office and two external members from the Association for Geographic Information, and the London borough of Lewisham, undertook further work based on the stage 1 findings consulting external advisers. As with the stage 1 review, consultation took place with a wide range of stakeholders and customers in the geographic information business in Great Britain.

  Following work on stage 2 of the Quinquennial Review, I am now of the opinion that there is no clear evidence to support the view that Ordnance Survey would benefit from a change of status to GOplc.

  The stage 2 review has drawn attention to three issues:
  first, there is a need to reach agreement on enhanced financial freedoms and flexibilities that should be made available to Ordnance Survey;
  secondly, the provision and location of policy advice to Government on geographic information, currently provided by Ordnance Survey alongside its data supply role, will be reviewed;
  and thirdly, in the context of a review of Ordnance Survey's Framework Document, we will consider issues surrounding Ordnance Survey's relationship with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  The importance of geographic data to Government has recently been underlined by the pilot agreement to make Ordnance Survey data widely available within central Government to help match the extensive benefit that local government already gains from using such data. Ordnance Survey's work in underpinning Great Britain with geographic information and its successful operation since becoming a Trading Fund in 1999, are clearly worth sustaining in the most appropriate way.

  I am satisfied that sustaining Ordnance Survey as a trading fund with some extended freedoms will enable it to continue to develop—and continue to progress its impressive programme of cultural change—to the benefit of all who use its geographic data. Ordnance Survey must be given the right operating framework to enable it to respond to the demands of the geographic information marketplace, which is dependent on the quality, consistency and availability of Ordnance Survey geographic data.

  Ordnance Survey must also, quite crucially, be able to play a full part in ensuring geographic information firmly underpins the e-government agenda, and informs policy formulation and delivery of information and services.

  I have asked my officials to take forward work as a matter of urgency on the three issues I have referred to, and ensure that the decisions reached are reflected in a
  1014W
  new published framework document for Ordnance Survey as soon as possible after the House reconvenes in October, but certainly no later than December 2002.

  Press Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy 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. [70544]

  Mr. Leslie
  Detailed information on the numbers of permanent press officers employed in departmental press offices during the financial years 1997–98 were provided in a memorandum dated 16 June 1998 to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report on The Government Information and Communication Service (HC 770) in July 1998. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  The number of full-time equivalent press officers employed in the relevant departmental press office on 1 January for subsequent years were:

  Full-time equivalents

  Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Central)

  1999

  34.3

  2000

  40.8

  2001

  38.0

  Cabinet Office

  2002

  18.0

  Secondees to the press office during the full calendar years for which information is available were:

  Number of secondees

  1999

  Nil

  2000

  1

  2001

  1

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people claimed housing benefit as a percentage of the total population in(a) Leeds, (b) Yorkshire and Humber region and (c) the London region, in the period 1998 to 2002. [69940]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is in the table.

  Housing benefit recipients in Leeds, Yorkshire and the Humber and London as a percentage of the total population aged 16 or over in each area: 1998 to 2002

  Leeds city council area

  Government office region of Yorkshire and the Humber

  Government office region of London

  1998

  11.7

  10.4

  12.7

  1999

  11.1

  10.1

  11.9

  2000

  11.1

  9.1

  10.6

  1015W

  Housing benefit recipients in Leeds, Yorkshire and the Humber and London as a percentage of the total population aged 16 or over in each area: 1998 to 2002

  Leeds city council area

  Government office region of Yorkshire and the Humber

  Government office region of London

  2001

  9.9

  8.7

  10.1

  2002

  9.6

  8.5

  10.0

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households claiming housing benefit which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example, two or more adults in a flat or house share arrangement.

  2. Figures exclude any housing benefit extended payment cases.

  3. figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated.

  Sources:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System quarterly 100 per cent. counts taken in February of each year.

  Office for National Statistics mid-year population estimates for 1998, 1999 and 2000.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people claimed housing benefit as a percentage of the total population in(a) the Colchester constituency and (b) Essex between 1998 and 2002. [71472]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information is in the table:

  Housing benefit recipients in Colchester and Essex as a percentage of the total population aged 16 or over in each area: 1998 to 2002

  Colchester borough council area1

  Essex

  1998

  6.9

  7.1

  1999

  6.7

  6.6

  2000

  6.3

  6.5

  2001

  3.1

  6.1

  2002

  5.9

  5.8

  Notes:

  1. Housing benefit data for the parliamentary constituency of Colchester are not available; figures are only available by local authority area.

  2. Essex figures refer to the local authorities of Basildon, Braintree, Brentwood, Castle Point, Chelmsford, Colchester, Epping Forest, Harlow, Maldon, Rochford, Tendring and Uttlesford.

  3. The data refer to households claiming housing benefit which may be a single person, a couple of a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share arrangement.

  4. Figures exclude any housing benefit extended payment cases.

  5. Figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated.

  Sources:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System quarterly 100 per cent. counts taken in February of each year.

  Office for National Statistics mid-year population estimates for 1998, 1999 and 2000.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1088W, on the fire service, how much money his Department has provided for rescues by the fire service that did not involve a fire in the last three years. [70767]

  Mr. Leslie
  Fire service funding is supported through the standard spending assessment arrangements. Over the period in question, the funding distribution formula has included a factor based on the number of fires, false 1016W
  alarms and calls to road traffic accidents, rail and air incidents, and leaks and spills attended by each brigade. Responses to other types of calls are not counted. Responsibility for setting budgets and the allocation of funds received through these arrangements are a matter for individual fire authorities.

  Urban Regeneration Company
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will introduce an urban regeneration company to Gloucester. [70844]

  Mr. McNulty
  Urban regeneration companies (URCs) are established by the relevant local authority, Regional Development Agency, English Partnerships (if appropriate), the private sector and other key partners. It will be for the South West Regional Development Agency and its local partners to decide whether, and when, to bring forward a proposal to central Government for an urban regeneration company in Gloucester.

  Congestion
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what Plans he has to promote and facilitate local authorities' participation in the 'In Town Without My Car Day' ; and if he will make a statement. [71227]

  Mr. McNulty
  The UK Government have signed a pledge to support the European 'In Town Without My Car Day'. Responsibility for this now rests with my colleagues in the Department for Transport.

  Voting Arrangements
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister who the intended recipients are of the funding for e-voting announced in the 2002 Spending Review. [71231]

  Mr. Leslie
  Under the 2002 Spending Review, there is provision of £30 million: £10 million for each of the three years 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06, for local e-voting, enabling the Government to contribute this sum to the costs of those local authorities and their IT partners participating in e-voting pilot schemes over the next three years.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total Government expenditure on the trials into new methods of voting undertaken at the May elections was, broken down into(a) e-voting, (b) postal ballots and (c) other. [71226]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government made £4.135 million available to contribute to the costs of the 16 local authorities running electronic voting and counting schemes in the May 2002 electoral modernisation pilot programme. The costs of piloting all-postal or other voting techniques were borne by the 14 local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what study has been made of the trials of e-voting at the May elections. [71229]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Electoral Commission is evaluating the local authorities that ran e-voting pilot schemes in the May 2002 local and mayoral elections and will provide a detailed assessment of the impact of each scheme to the Deputy Prime Minister by 1 August 2002.

  Best Value Programme
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost to local government of administering the Best Value programme was in each of the last three years. [71720]

  Mr. Leslie
  No reliable estimates exist of the costs incurred by local authorities in complying with their duty under the Local Government Act 1999. Any such costs would have to be set against the benefits of improved services.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has commissioned Cardiff Business School to evaluate the long-term impact of best value in English local authorities from 2001 until 2005. Part of this involves an assessment of the impact of Best Value in delivering improved services, including an element of cost-effectiveness. However, this is reliant upon year-on-year Best Value performance indicator data, which is currently being collected to monitor improvements. In the meantime, we are aiming to publish the results arising from the first year's census of local authorities. The census provides the benchmark against which the implementation of Best Value and its impact on service delivery will he assessed.

  Housing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has to ensure that empty homes are(a) located and (b) put to use. [71204]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government set out their policies for locating and bringing back into use empty and abandoned properties in their response to the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee's report on empty homes, published on 8 May 2002. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The range of measures in place include: funding for the Empty Homes Agency to help local authorities bring empty properties back into use; the reform of private sector renewal legislation; and the introduction of low demand pathfinder projects.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures there are to ensure that public sector workers are able to find affordable homes in(a) Coventry, (b) London and (c) the rest of the UK. [71205]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by our right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 18 July. This set out our plans for tackling the shortage of affordable homes in London and the south-east, and providing homes for key workers and those in the most need.

  With the additional funding for housing and planning announced by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, spending will rise to £4.7 billion by 2005–06—up by £1.5 billion on this year's figures.

  The new plans will supplement our existing measures to deliver new homes for key workers, which include the £250 million Starter Home Initiative (SHI). This aims to help 10,000 key workers in England, particularly teachers, police, nurses and other essential health staff to buy homes within a reasonable travelling distance from their work place in areas where the high cost of housing is undermining recruitment and retention.
  1018W
  Key workers may also be helped through the increased investment provided for rent and low cost home ownership through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme and local authorities. Since 1997, we have almost doubled funding for affordable housing to £1.2 billion a year and this is now supporting the creation of 20,000 new homes every year. As well as the additional funding for new homes, we will be looking at ways to extend our existing programmes for affordable housing through greater partnership with employers and public and private sector landlords.

  Measures to assist public sector workers in the rest of the UK to find homes are the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new homes have been(a) built and (b) improved in Coventry since 1997. [71206]

  Mr. McNulty
  The number of new homes by tenure built within the district of Coventry city council since 1997 is shown in table A. It is not possible to report exactly how many homes have been improved in Coventry since 1997. However, figures for the numbers of local authority dwellings which received 'capital type' investment and the number of private sector renovation grants allocated is given in table B. This information is available by financial year only.

  Table A: Permanent dwellings completed in Coventry

  Number of dwellings

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Private enterprise

  379

  408

  483

  311

  425

  Registered social landlords

  69

  132

  69

  11

  36

  Local authority

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All dwellings

  448

  540

  552

  322

  461

  Table B: Housing investment ('capital type') and renovation grants in Coventry

  Local authority dwellings that receive 'capital type' investment1

  Private sector renovation grants

  1997–98

  5,585

  427

  1998–99

  3,007

  574

  1999–2000

  5,497

  597

  2000–01

  0

  594

  1 Coventry city council became an LSVT authority in 2000–01 and they reported doing no 'capital type' investment work on their own dwellings in that year.

  Source:

  ODPM Housing Investment Programme returns.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has for housing construction in the Huntingdon constituency. [72804]

  Mr. McNulty
  RPG6 identifies that development plans should provide 4,000 additional dwellings in Cambridgeshire each year between 1996 and 2016. It is the role of the local planning authorities to prepare development plans to accommodate the development proposed in RPG. The replacement Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, prepared by Cambridgeshire county and Peterborough city councils, proposes that 9,500 dwellings be built in Huntingdonshire over the
  1019W
  period 1999 and 2016. The structure plan's proposed housing distribution will be debated at an examination in public starting in October.

  Last week the Deputy Prime Minister expressed his concerns that housing needs are not being met and that tackling the housing shortage is national responsibility. The Deputy Prime Minister also announced that over the coming months he intended to work with regional and local partners to establish where, at what scale, and how quickly development could be achieved in the potential growth areas, including within the London-Stansted-Cambridge corridor. The Local Government Conference has commenced a review of regional planning guidance for the East of England and I would expect this to consider the issues of where, at what scale and how quickly development can he delivered.

  Housing Association Stock
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) houses and (b) flats have been completed by housing associations in each of the years 1990 to 2001. [71299]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is available for financial years and is given, for England, in the table.

  Numbers of dwellings completed by housing associations: England

  Thousand

  Houses

  Flats

  1990–91

  5.5

  9.1

  1991–92

  7.0

  9.0

  1992–93

  13.1

  10.9

  1993–94

  19.5

  10.7

  1994–95

  21.6

  9.7

  1995–96

  21.5

  8.7

  1996–97

  16.7

  7.8

  1997–98

  15.2

  6.2

  1998–99

  13.5

  5.4

  1999–2000

  12.3

  5.1

  2000–01

  10.9

  6.4

  Land Development
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much(a) greenfield and (b) brownfield land has been redeveloped by each regional development agency in each year since their formation. [71752]

  Mr. McNulty
  This information is held by individual regional development agencies, and it has not been possible to obtain all the data in the time available. I shall write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Right-to-buy Receipts
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from borough councils regarding the proposed redistribution of right-to-buy receipts from local authorities. [72395]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Written representations have been received from about 20 local authorities, either directly or via local MPs. We will be consulting on the details of the new arrangement shortly.

  Local Government Contracts
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the Government will publish the draft code of practice on work force matters in local government contracting, relating to the review of best value. [73110]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Code of Practice, setting out an approach to work force matters in local government service contracts which involve a transfer of staff, is being published today as part of a draft Government circular for public consultation "Best Value and Performance Improvement".

  The draft code will ensure that all contracting exercises and contracts are designed in a way that secures a high quality work force over the life of a contract. It meets our commitment to act to end the threat of a 'two-tier workforce' of transferees and new joiners in local government contracting. And it is consistent with the message in the draft circular that all local authorities must adopt a positive approach to work force matters if they are to achieve best value.

  In publishing the draft circular, the Government are delivering on their commitment in the local government White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", to streamline and reform best value. The circular consolidates and replaces existing guidance, and emphasises the key role that best value can play in driving up the delivery of local services and improving the quality of life for all. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the House Libraries.

  Physical Regeneration
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the implications of the comprehensive spending review for the future direction of(a) funding for physical regeneration and (b) regional development agencies; [71756]

  (2) what the levels of spending on physical regeneration will be following the comprehensive spending review; and if he will break down the figures into the various funding streams for which he is responsible. [71855]

  Mr. McNulty
  Physical regeneration is undertaken on behalf of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by the regional development agencies and English Partnerships.

  RDAs are funded through a single programme that enables them to undertake a holistic approach to economic development and regeneration. The level of spending on physical regeneration is not distinguished from other spending within this single programme.

  Following the spending review, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced substantial new resources and responsibilities for the RDAs, further strengthening their role as catalysts for economic development and regeneration in the regions. The details are set out in Chapter 23 of the Spending Review 2002 White Paper.

  English Partnerships is currently subject to a quinquennial review and we intend to make a further announcement about its future remit shortly, although as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister told the House on 18 July he has
  "instructed English Partnerships to use its new role on brown fields to search out and to deliver even more land for housing".
  1021W
  The expenditure consequences of English Partnerships' new role have not yet been finalised.

  New Deal for Communities
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) total expenditure and (b) expenditure in capacity building was in each year in each New Deal for Communities area; what the (i) total planned expenditure and (ii) planned expenditure on capacity building will be until the end of each project; and if he will make a statement. [69187]

  Mr. McNulty
  The tables, which I shall place in the Library, illustrate the total expenditure and expenditure in capacity building in each year in each New Deal for Communities area so far and the total planned expenditure and planned expenditure on capacity building until the end of each project.

  Good regeneration schemes are developed by genuine and effective partnerships. And good regeneration partnerships genuinely empower the local community, local business, schools, service providers and others in the district. Building and maintaining such partnerships, however, takes time and effort.

  The Government have designed the New Deal for Communities (NDC) programme so as to enable local partnerships to build the capacity of all those involved, including local residents and statutory agencies.

  There is no single definition of community capacity building, and so the figures in the tables should not be used as a basis for comparison between partnerships. Community capacity building can involve a wide range of differing activities—for example it may involve training community representatives, providing support workers to help the community develop skills, or providing access to administrative or office resources. Retaining the involvement and support of the community should be a priority throughout the life of any regeneration scheme.

  Government guidance for NDC partnerships has made clear that we expect them to spend time and money in building the capacity of local people and agencies to participate. NDC partnerships were given considerably longer to prepare their Delivery Plans than in previous regeneration programmes. For the first time, the Government provided funding to help the partnership prepare its Delivery Plan, so that local people could be genuinely involved in the process of preparing the plan. The rules for NDC partnerships allow them to spend up to 10 per cent. of their funding on management and administration costs (that is double the amount allowed under previous programmes), to ensure that the partnership is properly resourced to deliver a programme with communities at its heart. We have asked each partnership to develop and implement a local learning plan, to equip all of the key players to play their full part in the process of neighbourhood renewal.

  WORK AND PENSIONS
  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions follows the Cabinet Office's guidance on written consultation which sets 12 weeks as the standard minimum period for a consultation. The table lists the

  Title of consultation

  Start date

  Period in weeks

  Reason for shorter consultation

  Changes to Invalid Care Allowance

  23 July 2001

  12

  —

  Amending the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979

  23 July 2002

  12

  —

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

  18 September 2001

  12

  —

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

  1 August 2001

  12

  —

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

  13 August 2001

  12

  —

  Private Pensions Simplification

  19 October 2001

  14

  —

  Bulk transfer of accrued pensions rights without member consent

  20 December 2001

  13

  —

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

  8 April 2002

  2

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

  Consultation exercise on Pension Scheme Trustees, Independent Custodians and Encouraging Shareholder Activism (Myners report)

  4 February 2002

  12

  —

  Member nominated trustees and directors

  12 February 2002

  4

  The shorter period was needed to fit into a regulatory timetable

  Child Poverty measures

  18 April 2002

  12

  —

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA) quinquennial review

  10 May 2002

  12

  —

  Residential Allowance

  22 May 2002

  14

  —

  Equality, opportunity, and independence for all (RRAA)

  30 May 2002

  17

  —

  Rent
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much he estimates has been saved by the introduction of local reference rent and single room rent. [61382]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The local reference rent and single room rent were introduced to ensure that the needs of people receiving benefit are balanced against those of the taxpayer. These rules ensure that people receiving housing benefit do not have their rent met in full if it exceeds the broadly average rent for similar sized properties in the locality in which they live, and that the benefit system does not provide unemployed young adults with better housing than their working peers can afford.

  The information is in the table.

  Estimated reduction in housing benefit expenditure arising from the introduction of the local reference rent and single room rent

  £ million

  Financial year

  Estimated reduction in housing benefit expenditure

  1995–96

  5

  1996–97

  55

  1997–98

  135

  1998–99

  150

  1999–2000

  150

  2000–01

  145

  2001–02

  145

  2002–03

  160

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are expressed in nominal terms.

  2. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  3. Estimates for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are based on forecast caseload and price levels.

  Sources:

  Rent Officer data and Housing Benefit administrative data 1996 to 2001.

  People's Consultative Forums
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many seats pensioners voluntary groups have on Older People's Consultative Forums, broken down by each nation and region. [64843]

  Mr. McCartney
  Within central Government pensioners voluntary groups are represented on the Partnership Group on Older People, established to focus on the provision of advice to the Cabinet Ministerial Committee on Domestic Affairs Sub-committee on Older People. There are 22 members, who include voluntary organisations such as Age Concern England, Help the Aged and the National Pensioners Convention.

  There is one other central Government forum, the Department of Health's Older People's Taskforce, which includes Age Concern England.

  Consultative forums within the devolved Administrations are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Executive. Consultative forums are also organised by local authorities.

  Information on representation on these and other forums is not held centrally.

  Recycling
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of waste produced in his Department was(a) recycled, (b) composted, and (c) re-used, broken down into (i) paper, (ii) plastics, (iii) aluminium cans and (iv) other in each year since 1997; what plans there are to increase these proportions; and if he will make a statement. [65699]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001. In 2001, the former Department of Social Security produced 24,000 tonnes of waste, of which 37 per cent. was recycled. The vast majority of recycled waste was paper. No waste was composted. Details are not available prior to 2001.

  For 2002, figures show that paper recycling has risen to 55 per cent. of the total waste produced, amounting to 16,172 tonnes. We plan to extend our paper-recycling scheme across the whole Department in the coming year.

  Redundant office furniture is recycled by DWP's estates partners wherever possible. Metal components are reused and desktops are pulped and recycled where possible. Volume figures are not available for this.

  Surplus IT equipment is refurbished and reused wherever possible. This is facilitated by the Disposal Service Agency, and the refurbished equipment is then distributed through the Computers Within Reach initiative.

  DWP as a whole does not currently separate plastics and aluminium cans from the general waste stream, although local schemes to recycle waste are encouraged and are in place at a number of locations. We plan to examine the potential for a national scheme to recycle these waste streams.

  In addition to the recycling initiatives in place, staff are also actively encouraged to reduce the amount of waste that they generate.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of(a) paper and (b) other goods purchased by his Department was recycled paper in each year since 1997; what the annual total cost of these purchases was; what plans there are to increase these proportions; and if he will make a statement. [65770]

  Maria Eagle
  2.12 per cent. of the 1,824,682 reams of paper purchased by DWP in 2001–02 was recycled paper. Of this 1,330,392 reams were purchased from the joint OGC/DWP contract at a cost of £4,913,629. Costs for the remaining 494,290 reams are not available.

  In 2001–02 DWP also purchased 8,434 tonnes of preprinted paper (leaflets and forms), of which 16 per cent. was recycled. 721 tonnes of card and board were also purchased of which 68 per cent. was recycled. Costs are not currently available.

  Information is not available prior to 2001–02.

  We are currently reviewing the measures we have in place to reduce the overall amount of paper used within the Department at the same time as increasing the percentage of recycled paper used.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the estimated(a) level and (b) cost of
  1024W
  energy use in his Department and associated agencies was in each year since 1997; what proportion of energy was generated from renewable sources; and if he will make a statement. [65955]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs on 3 July 2002,Official Report, columns 385–86W.

  Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the statistics that are collected by his Department by English parliamentary constituency; and if he will make a statement. [67097]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly) on 8 July 2002, Official Report, column 769W.

  Sanctions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what sanctions have been applied against claimants over 24 on the Government's New Deal programme; and if he will make a statement. [67725]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Up to March 2002, we estimate that around 17,979 sanctions1 had been applied to people aged over 24 on the New Deal programme. This represents the number of sanctions applied, not the number of people sanctioned as some people will have been sanctioned more than once.
  1 This information has been collected by undertaking a special exercise and is based on a combination of IT-generated statistics and information supplied clerically. The figure is therefore an estimate and should be treated as a guide to the number of sanctions applied only.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many claimants there were to whom deductions in their income support or income based jobseeker's allowance would have been made on their refusal to co-operate with the Department but where the sanctions were not applied because(a) their application would put the claimant or their children at risk of harm and (b) the claimant was in receipt of the disabled premium, disability premium, or a higher pensioner premium, in the latest year for which figures are available; [66727]

  (2) how many claimants there were have had deductions of benefit on the grounds of their refusal to co-operate with the Child Support Agency; what sanctions have been applied; and for what average length of time the sanctions have been applied. [66726]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: Every child has a right to a decent start in life whether their parents live together or apart. Children are entitled to care and support and both parents are responsible for providing it. It is reasonable to expect that the parent with care should co-operate with the Child Support Agency unless there are reasonable grounds for believing there would be a risk of harm or undue distress to the parent or any child living with them. If a parent with care refuses, without

  1025W
  good cause, to co-operate with the agency, their benefit may be reduced by up to 40 per cent. of the income support personal allowance for a person aged 25 or over.

  The available information is in the tables. Following the introduction in April 1998 of face-to-face interviews with parents with care claiming benefits, there has been a sharp rise in compliance and a corresponding fall in the number of reduced benefit directions issued. These interviews provide the opportunity to explain to parents with care the advantages of co-operating with the agency as well as the good cause rules.

  Reduced benefit directions issued in respect of parents with care who have failed to co-operate with the Child Support Agency

  Benefit

  Income support/jobseeker's Allowance

  Family credit

  1997–98

  55,115

  19,165

  1998–99

  36,251

  13,437

  1999–2000

  22,115

  6,164

  2000–01

  13,338

  84

  2001–02

  8,163

  6

  Notes:

  1. Figures are not available before April 1997.

  2. Family credit was superseded by working families tax credit in October 1999. Decisions were made on a few residual cases after this date.

  3. Data are not held on the average length of time the directions are in place.

  Source:

  Child Support agency Performance Monitoring Team.

  Cases where a reduced benefit direction was not issued because the parent with care could show good cause for not co-operating with the Child Support Agency—2001–02

  Reason good cause accepted

  Number

  Risk of physical or mental harm to the parent with care or child

  14,393

  Other

  3,118

  Note:

  Other reasons include risk of sexual abuse, rape or incest.

  Source:

  Child Support Agency Performance Monitoring Team.

  Reduced benefit direction exemptions—1999–2000

  Benefit

  Number

  Income support/jobseeker's allowance

  2,028

  Family credit

  403

  Notes:

  1. A parent with care receiving a disability premium, disabled child's premium or higher pensioner premium is exempt from a reduced benefit direction.

  2. Figures have not been collated centrally since 1999–2000.

  Source:

  Child Support Agency Performance Monitoring Team.

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for how many people in each of the last five years in(a) the UK, and (b) the (i) Brighton Pavilion, (ii) Brighton Kemptown and (iii) Hove constituencies (A) the sanction of loss of benefits for up to 26 weeks has been applied and (B) benefit has been restored following a review or an appeal. [63527]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the tables.
  1026W

  Unemployment benefit and jobseeker"s sanctions applied in Great Britian.

  Year

  Sanctions applied

  1997–98

  195,343

  1998–99

  153,420

  1999–2000

  158,531

  2000–01

  164,516

  2001–02

  160,200

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1997–98 include 93 sanctions applied against residual Unemployment Benefit cases.

  2. Data on the number of cases where benefit was reinstated following review or appeal are not available.

  3. Social Security matters in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Source:

  Employment Service Labour Market Statistics, Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions/Sector Decision Making, for years ending 31 March 1998 to 31 March 2002

  Jobseeker"s allowance sanctions applied in the Brighton and Hove area.

  Year

  Sanctions applied

  2000–01

  1,160

  Notes:

  1. Information is not available by parliamentary constituency.

  2. The Brighton and Hove area comprises the area covered by the Brighton Phonenix, Brighton Pavilion, Brighton Regent and Hove Jobcentre Plus offices.

  3. Due to a computer failure local information is limited to 2000–01.

  4. Data on the number of cases where benefit was reinstated following review or appeal are not available.

  Source:

  Employment Service Labour Market Statistics for year ending 31 March 2001.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to give the Child Support Agency the power of surveillance in tackling fraud; and if he will make a statement. [67042]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to hon. my Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Merron) on 24 June 2002,Official Report, column 676W.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether student loan repayments and student overdraft interest payments are counted as outgoings when the CSA calculates payments due from absent parents. [70749]

  Malcolm Wicks
  No.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in how many cases a parent with care withdrew a claim for income support after action by the Child Support Agency in each year from 1993–94 to 2001–02. [67237]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available.

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the length was of each public consultation undertaken by his Department since 8 June 2001. [68742]

  Consultation
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [70084]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001. From then to the end of 2001, the Department published eight consultation documents. Of these, two included the consultation criteria listed in the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on written consultation. Procedures are now in place to ensure that all new consultations include this information.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which consultation documents published by his Department in 2001 were not made available as paper copies. [69830]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 from the former Department of Social Security and parts of the Department
  1028W
  consultations the Department has begun, or completed since 8 June 2001. There were two occasions where shorter consultations have been conducted, and the reasons for this are included in the table.

  for Education and Employment. All written consultations published by the Department were available as paper copies.

  Benefits
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps have been taken to simplify the benefits system over each of the past three years; what steps it is proposed to take to simplify the system further; and if he will make a statement. [69249]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There will always be an element of complexity in the benefits system due to the diverse range of contingencies for which it must cater. However, we are overhauling service delivery to meet the different needs of the Department's client groups and investing in improved and modernised services that are more accurate, make better use of technology, and are simpler for people to understand and access.

  For people of working age, we are delivering this through Jobcentre Plus, building on the success of the ONE pilots in bringing together employment and benefit
  1029W
  services at a single point of contact. Some 50 pathfinder offices opened in October 2001, and Jobcentre Plus was launched as a national organisation at the beginning of April 2002. 56 integrated Jobcentre Plus offices are now open, and we aim to roll out a further 225 between October of this year and April 2003. The 2002 spending review further advances our reform and modernisation programme by announcing the roll-out of Jobcentre Plus nationally by 2006 to deliver an enhanced work-focused service for all people of working age.

  Further steps to promote work include the introduction of the Working Tax Credit from April 2003 which extends support to low income workers without children. And the new Child Tax Credit, also from April 2003 will provide a single, seamless system of support for families.

  The new Disability and Carer Directorate operates as a discrete business within the Department, responsible for the civil rights agenda for disabled people. Through the Disability and Carers Service, it also delivers Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Invalid Care Allowance and will, over time, streamline benefits delivery and improve customer service.

  The Pension Service replaced the Benefits Agency services for pensioners from April 2002, and is working to introduce an improved service tailored to the needs of today's and future pensioners. For the first time, there is a service dedicated to the needs of pensioners and helping people understand their pension options and ways to save for their retirement. Pensioners can use The Pension Service as a gateway to other services such as Housing Benefit and Attendance Allowance.

  The Pension Service will also deliver Pension Credit from October 2003. This replaces the Minimum Income Guarantee and represents a major simplification of provision for pensioners. For example, it does away with the rules excluding pensioners with savings of £12,000 or more from receiving help and, from age 65, most pensioners will not have to report changes in income for a fixed period of five years, effectively abolishing the weekly means test.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what notification his Department has provided to benefit recipients about the move to automated credit transfer from April 2003; and what role Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service will have in ensuring that all claimants are aware of the changes. [70021]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The department intends to conduct a customer information campaign, which will inform customers about the changes to the way we pay benefits and pensions. The campaign will begin in the run up to April 2003 when we will start to move customers to payment into bank or building society accounts so that customers have the information they need at the point of their transfer from payment by order book. The campaign will incorporate the Pension Service and Jobcentre Plus.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he will take to co-ordinate activities between the Child Support Agency and the Benefits Agency to combat benefit fraud; and if he will assess the advantages of measures to deal with deliberate evasion of child support maintenance by absent parents. [69741]
  1030W
  Malcolm Wicks
  Jobcentre Plus and the Child Support Agency (CSA) already work closely to identify and investigate benefit fraud.

  In a Child Support case where either parent is in receipt of prescribed benefits and fraud is suspected or detected, the case is referred to Jobcentre Plus to investigate. All Departmental fraud investigations (including those carried out by the CSA) are to a common standard informed by a single Professional Standards Unit established in Jobcentre Plus. All fraud structures and processes are informed by the Fraud Head of Profession in Jobcentre Plus who has the function of integrating and co-ordinating good practice.

  In January 2001 new criminal offences were introduced to the Child Support legislation. Parents who seek to avoid their child support responsibilities by lying to the Child Support Agency or refusing to provide information now face criminal proceedings. The legislation provides for a fine of up to £1000. The CSA has so far successfully prosecuted 5 non-resident parents under this legislation.

  Legislation was also introduced in April 2001 to allow the courts to consider disqualifying a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a driving licence as an alternative to a term of imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance. The courts decide which, if either, option to use. Since April 2001 the CSA has submitted 94 cases for committal. Of these, 44 non-resident parents began paying maintenance when they learned of the possible disqualification. The courts withdrew one driving licence and imposed a suspended disqualification in three other cases.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he intends to take following the second report by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate on the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit in Kirklees Metropolitan Council. [72979]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Using the powers available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in Section 139D of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, my right hon. Friend is today giving Directions to Kirklees Metropolitan Council, following the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's second report on the Council's administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  We are disappointed that Kirklees Metropolitan Council has been the subject of two critical reports by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate before taking action to remedy their problems with benefit administration.

  However, we are pleased that the Council is now starting to take its responsibilities seriously and that significant improvements are being made in benefit administration.

  We hope the council will look upon the Directions as a further stimulus for continuing improvement.

  A copy of the Directions has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the(a) total cost of benefit fraud investigations and (b) the net savings from benefit fraud investigations in each of the last five years. [71778]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: We set out our strategy for tackling fraud and error in the paper "A New Contract for Welfare: Safeguarding Social
  1031W
  Security" (CM4276) published on 23 March 1999. The overall aim of the strategy is to have a benefit system that is secure from first claim to first payment.

  The implementation of this strategy means that an anti-fraud focus is integral to the work of the Department, as is dealing with the wider agenda of error and incorrectness in benefit payments. It is therefore not possible to account for the cost of anti-fraud work separately.

  The work of benefit fraud investigators has an important effect both through fraud detected and as a deterrent that prevents fraud happening in the first place. It is therefore not possible to provide an estimate of net savings from benefit fraud investigations. However, we know from our continuous measurement of the level of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance that by March 2001 we had achieved a reduction of 18 per cent.—almost twice the target of 10 per cent. for March 2002 and a year ahead of schedule.

  The Spending Review announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15 July includes an increase in our existing target to reduce fraud and error in payments of income support and jobseeker's allowance. We are now committed to a 33 per cent. reduction in these payments by March 2004, as a milestone towards a 50 per cent. reduction by March 2006. And for the first time we have set a target for tackling fraud and error in housing benefit that aims for a 25 per cent. reduction by 2006.

  Pension Rights
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to introduce primary legislation to protect the pension rights of British citizens who have worked in Australia. [69936]

  Mr. McCartney
  We will legislate at the earliest suitable opportunity to ensure that, for British citizens who went to live in Australia before the end of the reciprocal Social Security Agreement on 28 February 2001, any periods of residence in Australia from the start of the Agreement on 29 January 1958 up to and including 5 April 2001 will be used in the calculation of basic state pension if they return to live permanently in the United Kingdom.

  Until we can introduce primary legislation, we will continue to make extra statutory payments to such people who return to the UK on a permanent basis, if they have less than the standard rate of basic pension.

  ACT
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Government expects the installation of the hardware and software for the ACT system to commence; when the training for Post Office staff will commence; and when guidance for customers will be issued. [70189]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: Plans are progressing to put all of the necessary changes in place from April 2003.

  Training for Post Office staff is an operational matter for the Post Office, who say they are also on track for April 2003.
  1032W
  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.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners in the Hastings and Rye constituency who will benefit from(a) the guaranteed credit and (b) the savings credit when the pension credit provisions take effect in April 2003. [70332]

  Mr. McCartney
  I regret that the information requested is not available. Pension Credit will be introduced in October 2003. The guarantee credit will ensure that no pensioner need live on less than £100 a week. The savings credit will ensure that even those with modest savings will see that it pays to have saved. On average pensioners who qualify for Pension Credit will be £400 a year better off.

  Currently in the Hastings and Rye constituency there are around 3,600 pensioners receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee. Those in receipt in October 2003 will be automatically transferred onto Pension Credit which will subsume the Minimum Income Guarantee.

  Notes:

  1. Based on a 5 per cent. sample; therefore subject to sampling variation.

  2. Figure has been rounded to the nearest 100.

  3. Parliamentary Constituency has been allocated using the relevant ONS postcode directory.

  4. Minimum Income Guarantee claimants are defined as Income Support benefit units where the claimant, and/or partner, is aged 60 and over.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, February 2002.

  Age Discrimination
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the Government are doing to encourage private companies to combat age discrimination. [71360]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government are determined to combat age discrimination in employment, and are actively doing so under the banner of our Age Positive campaign. We are working hard to encourage companies to use non-ageist employment practices, leading up to the implementation of age legislation in 2006.

  In consultation with employers, we have produced the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment. The Code sets the standard for non-ageist employment practices. Evaluation of the impact of the code shows that the number of companies whose policies discriminate against older people has halved, from 14 per cent. to 7 per cent., since 1999.

  Our Age Positive campaign is strongly promoting the business benefits of an age diverse work force to employers of all types. Small and medium sized companies are currently participating in our second series of 20 good-practice workshops. Age Positive awards recognise businesses that are tackling discrimination by means of non-ageist employment policies. Employers are
  1033W
  supporting the campaign by sharing their experiences with others. These case studies are on the Age Positive website, together with the Code of Practice and other guidance. Last month we published the report 'Flexible Retirement—a snapshot of large employers' initiatives', which shows that an increasing number of companies are now adopting more flexible retirement policies.

  Children (Low-income Families)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what baseline figure is to be used in assessing progress in meeting his target of reducing the number of children living in low-income households by at least a quarter by 2004. [71783]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: The baseline used to measure this Public Service Agreement target is 1998–99 Households Below Average Income figures. This target is shared with HM Treasury. Full details of the target, its baseline and how it is measured are contained in a technical note which has been placed in the Library.

  The latest available HBAI figures for 2000–01 show that there has been a fall of 0.3 million children on the after housing costs measure and 0.4 million children on the before housing costs measure. Therefore, after a third of the way through monitoring this PSA target we are a third of the way to meeting it.

  Car Allowance
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what rate of car allowance is payable to a person attending a medical or appeal board; when the rate was set; how the rate is calculated; whether there are plans to raise it; and if he will make a statement. [72013]

  Maria Eagle
  For people attending a medical board, the standard rate of car allowance payable is 6.5 pence per mile, which is paid towards meeting the fuel costs of customers attending for a medical examination when public transport is not available.

  The rate, which was chosen by the Department for Work and Pensions, reflected the rate in payment to its own staff, at the time it was set, where the only element of reimbursement was in respect of fuel. This decision was taken in the interests of safeguarding public resources and was intended to correct the wide variations in interpretation of previous instructions, so as to ensure that customers received the same rate of recompense regardless of where in the country they lived.

  In order to continue improving the standard of information provided to its customers, SchlumbergerSema have revised the ALIC form that provides important information about the medical examination.

  The ALIC form now states: 'if you do not travel by public transport we will make a 6.5 pence per mile contribution to fuel costs if you use a private motor vehicle'. This will enable the customer to be aware of exactly how much they will receive if they travel by car.

  The rate of car allowance payable to people attending an appeal board is set by the Appeals Service, who pay 12 pence per mile and 2 pence per mile for each additional passenger. The rate was set on 1 January 2002. It is
  1034W
  calculated by using the average petrol costs as researched by the Automobile Association. The rate is for actual fuel costs and does not cover running costs.

  There are no immediate plans to raise the rates. However, a full review of departmental policy with regard to the reimbursement of travelling expenses to interviews, tribunals and examinations is being carried out, with the recommendations to be made later in the year.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the(a) annual report on the social fund 2001–02 and (b) Social Fund Commissioner's annual report on the standard of social fund inspectors' decisions will be published. [72421]

  Malcolm Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's annual report on the social fund for 2001–02 (CM 5492) was published today and has been laid before Parliament.

  The report records that gross expenditure, excluding winter fuel payments, in 2001–02 was £761.8 million. Together with expenditure on winter fuel payments of around £1.7 billion, this resulted in total gross expenditure of almost £2.5 billion. The discretionary social fund helped more people than ever before with around 2.5 million awards made. This included more than 233,000 non-repayable grants and more than 2,231,000 interest-free loans together worth £646.9 million. 42,000 funeral and 1.8 million cold weather payments totalling £53.7 million were made. More than 11 million people aged 60 or over in eight million households benefited from a winter fuel payment. In addition, 201,000 sure start maternity grants worth £61.2 million were made.

  The Social Fund Commissioner's report has also been published today and copies placed in the Library.

  Pensions Policy
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to change pensions policy. [72458]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 11 July 2002,Official Report, column 1054.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answers of 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 959W, 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 242W and 17 June 2002, Official Report, column 88W, on winter fuel payments, if he has concluded his discussions with the European Commission about the extent of the United Kingdom's legal obligations under European regulations on winter fuel payments; and if he will make a statement. [72604]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Wayne David) on 19 July 2002,Official Report, column 599W.

  Annual Reports
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the 2000–01 annual reports and accounts for each of his agencies. [72980]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The 2001–02 annual reports and accounts for Benefits Agency (HC 929) and Employment Service (HC 955) which ceased to operate on the 31 March 2002 and those for The Appeals Service (HC1068) and Child Support Agency (HC 894) and have been laid before Parliament today.

  Employer Direct
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employers have contacted Employer Direct since it was introduced; and what measures have been taken to ensure that this initiative meets the needs of employers. [61487]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive, Leigh Lewis. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Phil Sawford Esq MP, dated June 2002:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of employers who have contacted Employer Direct since it was introduced and the measures that have been taken to ensure that this initiative meets the needs of employers. This falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Since the national implementation of Employer Direct on 26 January 2002 over 700,000 calls from employers have been received and nearly 600,000 vacancies notified.
  During the development of Employer Direct there was wide ranging consultation with employers. This included the formation of a national group of employers in addition to discussion and liaison at local level.
  In addition to taking employers' views in the development and roll out of Employer Direct we seek feedback from employers as a matter of course whenever they use the Employer Direct service.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Specialist Training
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance and specialist training is given to staff in benefits offices and jobcentres in dealing with people with learning difficulties; and if he will make a statement. [65785]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive, Leigh Lewis. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  General Matching Service

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  /999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Referrals issued

  62,937

  85,071

  137,307

  139,292

  217,039

  234,671

  167,950

  Positive results1

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  67,121

  86,598

  83,742

  Successful prosecutions

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  63

  844

  952

  Cautions and administrative penalties

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  288

  2,417

  2,497

  Total overpayments3 (£ million)

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  35.0

  59.5

  65.5

  Total negative monetary value adjustment4 (£ million)

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1.9

  2.5

  3.0

  Benefit. Information (Pilot Schemes)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what pilot schemes he will run to ensure that information and procedures given to benefit recipients will have been fully tested prior to the April 2003 deadline; and if he will make a statement. [70556]

  Mr. McCartney
  There will be a phased introduction of different benefit types and customer volumes. This is aimed at reducing risk and operational complexity during the early part of the conversion period and will also be a way to test conversion processes and the information to he given to customers to ensure that it meets their needs.

  Benefits Data
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individuals' personal data have been processed in data matching exercises in connection with benefit fraud; how many cases were identified as part of that data matching exercise as being possible cases of benefit fraud requiring further investigation; how many cases after investigation were deemed likely to be fraudulent; how many cases were prosecuted; what the total costs were of all data matching exercises, including staff and computer costs; and what the estimated total savings to the public purse are and the multiplier used in this calculation. [59210]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Data-matching is a powerful tool in the detection of fraud and incorrectness in the benefit system. The Department's Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service (MIDAS) operates the Generalised Matching Service (GMS) for benefits administered by the Department, and the Housing Benefit Matching Service (HBMS) for housing benefit and council tax benefit which are administered by local authorities.

  The data-matching process involves data extracts being taken from the Department's main benefit computer systems and local authority benefit systems which are matched against each other using data matching "rules" to identify discrepancies between the data sets. Such discrepancies are then referred for local investigation. Legislation also provides for personal data held by other Government Departments to be matched against departmental and local authority data to identify discrepancies.

  It is not possible to say how many individuals' personal data have been processed in data-matching exercises because each individual's details may be held on several systems at the same time.

  Information on the overall cost of conducting data-matching exercises and investigating discrepancies is not available.

  The available information on the results from GMS and HBMS data-matching operations is in the tables.
  1037W

  Housing Benefit Matching Service5

  Up to 1998

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Referrals issued

  25,940

  49.084

  65,143

  86,006

  78,144

  Positive results1

  2—

  2—

  2—

  29,037

  32,243

  Successful prosecutions

  2—

  75

  208

  392

  319

  Total overpayments3 (£ million)

  3.4

  10.6

  18.6

  37.2

  36.8

  Weekly benefit savings × 32 weeks (£ million)

  4.3

  12.9

  17.8

  22.2

  21.8

  1Cases where, following investigation, there was an increase or decrease in the rate of benefit because of fraud, customer error or official error.

  2Information is not available.

  3Arising from fraud, customer error or official error.

  4Monetary Value Adjustment (MVA) is the difference between the weekly amount of benefit that would have been paid, or would have continued to be paid, and the benefit paid following the decision-maker's decision on the information gathered. MVA was introduced during the 1999–2000 financial year. Prior to the GMS recorded a Weekly Benefit Savings (WBS) figure that used a multiplier of 32 weeks. This method of recording savings was used by HBMS until 31 March 2002, after which it began to use MVA. Separate GMS figures for WBS and overpayments prior to 1999–2000 are not available.

  5HBMS does not record sanctions information.

  Source:

  Matching Intelligence Detection Analysis Services management information.

  Press Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [70537]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: The Department for Work and Pensions was formed on 8 June 2001 from parts of the former Department of Social Security, parts of the former Department for Education and Employment and the Employment service,

  The Department for Work and Pensions currently employs 21 full time press officers. No secondees have been placed in the press office.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to analyse the potential effects of council tax revaluation on the levels of council tax benefit restriction; and if he will make a statement. [68906]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Council Tax revaluation will start in 2005 and Council Tax bills based on updated property values will be issued in 2007. Nearer the time, when the implications of Council Tax revaluation become clear, we will consider what impact this may have on Council Tax Benefit restrictions.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the annual saving has been to the Exchequer since the council tax benefit restriction scheme was introduced; [70033]

  (2) what average cost was borne by each restricted household in (a) band F, (b) band G arid (c) band H in (i) England and (ii) each Government office region, in the most recent year for which figures are available; [70026]

  (3) how many council tax benefit cases there were in (a) band F, (b) band G and (c) band Hr in (i) England and (ii) each Government office region in the most recent year for which figures are available; [70027]

  (4) how many and what percentage of council tax benefit claims restricted to band E are (a) owner occupied and (b) rented in (i) England and (ii) each Government office region; [70029]
  1038W
  (5)how many and what percentage of council tax benefit cases are (a) owner occupied and (b) rented in (i) England and (ii) each Government office region; [70028]

  (6) how many and what percentage of council tax benefit claims were restricted to band E for (a) all properties, (b) RSLs and (c) local authority properties in (i) England and (ii) each Government office region in the most recent year for which figures are available; [70030]

  (7) how many restricted council tax benefit cases there were in (a) band F, (b) band G and (c) band H for (i) England and (ii) each Government office region in the most recent year for which figures are available. [70025]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We do not believe it is right that people living in more expensive properties and who therefore have a higher council tax liability, should, as a matter of course, have all that liability met by taxpayers.

  Since 2 July 2001, local authorities have been able to make discretionary housing payments to people entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit who require additional help with their rent or council tax, including those people whose council tax benefit has been restricted. These payments are at the discretion of the local authority and subject to an annual cash limit. For 2002–03, the Government are contributing £20 million nationally towards the overall limit of £50 million which local authorities can spend.

  Comparative data from which to calculate the actual reduction in spending since the restrictions were introduced in April 1998, are not available.

  Such other information as is available has been placed in the Library.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Wiggin

  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact on the disabled of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [71015]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department has commissioned a number of research studies that examine how the Disability Discrimination Act is having an impact on disabled people. Some have yet to report but it is clear that the number of cases being taken under the DDA is increasing, demonstrating that disabled people are making use of their rights'. A body of case law is being developed, which will
  1039W
  help disabled people to understand the practical application of the law to their own circumstances. There is also evidence that employers are changing their policies and practices with an increase in the number of employers with policies on the employment of disabled people since the Act's introduction in 19962.
  1Leverton, S. (2002) Monitoring the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Phase 2), DWP in-house report 91. This is a follow-up study to research commissioned by DfEE: Meager et al. (1999) Monitoring the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, DfEE Research Report RR119).
  2Golstone, C. (2002) Barriers to Employment for Disabled People, DWP In-House Report 95.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people reached state pension age in each of the last five years; and how many people are expected to do so in each of the next five years. [72417]

  Mr. McCartney
  The available information is set out in the table.

  Number of women aged 60 and the number of men aged 65

  1997

  540,000

  1998

  540,000

  I999

  540,000

  2000

  550,000

  2001

  530,000

  2002

  560,000

  2003

  590,000

  2004

  610,000

  2005

  600,000

  2006

  590,000

  2007

  710,000

  Notes:

  1 Information is taken from the Government Actuary's Department population statistics.

  2. The figures are based on people reaching age 60–65 in a particular year.

  3. The total number of people is rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  Pensions Advice
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research has been undertaken into the preferred methods by pensioners of accessing pensions advice; and if he will make a statement. [72188]

  Mr. McCartney
  A number of research projects have been undertaken by the Department and other organisations looking at pensioners' preferred methods of obtaining advice and of claiming pensions and benefits. The research published by the Department is listed below and copies of the reports are available in the Library.

  In 2001 the Department commissioned BMRB International to carry out a large scale survey of peoples' attitudes to electronic methods of conducting benefits business. The survey topics include pensioners' current and preferred methods of applying for benefits and pensions. Findings from the research will be published in the autumn.
  Bunt K., Adams L. and Vivian D. (2000) Evaluation of the Pension Power For You Helpline, DSS Research report No. 121, CDS, Leeds
  Bunt K., Adams L. and Vivian D. (2000) The Pension Power For You Helpline: Final report, DSS In-house report No.70
  Chang, D., Spicer, N., Irving, A., Sparham, I. and Neeve, L. (2001), The Better Government For Older People Prototypes, DSS Research report No. 136, CDS, Leeds
  Rose, T. (1999) Modernising Service Delivery: The Integrated Services Prototype. DSS Research report 104, Corporate Document Services, Leeds
  Stafford, B., Kellard, K. and Horsley, E. (1997) Customer Contact with the Benefits Agency DSS Research report 65, Corporate Document Services, Leeds.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [68723]

  Mr. McCartney
  All overseas travel by officials in the 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 Business Travel and Relocation Expenses Guide. The detailed information requested about individual trips is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision is planned for HIV-positive mothers in the new asylum seekers accommodation centres. [70561]

  Beverley Hughes
  HIV positive mothers in accommodation centres will be advised not to breast-feed. We will ensure that safe alternatives to breast milk are available for HIV-infected mothers with young babies, and that these can be accessed in a way that preserves their privacy.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the employment concession for asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [72779]

  Beverley Hughes
  The asylum system is working increasingly quickly, through reforms and increased resources. Measures in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill will continue this process. This means that the employment concession, whereby asylum seekers could apply for permission to work if their application remained outstanding for longer than six months without a decision being made, is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The vast majority—around 80 per cent. of asylum seekers—receive a decision within six months, and work is continuing to improve that further. An increasingly small number of people, therefore, are entitled to apply for the concession. It is also the case that the great majority of new asylum applicants will have their cases decided within two months arid the concession, which dates from a time when lengthy delays were widespread in the asylum system, is therefore no longer appropriate.

  I am determined to make it clear that there is a distinct separation between asylum processes and labour migration channels. It is essential that we have a robust asylum process that works effectively and swiftly in the interests of refugees, and also is not open to abuse by those who would seek to come here to work. But that does not mean we are 'fortress Britain'. The Government are putting in place an effective managed migration programme and continues to create a number of work routes to allow more people to come and work here legally in ways which boost our economy. For example, the Government have overhauled the work permits system and the number of work permits issued has doubled over the past two years—in 2001 we issued work permits to nearly 140,000 people. Other entry routes for people who want to work in the United Kingdom include the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme, the Working Holidaymakers Scheme (under which nearly 40,000 Commonwealth young people a year come to the United Kingdom for a working holiday) and the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (which brings in nearly 20,000 seasonal workers a year). In addition, the Government are currently consulting on schemes to bring in more temporary workers in industries with recruitment difficulties.

  Those who are granted refugee status can work immediately, and we welcome the enormous contribution that the skills and knowledge of refugees can make to our society and to our economy. However, our asylum system
  1042W
  exists to help those fleeing persecution—those who want to come here to work must do so through the various economic routes available rather than abuse the asylum system.

  I have therefore decided, with immediate effect, that the concession should he abolished. Asylum seekers who already have permission to work will retain that right until such time as a final decision is made on their claim. Asylum seekers who, prior to this announcement, had sought permission to work but have not had a response, will have their requests considered in line with our previous policy. I will retain a discretion to grant permission to work for asylum seekers in exceptional cases.

  It is absolutely vital, of course, that all asylum seekers use their time constructively while their case is considered. Therefore, I have also decided to review our current rules governing the voluntary work which asylum seekers can undertake, in order to ensure that there are no unnecessary barriers to participation.

  To demonstrate our on-going commitment to purposeful activity for asylum seekers, we have also awarded over £900,000 to 135 projects across the United Kingdom for summer programmes to give them the opportunity to get involved in voluntary activities in the community, or partake in sports-orientated and educational events.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives his officials as to the acceptable time within which a decision is notified to asylum seekers after interview. [70383]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]: The Government's target in 2002–03 is for officials in the Integrated Casework Directorate of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to make and serve decisions within two months from the date of application in 65 per cent. of new substantive asylum claims. Against that target the aim is to notify decisions as soon after interview as full consideration of the individual merits of each case can take place.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the length of time set by him an applicant for indefinite leave to remain in the UK should normally be required to wait for their application to be considered; and what information about the progress of the application is provided to the applicant during this period. [70142]

  Beverley Hughes
  We aim to decide straightforward general immigration applications, which can include those for indefinite leave to remain, on initial consideration within three weeks. At present such applicants are taking on average around four weeks to decide but we are working to reduce this to three weeks as soon as possible. Some applications that need more detailed consideration of further inquiries are, at present, taking up to 12 months to consider due to the large number of cases currently in the system.

  All applications are acknowledged within two weeks of receipt which includes advice as to the likely time scale for initial consideration. If the application cannot be completed on initial consideration a further letter is sent advising the likely time scale for considering such cases.
  1043W
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the maternity grant is available to asylum seekers who are mothers living in emergency accommodation. [70562]

  Beverley Hughes
  Asylum seekers in emergency accommodation are provided with temporary support under section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (the 1999 Act). Asylum seeking mothers in emergency accommodation are not eligible to receive a maternity grant because this is available only to asylum seekers assessed as eligible to receive support and in receipt of support under section 95 of the 1999 Act. Asylum seekers in emergency accommodation who give birth to a baby are provided with a pack of items to enable them to meet the needs of their baby.

  Asylum Removals Centres
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are included which take into account the proximity of schools, housing estates, industrial and regeneration sites in respect of asylum removals centres. [70945]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: When examining individual sites differing criteria are used, dependant upon our requirements. These will be specific to a particular site or project.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 May 2002,Official Report, column 329W, on the National Asylum Support Service, what the average time taken by NASS to respond to correspondence from (a) supported asylum seekers and (b) their representatives is. [56636]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Operations Section of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is responsible for determining applications for support and answering correspondence about the support offered. All correspondence received within the Operations Section of NASS—currently in excess of 4,000 pieces per week—is subject to a target for completion. Targets are applied across the board—there is no distinction between correspondence received from an asylum seeker or a third party.

  Targets for response depend on the nature of the correspondence. Correspondence which can be fast tracked will receive meaningful action within three working days. Correspondence raising complex issues will receive meaningful action within 10 working days. For example, an application for a single additional payment will be assessed within three working days of receipt and the applicant is notified of the outcome at this stage. Any payment approved will be included in the support applicant's regular payment within three weeks of the application being made.

  All targets are monitored to ensure compliance and any backlog is addressed to avoid unnecessary delay.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the annual report for
  1044W
  2001–02 of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's independent Complaints Audit Committee; and if he will make a statement. [72982]

  Beverley Hughes
  A copy of the report has been placed in the Library and will be placed on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website. It is a useful and informative document, and I am grateful to the Committee for its comments and its recommendations. I am currently considering how best to implement the recommendations.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the mandate of the Committee for the implementation of the programme of training, exchanges and co-operation in the field of asylum, immigration and crossing of external borders (Odysseus) 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 he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [58454]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Odysseus Committee assisted the European Commission in the management and implementation of a programme to co-fund projects to promote co-operation in matters of asylum, immigration, the crossing of external borders and the security of identity documents. The programme expired on 31 March 2002.

  The Odysseus Committee met once a year to discuss the proposed bids for funding and agree the allocation of funds to successful projects. One of the first projects to receive such funding was a seminar held at the Civil Service College in Sunningdale in 1998 on combating illegal immigration.

  The United Kingdom was represented on the Committee by a Home Office official and an official from the United Kingdom Permanent Representation in Brussels.

  The Odysseus programme was funded by the European Community budget and travel costs to attend Committee meetings were met by the European Commission. However, the Home Office paid a subsistence allowance to cover attendance at a Committee meeting.

  The European Commission was required to prepare an annual report on the implementation of the Odysseus programme and is currently preparing the report for its final year. This will he sent to the European Parliament and Council, and will be published on the EUROPA internet website. I did not see a need for further measures to increase the Committee's accountability and transparency during its lifetime.

  The Odysseus programme is to be replaced by a new funding programme for co-operation in the fields of external borders, visas, asylum and immigration to be known as ARGO.

  Deportees
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in jails in the UK have been deported to the US to face charges that could result in the death penalty in that country in each of the last five years. [71327]
  1045W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  None. Our policy is in accordance with the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, and with the provisions of the Extradition Act 1989. We do not extradite any persons to a jurisdiction where the offence for which they could be tried, or for which they have been tried, carries the death penalty, unless sufficient assurances are provided by the requesting state that the death penalty will not be imposed, or if imposed, will not be carried out.

  Accommodation Centres
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the per capita cost of education provision in accommodation centres. [71326]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: We are in the process of running a competition for the delivery of accommodation centres. Information about costs is commercially confidential.

  Police
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of service was for a(a) policewoman and (b) policeman in England and Wales in the latest year for which figures are available. [50682]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest figures available are for March 2000 and they are set out in the table.

  The lower average length of service for women officers in part reflects the increase in recent years in the number and proportion of women in the police service from 14,496 female officers (11.6 per cent. of strength) in 1990 to 21,800 (17.4 per cent. of strength) by September 2001.

  However, the rate of voluntary resignation by women is higher than the rate for men and this also contributes to the shorter average length of service.

  As part of the Dismantling Barriers initiative, we have asked forces to carry out externally audited exit interviews with departing staff to build a picture of why those leaving have decided to do so, and identify where changes might help retain staff.

  We are liaising with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Work/Life Balance Team to determine how the Home Office can assist forces in using flexible working.

  A research project into the retention of policy officers is under way, to inform the development of effective and practical approaches by forces to improve the retention of police officers. The focus of the research is on those forces identified as having high or increasing levels of resignations and among those groups of officers (including women officers) that have disproportionately high levels of resignations.

  Mean average length of service in years for female and male police officers March 20001,2

  Mean

  Female officers (0–30 years' service only3)

  9.7

  All female officers (includes over 30 years' service3)

  9.7

  1046W

  Mean average length of service in years for female and male police officers March 20001,2

  Mean

  Male officers (0–30 years' service only3)

  14.6

  All male officers (includes over 30 years' service3)

  15.0

  1Source—Dismantling Barriers monitoring return March 2002.

  2Individual officers' length of service is not available centrally. These figures are calculated from aggregate returns showing the total number of officers in each year of service and are therefore approximate.

  3Two figures are shown. The standard period of service 30 years, although some officers elect to serve beyond this, with the agreement of their chief constable. The first figure is therefore the average for officers who have 0–30 years' service. The second figure includes officers who have over 30 years' service. There are very few female officers with over 30 years' service, so the average length of service does not increase if they are included, where it does for male officers.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contingency plans he has in place should the police work to rule, ban overtime or strike. [38817]

  Mr. Denham
  Police officers do not have the right to strike. Under section 91 of the Police Act 1996, it is a criminal offence for anyone to cause disaffection among police officers or to induce any police officer to withhold his services. Police officers are under a duty to carry out all lawful orders, so would have to work overtime if required to do so.

  On 9 May, we reached agreement in the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) on a package of reforms to police pay and conditions of service. PNB is the statutory negotiating body for police pay and conditions of service, on which all the main police organisations are represented, including the Police Federation, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. The PNB was, in part, set up to compensate for police officers not having the right to strike. Due process was followed throughout the negotiations leading up to the Agreement on 9 May.

  Police Retention
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2001,Official Report, column 299W, on police retention, what proportion of police officers retired from each force in each year since 1997 (a) on medical grounds (b) at normal retirement age and (c) on other grounds: and what the net change was as a proportion of each force in each year since 1997. [38032]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: The figures given in the answer of 12 February 2001, were those collected by the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (RDS) and published as Police Personnel Statistics. For the purpose of these statistics, wastage is collected on a headcount basis (ie the number of persons) in the following categories: retirements, resignations and other. The statistics do not distinguish between medical and other retirements.
  1047W
  In addition to the information collected by RDS, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) collects information annually about wastage from the police service broken down into the following categories:

  Dismissals from force (including requirements to resign)

  Voluntary resignations

  Medical retirements

  Ordinary retirements

  Transfers from force

  Deaths

  Forces are asked to provide these figures on a full-time equivalent basis, not on a headcount basis. HMIC's information has been used to provide the figures in a table for the numbers and proportion of medical and ordinary retirements and other leavers (excluding transfers), a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Information for 2001–02 will not be available until later in the year.

  As the statistics collected by HMIC are gathered on a different basis from those collected twice a year by RDS, information from the two sources cannot be reconciled directly. We are aware of the inconsistent basis between the two sets of figures and established a task force to consider these issues. The task force report was issued for consultation on 18 December 2001. The report of the task force proposes a comprehensive revision to the current requirements on police personnel statistics. Following consultation with the police service we will implement the necessary changes from September 2002.

  Police Firearms
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the most recent statistics are for the police use of firearms. [72974]

  Mr. Denham
  The statistics for April 2000 to March 2001 show that the number of police operations in which firearms were issued was 11,109. The number of occasions on which firearms were discharged by police increased to nine.

  There was a small decrease in the number of operations in which armed response vehicles were deployed.

  Full details are set out in the tables:

  Number of operations in which firearms were authorized

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  139

  88

  90

  65

  Bedfordshire

  323

  260

  190

  294

  Cambridgeshire

  96

  43

  75

  71

  Cheshire

  216

  29

  386

  545

  Cleveland

  103

  35

  76

  28

  City of London

  307

  147

  125

  3

  Cumbria

  68

  52

  24

  30

  Derbyshire

  147

  176

  178

  167

  Devon and Cornwall

  133

  61

  65

  151

  Dorset

  54

  69

  79

  174

  Durham

  103

  114

  114

  40

  Essex

  505

  590

  497

  435

  Gloucestershire

  51

  52

  52

  48

  Greater Manchester

  165

  160

  224

  357

  1048W

  Number of operations in which firearms were authorized

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Hampshire

  217

  129

  103

  114

  Hertfordshire

  82

  75

  73

  86

  Humberside

  472

  317

  193

  158

  Kent

  423

  92

  85

  83

  Lancashire

  338

  616

  267

  242

  Leicestershire

  89

  109

  222

  217

  Lincolnshire

  52

  57

  155

  336

  Merseyside

  675

  484

  489

  825

  Metropolitan

  2,578

  2,742

  2,862

  1,862

  Norfolk

  128

  185

  239

  226

  Northamptonshire

  77

  51

  57

  58

  Northumbria

  823

  683

  465

  708

  North Yorkshire

  102

  69

  61

  72

  Nottinghamshire

  306

  266

  255

  233

  South Yorkshire

  302

  135

  237

  127

  Staffordshire

  240

  209

  174

  203

  Suffolk

  193

  174

  165

  176

  Surrey

  87

  60

  143

  221

  Sussex

  330

  123

  185

  353

  Thames Valley

  227

  158

  110

  153

  Warwickshire

  152

  291

  194

  233

  West Mercia

  132

  130

  110

  36

  West Midlands

  227

  305

  362

  485

  West Yorkshire

  630

  662

  813

  822

  Wiltshire

  26

  24

  19

  66

  Dyfed Powys

  27

  38

  37

  18

  Gwent

  86

  64

  39

  30

  North Wales

  310

  386

  371

  195

  South Wales

  101

  148

  255

  363

  Total

  11,842

  10,928

  10,915

  11,109

  Number of authorised firearms officers (AFOs)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  161

  153

  150

  135

  Bedfordshire

  42

  50

  46

  45

  Cambridgeshire

  80

  80

  77

  73

  Cheshire

  82

  70

  75

  74

  Cleveland

  84

  78

  80

  75

  City of London

  81

  55

  73

  74

  Cumbria

  122

  98

  98

  94

  Derbyshire

  100

  87

  77

  81

  Devon and Cornwall

  147

  82

  119

  100

  Dorset

  72

  72

  66

  67

  Durham

  144

  96

  101

  101

  Essex

  217

  235

  228

  195

  Gloucestershire

  84

  79

  77

  72

  Greater Manchester

  182

  217

  218

  240

  Hampshire

  112

  110

  111

  100

  Hertfordshire

  41

  43

  52

  44

  Humberside

  102

  102

  97

  102

  Kent

  150

  130

  136

  136

  Lancashire

  125

  132

  143

  132

  Leicestershire

  94

  90

  90

  85

  Lincolnshire

  85

  75

  78

  80

  Merseyside

  165

  121

  96

  103

  Metropolitan

  1,971

  1,951

  1,977

  1,940

  Norfolk

  102

  109

  110

  114

  Northamptonshire

  92

  92

  75

  77

  Northumbria

  126

  123

  114

  109

  North Yorkshire

  95

  83

  59

  66

  Nottinghamshire

  129

  120

  116

  137

  South Yorkshire

  108

  90

  100

  98

  Staffordshire

  86

  92

  81

  67

  Suffolk

  96

  101

  98

  90

  Surrey

  61

  69

  71

  72

  Sussex

  146

  156

  131

  118

  Thames Valley

  194

  179

  187

  185

  Warwickshire

  38

  44

  54

  45

  West Mercia

  159

  139

  129

  130

  West Midlands

  95

  92

  93

  83

  West Yorkshire

  114

  128

  110

  117

  Wiltshire

  105

  88

  89

  71

  Dyfed Powys

  71

  67

  65

  61

  Gwent

  59

  64

  68

  66

  North Wales

  90

  97

  92

  67

  South Wales

  176

  169

  155

  143

  Total

  6,585

  6,308

  6,262

  6,064

  1049W

  Number of operations involving armed response vehicles (ARVs)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  121

  83

  78

  56

  Bedfordshire

  285

  240

  172

  253

  Cambridgeshire

  19

  27

  54

  36

  Cheshire

  166

  247

  330

  441

  Cleveland

  157

  29

  25

  16

  City of London

  34

  32

  24

  30

  Cumbria

  43

  38

  21

  27

  Derbyshire

  99

  153

  167

  152

  Devon and Cornwall

  58

  43

  52

  121

  Dorset

  50

  66

  69

  155

  Durham

  85

  84

  67

  31

  Essex

  180

  285

  244

  206

  Gloucestershire

  48

  49

  44

  39

  Greater Manchester

  56

  43

  173

  302

  Hampshire

  170

  114

  90

  84

  Hertfordshire

  25

  26

  44

  65

  Humberside

  437

  277

  181

  136

  Kent

  212

  74

  58

  64

  Lancashire

  321

  596

  250

  177

  Leicestershire

  68

  109

  144

  195

  Lincolnshire

  34

  42

  141

  324

  Merseyside

  559

  396

  466

  75

  Metropolitan

  954

  1,573

  1,812

  1,380

  Norfolk

  117

  167

  210

  192

  Northamptonshire

  29

  32

  21

  35

  Northumbria

  515

  503

  397

  655

  North Yorkshire

  52

  30

  40

  54

  Nottinghamshire

  '256

  246

  232

  207

  South Yorkshire

  252

  115

  214

  103

  Staffordshire

  206

  185

  131

  136

  Suffolk

  135

  104

  101

  103

  Surrey

  76

  46

  110

  192

  Sussex

  284

  '0

  172

  245

  Thames Valley

  184

  139

  108

  108

  Warwickshire

  127

  220

  158

  194

  West Mercia

  98

  99

  98

  26

  West Midlands

  102

  129

  138

  243

  West Yorkshire

  586

  630

  787

  785

  Wiltshire

  21

  17

  15

  48

  Dyfed Powys

  19

  30

  37

  18

  Police officers

  Percentage of all police officers

  Civilian support staff and traffic wardens

  Percentage of all civilian support staff etc.

  All staff

  Percentage of all staff

  Average daily number of working days lost to sickness absence

  710.5

  2.7

  328.4

  2.9

  1038.9

  2.7

  Number of staff who took self-certificated sick leave

  1,827

  6.9

  128.5

  11.5

  3,112

  8.2

  Number of staff on sick leave for less than seven days

  1,872

  7.0

  1,488

  13.3

  3,360

  8.9

  Number of employees on sick leave for seven or more days

  974

  3.7

  429

  3.8

  1,403

  3.7

  Number of employees on sick leave as a result of injury on duty

  273

  1.0

  22

  0.2

  295

  0.8

  Police Officers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of police officers accepted into the Metropolitan Police in each year from 1997 have minor criminal records. [30452]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: I am informed by the Commissioner that no central record of this information is held by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

  The MPS follow the Home Office National Recruitment Standards on criminal convictions, agreed with the Police Service and issued in October 2001.

  Applicants who have been convicted or cautioned may still be eligible for appointment, depending on the nature and circumstances of their offence.
  1050W

  Number of operations involving armed response vehicles (ARVs)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Gwent

  47

  39

  27

  17

  North Wales

  260

  298

  354

  155

  South Wales

  97

  136

  220

  298

  Total

  7,544

  7,791

  8,276

  8,179

  1These forces have changed the counting method for incidents to which ARVs are deployed.

  Police Vacancies
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which 10 police authorities have(a) the highest and (b) the lowest number of vacancies for police officers; and how many officers were involved in each case. [36912]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many, and what proportion, of employees of the Metropolitan Police were off sick on average on each day in the last month for which figures are available; how many and what proportion of those(a) were absent on self-certification or without authorisation, (b) were on sick leave of less than a week, (c) were on sick leave of more than one week and less than one month, (d) were on sick leave of more than one month and (e) were on leave as a result of injuries sustained while on duty. [41102]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: I understand from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that the available figures for April 2002 are as follows:

  Minor offences which would not lead to automatic rejection of an application include, for example failing to have a current television licence or MoT certificate.

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the prospects of West Midlands police receiving regional allowance; [39491]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent in the last five years to which police forces have trained police officers and then have lost them by transfer to neighbouring police forces, with particular reference to the West Midlands; and if he will make a statement on measures to prevent this happening. [39482]
  1051W
  Mr. Denham
  Figures for the number of officers leaving police forces on transfer are collected annually by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). In 2000–01, the latest full year for which figures are available, the total number of officers leaving forces in England and Wales on transfer was 1,189 or one per cent. of the police strength.

  The figures collected by HMIC do not distinguish between officers who transfer soon after completion of initial training and those who transfer later in their career. Nor do the figures identify how many of the officers transferring have transferred between forces on previous occasions.

  In the case of West Midlands police, that between April 2000 and March 2001, 59 officers left the force on transfer. This represented 0.8 per cent. in fall of force strength at the start of the year, a little below the overall rate from England and Wales.

  The number of officers transferring between forces remains small. It is healthy for there to be an interchange of experience between police forces and I do not intend to prevent transfers.

  Of course, the number of transfers from a force may present a problem if those transferring leave predominantly from particular areas or specialisms, or if the number leaving is not offset by transfers in. We are presently conducting research into the reasons why officers resign from the police service or choose to transfer from one force to another. The findings of this research will help forces decide on which measures to implement in order to encourage officers to stay in the service, or in a particular force.

  It is for the Home Secretary to determine police pay and allowances. In doing so, he is required to take into account any recommendation by the Police Negotiating Board (PNB). It would, therefore, be for PNB to consider in the first instance the case for a regional allowance for officers in the West Midlands. In 2001, the PNB failed to reach agreement on a Staff Side claim for a regional allowance for all police forces. The matter was then referred to the Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT). The PAT rejected the Staff Side claim and decided that there was no evidence of a significant nationwide recruitment problem for the police service.

  Strength as at 31 March

  Force

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Avon and Somerset

  2,989

  2,976

  2,999

  2,934

  Bedfordshire

  1,094

  1,079

  1,041

  1,028

  Cambridgeshire

  1,302

  1,291

  1,274

  1,237

  Cheshire

  2,046

  2,042

  2,071

  2,011

  City of London

  859

  825

  778

  732

  Cleveland

  1,459

  1,483

  1,416

  1,404

  Cumbria

  1,144

  1,164

  1,126

  1,084

  Derbyshire

  1,791

  1,772

  1,759

  1,777

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,865

  2,962

  2,887

  2,841

  Dorset

  1,284

  1,310

  1,279

  1,306

  Durham

  1,461

  1,515

  1,568

  1,558

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,005

  1,002

  1,026

  1,040

  Essex

  2,961

  2,928

  2,891

  2,806

  Gloucestershire

  1,133

  1,104

  1,104

  1,114

  Greater Manchester

  6,922

  6,949

  6,810

  6,795

  Gwent

  1,243

  1,233

  1,247

  1,264

  Hampshire

  3,452

  3,490

  3,473

  3,419

  Hertfordshire

  1,759

  1,740

  1,724

  1,767

  Humberside

  2,045

  2,021

  1,974

  1,932

  1052W

  Strength as at 31 March

  Force

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Kent

  3,260

  3,251

  3,201

  3,204

  Lancashire

  3,247

  3,257

  3,245

  3,179

  Leicestershire

  1,949

  1,983

  1,993

  1,993

  Lincolnshire

  1,196

  1,191

  1,140

  1,115

  Merseyside

  4,230

  4,216

  4,211

  4,085

  Metropolitan police

  26,677

  26,094

  26,073

  25,485

  Norfolk

  1,432

  1,430

  1,381

  1,381

  North Wales

  1,369

  1,396

  1,391

  1,403

  North Yorkshire

  1,338

  1,367

  1,337

  1,283

  Northamptonshire

  1,177

  1,169

  1,137

  1,117

  Northumbria

  3,677

  3,769

  3,840

  3,788

  Nottinghamshire

  2,323

  2,323

  2,225

  2,204

  South Wales

  2,976

  2,986

  2,981

  2,926

  South Yorkshire

  3,159

  3,182

  3,168

  3,163

  Staffordshire

  2,211

  2,292

  2,238

  2,170

  Suffolk

  1,180

  1,186

  1,190

  1,146

  Surrey

  1,620

  1,608

  1,662

  1,785

  Sussex

  3,085

  3,038

  2,847

  2,822

  Thames Valley

  3,695

  3,776

  3,748

  3,740

  Warwickshire

  926

  924

  908

  900

  West Mercia

  2,040

  2,010

  2,025

  1,887

  West Midlands

  7,113

  7,156

  7,321

  7,195

  West Yorkshire

  5,209

  5,155

  4,982

  4,822

  Wiltshire

  1,154

  1,156

  1,151

  1,118

  Total

  125,051

  124,756

  123,841

  121,956

  Transfers

  Force

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  6

  5

  16

  25

  Bedfordshire

  7

  1

  5

  21

  Cambridgeshire

  9

  3

  6

  12

  Cheshire

  8

  5

  4

  6

  City of London

  19

  13

  13

  18

  Cleveland

  6

  6

  1

  4

  Cumbria

  3

  4

  6

  10

  Derbyshire

  4

  0

  6

  5

  Devon and Cornwall

  6

  8

  8

  7

  Dorset

  2

  0

  3

  9

  Durham

  8

  3

  3

  5

  Dyfed-Powys

  10

  2

  5

  9

  Essex

  10

  6

  10

  25

  Gloucestershire

  3

  1

  3

  6

  Greater Manchester

  26

  13

  15

  28

  Gwent

  6

  3

  3

  5

  Hampshire

  13

  12

  20

  24

  Hertfordshire

  16

  23

  23

  43

  Humberside

  8

  5

  5

  18

  Kent

  17

  11

  12

  26

  Lancashire

  4

  10

  7

  7

  Leicestershire

  9

  6

  13

  27

  Lincolnshire

  7

  1

  5

  6

  Merseyside

  17

  16

  10

  14

  Metropolitan police

  240

  234

  244

  382

  Norfolk

  5

  5

  2

  6

  North Wales

  0

  5

  5

  2

  North Yorkshire

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Northamptonshire

  14

  3

  2

  10

  Northumbria

  13

  7

  9

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  11

  13

  10

  6

  South Wales

  1

  6

  11

  3

  South Yorkshire

  12

  10

  8

  4

  Staffordshire

  13

  5

  2

  9

  Suffolk

  1

  5

  5

  11

  Surrey

  32

  11

  18

  171

  Sussex

  14

  13

  21

  31

  Thames Valley

  28

  10

  26

  80

  Warwickshire

  6

  7

  2

  8

  West Mercia

  6

  5

  6

  6

  West Midlands

  43

  47

  42

  59

  West Yorkshire

  14

  11

  15

  19

  Wiltshire

  9

  1

  7

  12

  Total

  691

  560

  642

  1,189

  1053W

  Percentage of loss

  Force

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  0.2

  0.2

  0.5

  0.9

  Bedfordshire

  0.6

  0.1

  0.5

  2.0

  Cambridgeshire

  0.7

  0.2

  0.5

  1.0

  Cheshire

  0.4

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  City of London

  2.2

  1.6

  1.7

  2.5

  Cleveland

  0.4

  0.4

  0.1

  0.3

  Cumbria

  0.3

  0.3

  0.5

  0.9

  Derbyshire

  0.2

  0.0

  0.3

  0.3

  Devon and Cornwall

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  Dorset

  0.2

  0.0

  0.2

  0.7

  Durham

  0.5

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  Dyfed-Powys

  1.0

  0.2

  0.5

  0.9

  Essex

  0.3

  0.2

  0.3

  0.9

  Gloucestershire

  0.3

  0.1

  0.3

  0.5

  Greater Manchester

  0.4

  0.2

  0.2

  0.4

  Gwent

  0.5

  0.2

  0.2

  0.4

  Hampshire

  0.4

  0.3

  0.6

  0.7

  Hertfordshire

  0.9

  1.3

  1.3

  2.4

  Humberside

  0.4

  0.2

  0.3

  0.9

  Kent

  0.5

  0.3

  0.4

  0.8

  Lancashire

  0.1

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  Leicestershire

  0.5

  0.3

  0.7

  1.4

  Lincolnshire

  0.6

  0.1

  0.4

  0.5

  Merseyside

  0.4

  0.4

  0.2

  0.3

  Metropolitan police

  0.9

  0.9

  0.9

  1.5

  Norfolk

  0.3

  0.3

  0.1

  0.4

  North Wales

  0.0

  0.4

  0.4

  0.1

  North Yorkshire

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Northamptonshire

  1.2

  0.3

  0.2

  0.9

  Northumbria

  0.4

  0.2

  0.2

  0.1

  Nottinghamshire

  0.5

  0.6

  0.4

  0.3

  South Wales

  0.0

  0.2

  0.4

  0.1

  South Yorkshire

  0.4

  0.3

  0.3

  0.1

  Staffordshire

  0.6

  0.2

  0.1

  0.4

  Suffolk

  0.1

  0.4

  0.4

  1.0

  Surrey

  2.0

  0.7

  1.1

  9.6

  Sussex

  0.5

  0.4

  0.7

  1.1

  Thames Valley

  0.8

  0.3

  0.7

  2.1

  Warwickshire

  0.6

  0.8

  0.2

  0.9

  West Mercia

  0.3

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  West Midlands

  0.6

  0.7

  0.6

  0.8

  West Yorkshire

  0.3

  0.2

  0.3

  0.4

  Wiltshire

  0.8

  0.1

  0.6

  1.1

  Total

  0.6

  0.4

  0.5

  1.0

  Police Sick Leave
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days of sick leave were taken by the(a) police force, (b) fire service and (c) prison service in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was. [56065]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The number of days taken as sick leave in 2000–01 and the estimated costs are set out in the table:

  Number of days sick leave taken

  Estimated cost £ million

  Police officers

  1,516,147

  1280

  Police support staff

  746,928

  2106

  Total

  2,263,075

  386

  Fire service3

  4407,369

  5—

  Prison service

  614,150

  668

  1The average daily cost of a police officer is £185.

  2The average daily cost of a member of support staff is £142.

  3Responsibility for the fire service rests with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  4This is based on 45 out of the 50 brigades providing full information.

  5Not available.

  6The prison service figure is calculating using a daily £costing of 110 for all staff.

  Investigatory Branch CIB3
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding the progress of the investigatory branch CIB3 in investigating alleged misdemeanours. [69332]

  Mr. Denham
  I received representations on alleged malpractice in corruption investigations by the Anti-Corruption Unit of the Metropolitan Police Service's Directorate of Professional Standards (formerly CIB3) from my noble Friend (Lord Graham) of Edmonton, five hon. Members and a solicitor at a meeting on 20 March 2002. I received a dossier of written material from my noble Friend Lord Graham on 30 April. I have also received nine other pieces of correspondence on related issues.

  We have received no other representations this year.

  Deaths in Custody
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he is taking to reduce the number of deaths in police custody; [70830]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the causes of the change in the annual number of deaths in police custody since 1992. [70952]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of people dying in police stations has fallen from 16 to five in the period 1998–99 to 2000–01. Provisional figures for 2001–02 show that the decline is continuing.

  The definitions of deaths in police custody or otherwise with the police were revised in 1996 to make them clearer, and to distinguish between deaths of those in police detention and other deaths involving the police. This resulted in a broader range of deaths being reported, for example people who died while attempting to evade arrest in vehicles. This has resulted in an increase in the published figures.

  The increased figure for 1995–96 reflected the change to collecting the figures on a financial year basis rather than on a calendar year basis and were collected over a 15 month period (1 January 1995 to 31 March 1996).

  Much has been done in recent years by the police, the Home Office and the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) to identify the main factors responsible for deaths in custody and to consider how the position can be improved. Police forces in England and Wales are taking a range of actions to reduce such deaths. These include safer custody facilities, improved training, Close Circuit Television (CCTV) monitoring and an emphasis on better care, assessment and monitoring of detainees.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about establishment, recruitment and retention in the special constabulary. [65610]

  Mr. Denham
  Special constables are a key element of our police reform agenda. We are working on a package of measures designed to help improve the way they are recruited, managed and deployed.
  1055W
  We are particularly keen to improve liaison with employers. Later this year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary will publish a joint discussion paper on fiscal and other changes we can make to promote community service, including service as a special constable. A new headline role for specials has been published, focusing on intelligence-led patrolling and crime reduction initiatives. A new foundation training package for specials was issued in June and revised conditions of service regulations and new conduct regulations are being prepared.

  Central to this process will be Home Office/the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) good practice guidance covering all aspects of the recruitment, management and deployment of specials, which will be issued by the end of the year. We have also set aside £300,000 to help "specials champions" forces drive forward initiatives to improve the recruitment and retention of specials. I have asked deputy chief constable Peter Fahy of Surrey police to help with this.

  Bilateral Ministerial Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [63089]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) on 20 June 2002,Official Report, column 533W.

  Ring-fenced Funds
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funds allocated by(a) his Department and (b) its executive agencies are ring-fenced for specific purposes; and if he will list the allocations of funds involved. [22952]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: regret the delay in responding to this question. Ring-fenced expenditure for the Home Office and Prison Service Agency for financial year 2001–02 is detailed in the table:

  £000

  2001–02

  Home Office

  Crime Fighting Fund

  159,000

  Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF)

  207,900

  Invest to Save

  30,897

  Drugs

  88,218

  Non CMF DNA

  46,000

  Crime Research Programme

  110,900

  Confiscated Assets Fund

  6,000

  Criminal Justice System

  100,000

  Active Communities Project

  10,900

  Central Service Modernisation

  2,025

  Youth Justice Board Operating Costs

  10,386

  Youth Justice Board bail support

  10,000

  1056W

  £000

  2001–02

  Police Loan Charges grants

  14,200

  Probation Loan Charges grants

  2,597

  Superannuation of seconded police

  1,081

  Total

  800,104

  Prison Service Agency

  Capital Modernisation Fund

  35,470

  Invest to Save

  1,340

  Invest to Modernise

  2,740

  Drugs programmes

  51,950

  Total

  91,500

  Conviction Rate
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes resulted in a conviction as a proportion of total recorded crime in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [55855]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Number of convictions for notifiable offences as a percentage of recorded crime, 1998–99 to 2000–01

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Recorded crime

  5,109,116

  5,301,171

  5,170,196

  Convictions for notifiable offences

  755,705

  756,629

  705,450

  Convictions as a percentage of recorded crime

  14.8

  14.3

  13.6

  Notes:

  1. A crime may involve more than one offender.

  2. Each notifiable offence for which an individual was convicted is counted.

  3. Some convictions will relate to crimes recorded in earlier years.

  Sources:

  Recorded Crime Statistical Bulletin, Home Office, 12/01

  Home Office Court Proceedings Database

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether businesses that have lost money as a direct result of the failure of the Criminal Records Bureau to meet its published service standards will be entitled to compensation. [70238]

  Hilary Benn
  Part V of the Police Act 1997 imposes no time frame for the issue of disclosures and the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) has no liability in contract or tort for taking time to process applications. The CRB has sought advice about the circumstances in which it is suitable to consider paying, or declining to pay, WW compensation.

  Air Weapons
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there were for(a) carrying a loaded air weapon in a public place, (b) a person under 14 having an air weapon, (c) a person under 17 having an air weapon in a public place and (d) the sale of air weapons to minors in the last five years. [67831]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Statistics for 2001 will be available in the autumn.
  1057W

  Persons found guilty at all courts for various offences under the Firearms Act 1968, England and Wales 1996 to 20001,2

  Offence description

  Statute

  Year

  Found guilty

  Carrying a loaded air weapon in a public place, etc.

  Firearms Act 1968, Sec 19

  1996

  202

  1997

  220

  1998

  195

  1999

  176

  2000

  170

  Person under 14 having with him an air weapon or ammunition therefor

  Firearms Act 1968, Sec 22 (4)

  1996

  12

  1997

  8

  1998

  6

  1999

  12

  2000

  16

  Person under 17 having with him an air weapon in a public place

  Firearms Act 1968, Sec 22 (5)

  1996

  43

  1997

  51

  1998

  47

  1999

  54

  2000

  52

  Selling or letting on hire an air weapon or ammunition to a person under 17

  Firearms Act 1968, Sec 24 (1)

  1996

  2

  1997

  1

  1998

  3

  1999

  1

  2000

  —

  1These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2Staffordshire police were able to submit sample data only for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates courts in the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much has been spent by his Department on training in leadership skills for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years; [52734]

  (2) how much has been spent by his Department on voice coaching for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years; [52755]

  (3) how much has been spent by his Department on training by the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52715]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: There are no central data available on how much has been spent by the Home Department on training in leadership skills for Ministers in the last five years.

  In the financial year 2001–02, the Cabinet Office provided funds for leadership development for officials as part of the invest to modernise programme. Records available show that £583,967 was spent by the Home Department on training in leadership skills for officials from 1 December 2001 to 31 March 2002 under the excellent leaders scheme. All expenditure under the excellent leaders scheme came from a ring-fenced allocation from the Cabinet Office and not from general Home Office funds.

  The aim of the excellent leaders scheme was to grow leadership skills in the senior civil service by developing their competencies. In the period December 2001 to March 2002, 84 senior members of staff received executive coaching sessions; 13 specifically tailored
  1058W
  Directorate leadership conferences were held for senior Home Office staff, and 40 members of staff attended publicly available leadership programmes and training events.

  £316,000 was spent on executive coaching sessions, £197,000 on tailored leadership conferences and £70,967 on leadership training.

  Ministers in the Home Department are able to take advantage of the programmes for Ministers organised by the Centre for Management and Policy Studies (CMPS in the Cabinet Office. This programme has not delivered training on voice coaching or training by the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts. Neither have officials received such training in the last five years.

  Prostitution
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women have been sent to prison in the United Kingdom for living on the earnings of, or for controlling, a prostitute in each of the last five years. [70283]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested, relating to(a) males and (b) females sentenced to immediate custody for living on the earnings of, or controlling a prostitute in England and Wales from 1996 to 2000 are shown in the table.

  Statistics for 2001 will be available in the autumn.

  Figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively.
  1059W

  Number of persons sentenced to immediate custody for prostitution related offences in England and Wales 1996 to 200012

  Total sentenced to immediate custody

  Offence description

  Statute

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Male

  Living on earnings of prostitution or exercising control over prostitute

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Sees 30 and 31

  26

  23

  23

  16

  12

  Man or woman living wholly or in part on the earnings of male prostitution

  Sexual Offences Act 1967 Sec 5(1)

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  29

  24

  23

  16

  12

  Female

  Living on earnings of prostitution or exercising control over prostitute

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Sees 30 and 31

  2

  1

  1

  3

  —

  Man or woman living wholly or in part on the earnings of male prostitution

  Sexual Offences Act 1967 Sec 5(1)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  2

  1

  1

  3

  —

  1These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2Staffordshire Police Force were only able to supply a sample of data for magistrates' courts proceedings covering one full week in each quarter for 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust at a detailed level and so are excluded from this analysis.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) boys and (b) girls aged under 15 years have been cautioned by police officers in the Metropolitan Police Authority for being involved in prostitution in the last 12 months. [70271]

  Mr. Denham
  No instances of males or females aged under 15 cautioned in 2000 for prostitution in the Metropolitan Police Force Area were reported to the Home Office.

  Statistics for 2001 will be available in the autumn.

  Justice and Home Affairs Agenda
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to take forward the Justice and Home Affairs Agenda of the EU. [64838]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I intend to work closely with the incoming Danish Presidency with a view to taking forward the justice and home affairs work programme. Consequently, I met with Lene Espersen, the Danish Minister of Justice, on 19 June to discuss the priorities for the next six months.

  My key priority will be to push forward implementation of the conclusions agreed at the Seville European Council on 21–22 June on combating illegal immigration and creating a common asylum policy. Those conclusions were prompted by United Kingdom concerns at the lack of progress on asylum and immigration measures and incorporate specific ideas proposed by the United Kingdom for the purpose of advancing that work. In particular, the conclusions set deadlines for agreeing the instruments which will form the basis of the European Union's common asylum system, and I attach importance to supporting the Danish Presidency in securing agreement to the Dublin II Regulation (on responsibility for processing an asylum claim) by the end of this year.

  I also intend to focus greater attention at European Union level on action against drug trafficking as part of the mid-term review of the European Union's Action Plan against Drugs 2000–04. Improved cross-border police co-operation, including the effective use of Europol, is also a priority, as is progress in implementing the programme of measures on mutual recognition of court
  1060W
  decisions and judgments. In particular, I would like to see completion of the negotiations on the mutual recognition of financial penalties. which was a joint initiative tabled by the United Kingdom, Belgium and Sweden.

  Racism
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent advice he has given to local authorities about tackling racism and promoting community cohesion. [69955]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government is committed to making race equality and community cohesion central to its aims.

  We are committed to outlaw discrimination in employment by December 2003 as required by the European Employment Directives.

  The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 came into force on 2 April. It places a general duty on specified public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination—and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.

  Public bodies were required to have in place by 31 May this year, realistic and timely plans to show how they intend to comply with the general duty.

  The Government is working right across Departments on a number of measures to promote community cohesion. Our aim is to build communities where:
  there is a common vision and a sense of belonging for all people—there is an appreciation of people's different backgrounds and circumstances
  where those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities; and
  strong and positive relationships are being developed between people from different backgrounds in the work place, in schools and within neighbourhoods.

  The Government published draft Guidance on Community Cohesion in May this year, in conjunction with the Commission for Racial Equality, and the Local Government Association. The draft provides advice to local authorities on ways to integrate community cohesion
  1061W
  within their day to day operations. It focuses upon 16 themes covering housing, leisure, education, media, and training and employment schemes. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding has been provided to each authority for tackling racism and promoting community cohesion in the last 12 months. [69956]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government believe that effectively addressing community cohesion issues forms a crucial part of the work of local government.

  In working to achieve this aim, the Government are investing resources in local authorities through the following ways:
  community facilitation work—these projects will help build capacity at a grass roots level and to bring local people together. This is important in order to encourage dialogue and tackle local grievances or misunderstandings that threaten good community and race relations;
  a summer activity programme—in response to last summer's disturbances; we made £7 million available to fund summer activities with over 200,000 beneficiaries. We have released further funding for a similar and extended programme for this year, including additional activities in those areas with high levels of street crime;
  a community support team programme—this is providing support to areas such as Burnley, Bradford and Oldham to help build the capacity of these areas in promoting community cohesion.

  In addition, the Community Cohesion Unit set up by the Home Office this year, which works to the Ministerial Group chaired by me, is working closely with local authorities.

  Additionally, and in recognition of the need to genuinely build cohesion into the agenda of local government, the Government recently announced that community cohesion will form one of the key themes of the Government's beacon council scheme.

  Draft guidance for local authorities has also been produced in conjunction with the Commission for Racial Equality and the Local Government Association. This sets out practical ways in which local authorities can integrate community cohesion into day-to-day operations. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Police Force (Diabetes)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what reason the police force is not permitted to recruit diabetics; and what guidance has been issued on the transfer of a diagnosed diabetic from one constabulary to another; [41093]

  (2) if he will respond to the letter of the hon. Member for Leominster dated 17 December 2001, on behalf of Mrs. T. A. Smith, a constituent, concerning a transfer to the West Mercia Constabulary. [411971

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 March 20021]The Home Office issues no guidance to police forces on the subject of medical standards for officers transferring from one force to another.

  Home Office guidance for forces on the recruitment of diabetics is currently under review by independent medical experts as part of the Home Office's National Recruitment Standards project. This work aims to ensure
  1062W
  that occupational medical standards for police recruitment are evidence-based, job-related and not unfairly discriminatory. The new standards are expected to be applied consistently by the 43 forces of England and Wales.

  The medical review will also take into account the implications of the proposed extension of the employment-related provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to the police.

  Recommendations on proposed new medical standards should be available for consultation shortly.

  In the meantime, there are current Home Office medical guidelines on the recruitment of new entrants to the police service. These were formulated after consultations between occupational physicians and force medical advisers, and agreed by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Working Group on Organisational Health, Safety and Welfare.

  The Working Group further confirmed that the standards should not only reflect "fitness to serve" at the time of assessment, but should also predict, as far as possible, that the individual is likely to remain fit for the full duties of a police constable for the foreseeable future. This is in order to minimise premature retirement on health grounds.

  The guidelines on diabetes state that candidates with diabetes mellitus should be rejected.

  I responded to the hon. Member's letter of 17 December to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) on 6 March 2002.

  Working Holidaymaker Scheme
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reasons have been for individuals in the working holidaymaker scheme remaining in the UK after the two-year period had lapsed. [70797]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]Working holidaymakers can stay in the United Kingdom beyond their initial two-year leave of entry if they obtain leave to remain in another category, for example, as a student.

  Working holidaymakers are not normally permitted to remain in the United Kingdom for the purposes of employment, although some are permitted to switch into work permit employment on a case-by-case discretionary basis. A short extension of stay may be granted on an exceptional basis to a working holidaymaker employed as a supply teacher, until the end of the school term. Those working holidaymakers who have not been specifically permitted to stay longer should leave the United Kingdom at the end of the two-year period.

  The Working Holidaymaker Scheme
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people participating in the working holidaymaker scheme are based in(a) Scotland. (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [70795]
  1063W
  Beverley Hughes
  (Holding answer 19 July 2002]: The information is not collected. Under the scheme young Commonwealth citizens come to the United Kingdom (UK) for an extended two-year holiday, during which they can take incidental employment to fund their stay here. They are free to move around the UK as they wish. Around 40,000 come to the UK each year on the scheme but, given its nature, it is not feasible or necessary to collect information on where participants base themselves at any one particular time during their stay.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people participating in the working holidaymaker scheme in each of the last five years have continued to stay in the UK after the two year period has been completed. [70796]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]This information is not available. Unless working holidaymakers have been granted an extension of stay. they should leave the country at the end of their two-year working holiday.

  Housing
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make an assessment of the availability of empty housing stock owned by(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations, (c) public sector bodies and (d) the private sector in areas of industrial decline and its suitability to accommodate asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [68805]

  Beverley Hughes
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is responsible for administering the support available to asylum seekers including the provision of accommodation. Research to identify cluster areas suitable for the dispersal of asylum seekers was conducted centrally by NASS in consultation with regional consortia. NASS is satisfied that it has a sufficient supply of accommodation for single adults but is currently negotiating for further accommodation for families.

  Careless Driving
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers convicted of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs(a) served the whole of their sentence and (b) had their sentence reduced, in each of the past 10 years. [70972]

  Bob Ainsworth
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  EU Committees (Scottish Executive Representation)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the EU Committee for the Implementation of the Programme of Exchanges, Training and Co-operation between Law Enforcement Authorities (OISIN) 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; [70925]

  (2) when the EU Committee for the Implementation of the Joint Action Establishing a Programme of Exchanges, Training and Co-operation for Persons Responsible for
  1064W
  Action to Combat Organised Crime (Falcone) 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; [70923]

  (3) when the EU Committee for the implementation of the incentive, exchange, training and co-operation programme for combating trade in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children (STOP) 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; [70922]

  (4) when the EU Committee for the implementation of the incentive, exchange, training and co-operation programme for the prevention of crime (Hippokrates) 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; [70924]

  (5) when the EU Committee for the Implementation of the Programme of Training, Exchanges and Co-operation in the Field of Asylum Immigration and crossing of External Borders (Odysseus) 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; [70929]

  (6) when the EU Committee for the Implementation of the Community Action Programme on Preventive Measures to Fight Violence Against Children, Young Persons and Women (Daphne) 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; [71836]

  (7) when the EU Committee on the Introduction of a Uniform Format for Visas 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. [71827]

  Beverley Hughes
  The committees which assist the European Commission in managing the Oisin II, Falcone, Hippocrates and Grotius funding programmes will meet on 23 July to discuss the bids which have been received for the year 2002 and agree the allocation of funds to successful projects. The STOP Committee will meet on 24 July for the same purpose. The Daphne Committee will next meet on 11 September 2002. The Odysseus funding programme has expired.

  The committees consist of a representative of each member state who may be accompanied by additional experts at the expense of the individual member state. The United Kingdom (UK) is represented on each committee by a Home Office official and an official from the UK Permanent Representation to the European Union (EU) in Brussels. A representative from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise also attends the OISIN Committee as appropriate.

  In accordance with the Concordat on co-ordination of European Union policy issues, officials from the Home Office are in contact with Scottish Executive officials about the development and implementation of relevant funding programmes. Attendance by Scottish Executive officials at meetings of the committees would be agreed bilaterally, but has not so far taken place. Immigration and asylum matters are reserved subjects and

  1065W
  consequently officials from the Scottish Executive were not members of, and did not attend, the Odysseus Committee.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent by(a) his Department and (b) bodies for which it is responsible on external public relations consultants in each of the last four years. [27397]

  Beverley Hughes
  In November 1999, the Treasury published a statement of Best Practice on the use of consultants within Government. This is accessible on the archive section of Office of Government Commerce's (OGC's) website (www.ogc.gov.uk). It represents a set of principles that should apply to many areas of consultancy. But it is not binding on Departments and has no status in law.

  Decisions on the use of consultants is left to individual business units, but in making positive decisions units will take into account value for money considerations and whether the particular skills exist internally.

  The increase in expenditure on Public Relations Consultants can be attributed to the Criminal Records Bureau and United Kingdom Passport Agency undertaking a greater degree of Public Relations work in areas such as market research and media. We do not have historical information to provide any other valid comparisons for the increase.

  The available information held by the Home Department on cost for the use of external Public Relations Consultants by (a) Home Department and (b) other bodies over the last four years is as follows:

  (a) Home Office

  £

  1998

  Nil

  1999

  Nil

  2000

  32,164

  2001

  33,881

  (b) Home Office

  £

  1998

  Nil

  1999

  81,299

  2000

  140,150

  2001

  319,000

  Correspondence
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter dated 26 April from the hon. Member for Yeovil on the subject of private home security companies. [59719]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 12 June 2002]I replied to the hon. Member on 22 July 2002.

  Refurbishment Projects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the refurbishment projects that
  1066W
  (a) are in progress and (b) will start within the next six months; and what action is being taken to ensure that these will procure certified timber. [59759]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information on existing and forthcoming refurbishment projects with a value over £500,000 in the Home Office including its executive agencies (but excluding sponsored non-departmental public bodies) is as follows:

  Projects currently in progress

  Establishment

  Project

  Main Home Office estate

  Croydon file store

  Refurbishment

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Whitgift Centre, Croydon

  Partial refitting

  Riverside Exchange, Sheffield

  Partial refitting

  Prison Service

  Ashwell

  Replace wooden buildings—Phase 3

  Aylesbury

  Wing refurbishment

  Birmingham

  Health care modifications

  Birmingham

  Redevelopment

  Brinsford

  New education building

  Brixton

  Refurbish Health Care/National roofing programme

  Camp Hill

  Wing refurbishment

  Cardiff

  Wing refurbishment/Additional cells

  Dorchester

  Replace kitchen

  Dover

  Re-role

  Durham

  Wing refurbishment

  Eastwood Park

  Safer locals programme

  Everthorpe

  Over roofing

  Feltham

  Safer locals programme

  Feltham

  Conversion of buildings

  Frankland

  DSPD Unit

  Gartree

  Wing refurbishment

  Gloucester

  Replace kitchen/National roofing programme

  Hull

  Redevelopment

  Huntercombe

  New education building/Extend workshop

  Kirkham

  Replace accommodation units

  Lancaster Farms

  New workshop complex

  Leeds

  New gatehouse

  Leeds

  Safer locals programme

  Lincoln

  Wing refurbishment

  Lindholme

  Leger club refurbishment

  Long Lartin

  Wing refurbishment

  Maidstone

  Wing refurbishment

  New Hall

  New gate complex

  Portland

  New care and custody unit

  Risley

  New houseblock

  Stoke Health

  New education building

  The Weare

  Refit/Re-mooring

  Wakefield

  Wing refurbishment

  Wandsworth

  Refurbish workshop

  Wandsworth

  New kitchen

  Winchester

  Safer locals programme

  Projects due to commence within the next six months

  Establishment

  Project

  Main Home Office estate

  Horseferry House, London

  Refitting of 6th and 7th floors to house more staff

  Ashley House, London

  Refitting to house more staff

  Allington Towers, London

  Refitting to provide temporary accommodation

  Metro Point, Canterbury House and St. Anne's, Croydon

  Fit out works

  IND, Whitgift Centre. Croydon

  Major refurbishment

  Prison Service

  Ashwell

  Replace wooden buildings—Phase 4

  Askham Grange

  Mother and baby unit

  Birmingham

  Redevelopment

  Birmingham

  Safer locals programme

  1067W

  Projects due to commence within the next six months

  Establishment

  Project

  Branston

  New stores

  Brockhill

  New kitchen

  Buckley Hall

  New kitchen

  Camp Hill

  Roof repairs to workshops

  Chelmsford

  Health care centre

  Drake Hall

  New kitchen

  Eastwood Park

  Mother and baby unit

  Eastwood Park

  Safer locals programme

  Everthorpe

  Upgrade main gate

  Feltham

  Safer locals programme—relocate health care

  Highpoint North

  Wing refurbishment

  Hindley

  Separation: New education and workshop

  Kirklevington

  New kitchen

  Leeds

  Safer locals programme

  Pentonville

  Health care centre

  Portland

  Wing refurbishment

  Preston

  Wing refurbishment

  Stafford

  Create pedestrian entrances

  Swansea

  Separation of pedestrian entrance

  Thorn Cross

  Renew roof coverings

  Wandsworth

  Safer locals programme—Phase 1

  Wandsworth

  Safer locals programme—Phase 2

  Weal stun

  Replace accommodation blocks

  Winchester

  Safer locals programme

  Winchester

  New visits

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  Peterborough Passport Office

  Counter refurbishment

  National Probation Directorate

  In addition to the projects listed in the tables, 155 refurbishment project on the National Probation Directorate estate are either under way or are planned to begin within the next nine months. The average cost will be approximately £100,000. Full details could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Pending the issue of central technical guidance the Home Office did not require contracts to specify certified timber although its use was encouraged. Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) issued a model timber procurement clause in May which has been widely disseminated across the Department and all contracts for future major capital build schemes which involve the use of timber will require contractors to demonstrate that such timber will be provided from properly certified sources. This includes the new Home Office headquarters in Marsham Street.

  Information Campaigns
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home 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. [70212]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]In 2001–02, the Home Office spent £22.4 million (exc. VAT) on information literature, advertising and campaign material. The campaigns that spent over £250,000 include: vehicle crime reduction, police recruitment, electoral issues, drugs misuse and child protection on the internet

  Personality Disorder Assessments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the target to complete 180 dangerous and severe personality disorder assessments by 2001–02 was not met. [68782]
  1068W
  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]The development of an assessment process for those who are dangerous as a result of a severe personality disorder is innovative and groundbreaking work.

  We are currently piloting assessments at Whitemoor prison and Rampton hospital and using their experience, along with the latest research evidence, to develop a framework for assessment in which clinicians, tribunals and the courts can have confidence. This is fundamental to ensuring that people are referred appropriately to services and that any new legislative powers are applied properly.

  The target to complete 180 assessments was agreed early in the life of the pilots, following which a number of refinements were made, the most significant being to extend the assessment process from 12 to 16 weeks. In addition the Whitemoor pilot has had significant difficulties in recruiting suitably qualified clinical staff and had to be temporarily suspended to allow for some refurbishment work in preparation for the treatment unit there. While these factors have inevitably had an effect on throughput, the 94 assessments completed during the period have proved invaluable in informing the development of a high quality assessment process, and provide a sound basis for further work.

  PSA Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated cost to public funds is of the failure to achieve the public service agreement target to increase the number and proportions of recorded crimes for which an offender is brought to justice. [68778]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]As the public service agreement target relates to the number of offences which are brought to justice in 2003–04, it will not be possible to say until after the end of 2003–04 whether or not the target has been met.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the proportion of young people under 25(a) misusing illegal drugs and (b) with access to illegal drugs in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [69105]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]Results from the 1998 and 2000 British Crime Surveys estimate that 29 per cent. of adults aged between 16 and 24 reported to have used an illegal drug in the previous year.

  Results from the 2001 survey of drug use, smoking and drinking among school children aged 11 to 15 years in England (published in a statistical press notice by Department of Health on 15 March 2002) show that 42 per cent. have been offered at least one or more drugs and that 20 per cent. reported the use of an illegal drug in the previous year.

  A revised method of measuring the prevalence of drug use was introduced in 2001. The format of the questions was changed as was the wording of the questions, after research showed that pupils found the previous survey difficult to answer. It is likely that the increase in levels of reported drug use is due to this change in question
  1069W
  format rather than a real change in behaviour. Because of this revised methodology the 2001 estimates on drug use are not strictly comparable with results from previous sweeps.

  The estimates from previous years for those who reported ever having been offered at least one or more drug are 34 per cent. in 1998, 35 per cent. in 1999, and 35 per cent in 2000.

  The estimates from previous years for those reporting use of an illegal drug in the previous year are 11 per cent. in 1998, 12 per cent. in 1999 and 14 per cent. in 2000.

  Information regarding younger children is not available centrally.

  Recovered Assets Fund
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what payments have been made for projects under the Recovered Assets Fund, broken down by region. [69337]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Confiscated Assets Fund (CAF) was the forerunner of the Recovered Assets Fund (RAF) and provided funding for anti-drug projects. In 1999–2000 it approved national projects totalling £764,300. In 2000–2001 its national projects totalled £6,841,000 plus one in Wales for £262,000. Finally, in 2001–2002 it approved national project funding of £5,624,143 plus £2,500 in the south west, £879,600 in the midlands and £625,500 in London and the south east.

  I expect to announce shortly a first tranche of projects that are to receive funding under the Recovered Assets Fund, which has replaced the CAF and has a broader scope. These are in addition to RAF grants worth £250,000 for two asset recovery related projects which are already under way.

  Mr. B. K. Pathan
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter sent by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) on 22 April, concerning Mr. B. K. Pathan of Leicester, reference P302501; and if he will make a statement. [69247]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 23 July 2002.

  Firearms
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has collated on the types of firearms used for criminal purposes since 1997. [47446]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Criminals in the United Kingdom use a range of different firearms obtained from a variety of different sources. The information collected centrally at present relates only to broad categories of weapons and is given in the table.

  As part of our efforts to crack down on misuse, we are currently funding a new National Firearms Forensic Intelligence Database which is expected to be operational in 2003. As well as helping to track the provenance of guns which have been recovered and to identify any
  1070W
  which have been previously used, it will also help to provide a much more detailed assessment of the types of weapons used.

  Recorded crimes in which firearms were reported to have been used by principal weapon: England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Principal weapon

  1997

  1998–991

  1999–20001

  2000–011

  Long-barrelled shotgun

  313

  322

  353

  302

  Sawn-off shotgun

  267

  320

  340

  305

  Handgun

  2,648

  2,687

  3,685

  4,019

  Rifle

  51

  43

  67

  36

  Imitation firearm

  511

  566

  823

  773

  Unidentified firearm

  713

  665

  762

  953

  Other firearm

  401

  606

  813

  974

  Air weapon

  7,506

  8,665

  10,103

  10,227

  Total

  12,410

  13,874

  16,946

  17,589

  1Year ending March.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Departments will take the lead in the event of different kinds of emergency taking place in the UK. [729651]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Most emergencies are handled at a local level by the emergency services and by the appropriate local authority or authorities with no direct involvement by central Government.

  Where central Government do become involved because the incident is of such a scale or complexity to require central co-ordination or support, it is essential that we are clear in advance which Department will be in the lead.

  The Civil Contingencies Committee has had an up-to-date list of pre-nominated leads produced in order to reflect the devolution settlement; the changes to the machinery of Government made by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister since the general election; and incidents which were not covered in the earlier 'Dealing with Disaster' guidance document.

  I am placing in the Library a paper explaining the respective roles of lead Government Departments and the Civil Contingencies Secretariat and a table summarising which Departments will have the lead for different categories of emergency.

  The table shows the position that holds within the devolved Administrations and arrangements are being made to place the material in the Libraries of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Arrangements are also being made for this material to be made available to the local authority and emergency services associations and to be placed on the internet at www.ukresilience.info that will be updated whenever necessary and should be consulted for the latest information on pre-designated lead Departments.

  Prisons
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of staff absence through(a) short-term and (b) long-term sickness is in each prison, broken down by category, in the last 12 months for which information is available. [62378]
  1071W
  Hilary Benn
  Information relating to the financial year 2001–02 is contained in the table. Information about

  Absences of one to seven days

  Absences of over 27 days

  Category/Establishment

  Working days lost

  Rate per person

  Working days lost

  Rate per person

  High Security

  Belmarsh

  2,771

  3.12

  12,841

  14.48

  Durham

  1.065

  1.46

  7,509

  10.29

  Frankland

  976

  1.26

  7,304

  9.42

  Full Sutton

  1,455

  1.88

  6,859

  8.86

  Long Lartin

  1,176

  1.76

  5,430

  8.12

  Wakefield

  1,084

  1.73

  5,862

  9.34

  Whitemoor

  1,661

  2.20

  11,572

  15.32

  Woodhill

  1,531

  2.37

  8,797

  13.60

  High Security total

  11,719

  2.00

  66,175

  11.28

  Category B

  Albany

  366

  1.29

  2,431

  8.60

  Blundeston

  534

  1.93

  1,536

  5.55

  Dartmoor

  736

  1.95

  3,520

  9.33

  Garth

  569

  1.36

  4,597

  10.95

  Gartree

  385

  1.43

  1,930

  7.16

  Grendon

  589

  1.85

  3,888

  12.19

  Kingston

  284

  2.08

  1,794

  13.17

  Maidstone

  694

  2.01

  4,046

  11.75

  Parkhurst

  780

  2.21

  4,367

  12.36

  Swaleside

  737

  1.79

  4,151

  10.11

  Category B total

  5,674

  1.78

  32,259

  10.11

  Category C

  Acklington

  625

  1.62

  3,333

  8.64

  Ashwell

  420

  1.83

  2,321

  10.10

  Blantyre House

  153

  2.20

  472

  6.80

  Buckley Hall

  391

  2.00

  1,882

  9.62

  Camp Hill

  469

  1.73

  2,549

  9.40

  Channings Wood

  536

  1.70

  3,421

  10.85

  Coldingley

  362

  1.80

  1,517

  7.55

  Erlestoke

  295

  1.50

  1,769

  8.97

  Everthorpe

  334

  1.40

  2,396

  10.01

  Featherstone

  529

  1.68

  3,105

  9.86

  Haverigg

  510

  1.70

  2,968

  9.90

  Highpoint

  774

  1.89

  2,072

  5.06

  Kirklevington

  143

  1.52

  441

  4.70

  Lancaster

  326

  2.02

  1,429

  8.86

  Lindholme

  658

  1.64

  2,583

  6.43

  Littlehey

  616

  2.12

  3,587

  12.33

  Moorland

  744

  1.56

  4,724

  9.89

  Ranby

  599

  1.52

  4,284

  10.91

  Risley

  667

  1.34

  6,124

  12.32

  Shepton Mallet

  256

  1.88

  684

  5.03

  Stafford

  619

  1.93

  3,968

  12.35

  Stocken

  385

  1.40

  1,396

  5.08

  The Mount

  557

  1.78

  1,926

  6.17

  The Verne

  569

  2.02

  1,614

  5.73

  Usk/Prescoed

  246

  1.28

  1,009

  5.23

  Wayland

  484

  1.67

  1,740

  6.02

  Wealstun

  430

  1.41

  2,349

  7.68

  Weare

  406

  1.93

  1,577

  7.48

  Wellingborough

  415

  1.50

  2,348

  8.50

  Whatton

  174

  1.23

  1,013

  7.17

  Wymott

  789

  1.91

  4,611

  11.17

  Category C total

  14,480

  1.68

  75,214

  8.75

  Male local

  Bedford

  551

  2.28

  3,491

  14.47

  Birmingham

  1,069

  2.23

  6,165

  12.86

  Blakenhurst

  846

  4.47

  1,479

  7.81

  Bristol

  1,269

  2.39

  6,379

  12.00

  Brixton

  1,451

  3.07

  9,167

  19.42

  Bullingdon

  1,136

  2.76

  3,633

  8.83

  Canterbury

  403

  2.09

  2,205

  11.42

  1072W
  privately managed prisons is not available as it is commercial in confidence.
  1073W

  Absences of one to seven days

  Absences of over 27 days

  Category/Establishment

  Working days lost

  Rate per person

  Working days lost

  Rate per person

  Cardiff

  594

  1.50

  3,376

  8.55

  Chelmsford

  871

  2.59

  2,691

  7.99

  Dorchester

  362

  2.20

  924

  5.61

  Elmley

  1,186

  2.68

  2,808

  6.35

  Exeter

  686

  2.20

  3,627

  11.65

  Gloucester

  402

  1.81

  2,519

  11.34

  Haslar

  178

  2.10

  966

  11.39

  Highdown

  1,476

  2.77

  5,824

  10.93

  Holme House

  735

  1.51

  3,210

  6.60

  Hull

  492

  1.18

  2,421

  5.80

  Leeds

  1,169

  1.69

  8,722

  12.63

  Leicester

  436

  1.79

  2,298

  9.43

  Lewes

  705

  2.41

  3,492

  11.95

  Lincoln

  788

  2.23

  3,061

  8.66

  Liverpool

  995

  1.26

  9,598

  12.18

  Manchester

  1,233

  1.63

  10,445

  13.78

  Norwich

  917

  2.15

  3,994

  9.35

  Nottingham

  515

  1.56

  2,249

  6.80

  Pentonville

  1,526

  2.66

  5,956

  10.37

  Preston

  622

  1.60

  3,725

  9.59

  Shrewsbury

  326

  1.60

  2,491

  12.21

  Swansea

  370

  1.57

  1,974

  8.39

  Wandsworth

  1,596

  2.37

  8,159

  12.14

  Winchester

  1,011

  2.79

  2,945

  8.12

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1,751

  3.15

  7,729

  13.88

  Male local total

  27,667

  2.16

  137,721

  10.77

  Male open

  Ford

  422

  2.45

  1,619

  9.39

  Hewell Grange

  131

  1.57

  398

  4.77

  Kirkham

  397

  1.66

  2,450

  10.22

  Latchmere House

  197

  2.51

  425

  5.40

  Leyhill

  282

  1.51

  1,725

  9.22

  North Sea Camp

  224

  2.11

  831

  7.84

  Standford Hill

  393

  1.92

  1,796

  8.77

  Sudbury

  235

  1.26

  1,685

  9.06

  Male open total

  2,281

  1.81

  10,930

  8.68

  Detention Centre

  Dover

  356

  1.72

  2,515

  12.18

  Detention centre total

  356

  1.72

  2,515

  12.18

  Male closed YOI

  Aylesbury

  776

  2.36

  5,177

  15.78

  Brinsford

  637

  1.65

  2,702

  6.99

  Castington

  572

  1.64

  4,695

  13.45

  Deerbolt

  412

  1.47

  1,965

  7.00

  Feltham

  1,901

  2.95

  6,672

  10.36

  Glen Parva

  1.035

  2.08

  3,075

  6.17

  Guys Marsh

  395

  1.57

  2,887

  11.45

  Hindley

  665

  1.67

  6,330

  15.89

  Hollesley Bay

  627

  1.93

  3,025

  9.30

  Huntercombe

  575

  2.25

  3,374

  13.22

  Lancaster Farms

  740

  2.09

  3,381

  9.57

  Northallerton

  255

  1.72

  1,675

  11.29

  Onley

  1,043

  2.59

  6,290

  15.65

  Portland

  556

  1.70

  3,152

  9.65

  Reading

  425

  2.19

  2,097

  10.81

  Rochester

  535

  1.78

  2,772

  9.24

  Stoke Heath

  858

  2.11

  5,652

  13.92

  Swinfen Hall

  346

  1.48

  1,099

  4.72

  Werrington

  331

  2.08

  1,862

  11.69

  Wetherby

  520

  2.03

  3,096

  12.06

  Male closed YOI total

  13,203

  2.03

  70,980

  10.92

  Male open YOI

  Hatfield

  111

  1.31

  370

  4.37

  Thorn Cross

  387

  1.76

  1,799

  8.17

  Male open YOI total

  498

  1.63

  2,169

  7.11

  1074W 1075W

  Absences of one to seven days

  Absences of over 27 days

  Category/Establishment

  Working days lost

  Rate per person

  Working days lost

  Rate per person

  Female closed

  Bullwood Hall

  339

  2.18

  1,597

  10.28

  Cookham Wood

  232

  2.43

  1,144

  11.98

  Downview

  341

  1.84

  2,454

  13.24

  Foston Hall

  377

  2.06

  775

  4.24

  Morton Hall

  244

  1.70

  1,101

  7.67

  Send

  414

  3.15

  811

  6.17

  Styal

  517

  1.58

  3,633

  11.10

  Female closed total

  2,464

  2.02

  11,514

  9.43

  Female local

  Brockhill

  364

  2.21

  2,661

  16.20

  Eastwood Park

  537

  2.41

  4,129

  18.53

  Highpoint North

  238

  2.31

  986

  9.58

  Holloway

  1,314

  2.69

  8,344

  17.05

  Low Newton

  321

  1.40

  1,706

  7.46

  New Hall

  584

  1.98

  2,909

  9.87

  Female local total

  3,357

  2.23

  20,735

  13.80

  Female open

  Askham Grange

  126

  1.62

  650

  8.34

  Drake Hall

  261

  1.53

  2,454

  14.40

  East Sutton Park

  98

  1.58

  770

  12.40

  Female open total

  486

  1.56

  3,874

  12.48

  Total

  82,184

  1.97

  434,087

  10.40

  Vulnerable Prisoner Units
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prison inmates are held in vulnerable prisoner units in prisons in England and Wales. [70280]

  Hilary Benn
  On 31 May 2002 there were 3,911 male prisoners held in vulnerable prisoner units. There are no vulnerable prisoner units in the female estate. The female estate does not have any dedicated units specifically for vulnerable prisoners as they are managed within the general female population. There are some beds reserved for women who are vulnerable from the nature of their offence but these are only in very small numbers and not in designated units.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated timetable will be for implementing the enhanced wages scheme for prisoners outlined in the Social Exclusion Unit's latest report; and if he will make a statement. [67837]

  Hilary Benn
  An action plan setting out the Government's response to the report will be published later this year.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the final Key Performance Indicator targets for the Prison Service for 2002–03. [72976]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service Business Plan for 2002–03, published in February 2002, included Key Performance Indicator (KPI) measures for the year but at that stage not all the associated targets had been finalised.
  1076W
  The full set of measures and targets for 2002–03 are listed as follows:
  To ensure no escapes of Category A prisoners;
  To ensure that the number of escapes from prisons and from escorts undertaken by Prison Service staff, expressed as a proportion of the average prison population, is lower than 0.05 per cent.;
  To ensure that the number of escapes from contracted out escorts is no more than one per 20,000 prisoners handled;
  To ensure that the number of positive adjudications of assault on prisoners, staff and others, expressed as a proportion of the average prison population is lower than 9 per cent.;
  To ensure that the number of prisoners held two to a cell designated for one, expressed as a proportion of the average prison population does not exceed 18 per cent.;
  To ensure that the number of minority ethnic staff in the prison service, expressed as a proportion of the total work force is at least 4.5 per cent. by April 2003;
  To ensure that average staff sickness does not exceed nine working days per person by April 2003;
  To ensure that the average cost per uncrowded prison place does not exceed £38,743;
  To ensure that the average cost per prisoner does not exceed £36,539;
  To ensure 7,100 accredited offending behaviour programme completions in 2002–03, including 950 sex offender treatment programmes;
  To ensure that prisoners spend on average at least 24 hours per week in purposeful activity;
  To ensure the rate of positive results from random mandatory drug tests is lower than 10 per cent. by April 2003;
  To achieve a 5 per cent. reduction in the number of self inflicted deaths expressed as a rate per 100.000 of average population compared with 2001–02;
  Prisoners to achieve 45,000 key skills awards and 28,800 in basic skills including 10,800 at level 2, 12.000 at level 1 and 6,000 at entry level;

  1077W
  To ensure 28,200 prisoners have a job, training or education place after release by April 2003; and
  To develop and pilot a joint indicator with Department of Health to reduce waiting times for mental health transfers and to implement the KPI from April 2003.

  Prisoners (Feltham)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours per day the(a) 16 to 18-year-old and (b) over 18-year-old prisoners at Feltham receive (i) compulsory education, (ii) extra-curricular education, (iii) sport and (iv) general exercise; and if he will make a statement. [167311]

  Hilary Benn
  Education is only compulsory for those under school leaving age; they receive 15 hours of education per week at Feltham in five, three-hour sessions. Anyone over this age cannot be ordered to undertake education, as it is not classified as work.

  On extra-curricular education, there are currently no evening classes at Feltham. It is hoped that the prison's local recruitment campaign will deliver sufficient staff to make this possible.

  With regard to participation in sporting activities, juveniles (under 18s) are currently receiving an average of 4.9 hours of physical education (PE) a week. Young offenders are currently receiving an average of 5.4 hours per week. However, attendance at PE is voluntary.

  For general exercise, all prisoners receive a daily minimum of 30 minutes of time in the open air. Those in segregation receive one hour a day, weather permitting.

  London Probation Service
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) full-time, (b) part-time, (c) agency and (d) temporary staff work for the London Probation Service. [69430]

  Hilary Benn
  The latest figures from the London Probation Area show that they currently employ 2,836 staff in total; 2,137 of which are full time employees, 530 are part time, 89 are agency staff and 80 are on temporary contracts.

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the Forensic Science Service. [72977]

  Mr. Denham
  A review of the Forensic Science Service will commence on 2 September and is expected to be completed by spring 2003. The review team, independently lead by Robert McFarland, a former chief executive of the BOC Group, has been appointed and preliminary work is already under way. A steering group, chaired by one of my officials, will oversee the review and recommendations will be made to me in due course. I will report back to the House on its findings.

  The review process will provide extensive opportunities for consultation work with internal and external stakeholders and will follow the procedures recommended in the guidance for the review of executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies published by the Cabinet Office.

  Auld Review
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government expect to publish a detailed response to Sir Robin Auld's, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales, and John Halliday's, Making Punishments Work—A Review of the Sentencing Framework for England and Wales. [72981]

  Hilary Benn
  'Justice for All' presented to Parliament on 17 July set out our policy on reform of the criminal justice system. We made clear that we are indebted to Sir Robin auld and John Halliday for their extensive and thorough review of the criminal courts and sentencing policy. Today we publish a detailed response to all their recommendations and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his Department's total expenditure by month in each financial year since 1997–98. [32794]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Boateng) on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 692W.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how much his Department underspent its expenditure limits in the financial year 2000–01. [40831]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]The Home Office full, financial year outturns for the years 1998–99 to 2000–01 are shown in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (Cm 5401) published by the Treasury in May 2002.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total under-spend in his Department was on(a) capital and (b) non-capital expenditure in each financial year since May 1997.[34026]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]The Home Office full, financial outturns for the years 1998–99 to 2000–01 are shown in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (Cm 5401) published by the Treasury in May 2002.

  The full, financial outturn for the 1997–98 financial year was shown in the previous Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (Cm 5101).

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of publishing his Department's annual report for each of the past five years. [70479]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information is as follows:

  £

  Home Office annual report

  Design

  Print

  Total cost

  1999

  28,120.37

  15,200.00

  43,320.37

  2000

  20,639.46

  14,681.00

  35,320.46

  2001

  57,695.66

  22,842.00

  80,537.66

  2002

  30,411.35

  17,967.98

  48,379.33

  1079W
  The costs for 1998 are not readily available. To obtain the 1998 figures would amount to disproportionate costs.

  We believe the benefit to Parliament and the public of publishing a detailed account of our work is considerable, facilitating more open government.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Transsexuals
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she will make a statement about the ECHR judgments in the cases of Goodwin v. UK and I v. UK; and when she expects British transsexuals will be able (a) to change their NI numbers and (b) to marry. [71488]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government reconvened recently the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People, to re-examine the implications of granting full legal status to transsexual people in their acquired gender, and to make recommendations to Ministers before the end of this year. It has now been tasked additionally with considering urgently the implications of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Christine Goodwin v. The United Kingdom and I v. The United Kingdom.

  The Government are obliged, under international law, to implement the judgments and will decide as soon as possible how to do so. The devolved Administrations are also considering their approach to these issues where responsibilities are devolved.

  The matters under consideration include policy on marriage and national insurance arrangements. Transsexual people may already obtain new national insurance cards in their new names.

  Following the ruling, statutes must be interpreted in the light of the ECtHR findings and, where a statute allows, discretion must be exercised differently in any case where the traditional interpretation or exercise of discretion would result in a violation of a transsexual person's Convention rights.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) whether the Government accepts the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Goodwin and I; what action is being taken to bring UK law into compliance with the ruling; and if she will make a statement; [71604]

  (2) what the terms of reference are of the reconvened Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual Rights. [71605]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government will decide their response to the Court's judgments as soon as possible. We had already reconvened the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People because the issues faced by the transsexual community affect the policy of a large number of Government Departments and the devolved Administrations.
  1080W
  The group met on 9 July. Its agreed terms of reference are:
  "In the light of the report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People and more recent relevant developments, to re-examine the implications of granting full legal status to transsexual people in their acquired gender; and to make recommendations".

  These terms of reference remain valid subsequent to the ruling of the ECtHR, delivered on 11 July: but the Working Group has been tasked to consider urgently the implications of the judgments in the cases of Christine Goodwin v. The United Kingdom and I v. The United Kingdom. The Government are obliged, under international law, to implement the judgments and will decide as soon as possible how to do so. The devolved Administrations are also considering their approach to these issues where responsibilities are devolved. Recommendations on a course of action will be put to Ministers in october for collective decisions to be reached during the autumn.

  Following the ruling, statutes must be interpreted in the light of the ECtHR findings and, where a statute allows, discretion must be exercised differently in any case where the traditional interpretation or exercise of discretion would result in a violation of a transsexual person's Convention rights.

  Compensation
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action she has taken to ensure that QinetiQ pays appropriate compensation to genealogical societies, for their administrative costs relating to vouchers for the 1901 Census website. [71268]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  All vouchers which have not been used will receive a full refund on request, including the purchase cost, postage and packaging. All vouchers which have been partially used, will have a full six months of active life starting from the date when the online service resumes. Payment of compensation for any additional administrative costs would be dealt with by the contractor, QinetiQ Ltd.

  Election Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total Government expenditure was on(a) local elections in each year since 1997, (b) the 1997 general election and (c) the 2001 general election. [71230]

  Yvette Cooper
  To date, central Government expenditure for the conduct of the parliamentary general elections in 1997 and 2001 is £46.2 million and £44.3 million, respectively.

  Central Government makes no direct contribution to the cost of conducting local government elections, the funding of which is the responsibility of local authorities themselves.

  Information on the cost of local elections in England and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland respectively. This is a devolved matter in Wales and Scotland.

  Law Commission
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the next quinquennial review of the Law Commission is to take place. [72978]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The next QQR of the Law Commission is to begin today. The approach to the review will take into account the wider process of law reform and the relationship between the Law Commission and other agencies involved in that process, particularly Government Departments. It is expected that a final report to the Lord Chancellor, outlining key findings and recommendations, will be produced by the end of the year.

  John Halliday CB has been appointed as Head of Review. Mr. Halliday has been selected for this role because of the extent of his knowledge of the operation of Government, Parliament and the civil service. In particular, he has experience of working with the Law Commission and of leading the fundamental review of the framework for sentencing criminal offenders in England and Wales. This resulted in the Halliday report, 2001.

  Copies of the Terms of Reference for the review have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Public Guardianship Office
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Public Guardianship Office's annual report and accounts for 2001–02 will be laid before Parliament. [72886]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have today laid before the House the Public Guardianship Office's annual report and accounts for 2001–02, which gives full details of the Agency's performance and expenditure for that year.

  Departmental Functions
  David Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the recent changes in the functions of her Department. [72984]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  For the assistance of hon. Members, I have today placed in the Library of each House a list which sets out briefly the current functions of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Thames Valley Magistrates Court Service
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) staff and (b) legal advisers have left the Thames Valley magistrates court service since 1 January 2001; how many trials have been cancelled since 1 January 2001 in the Thames Valley magistrates court area, how many vacancies there are in the Thames Valley magistrates court service; and if she will list them and the salaries offered. [72597]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been advised by Thames Valley Magistrates Courts Committee (MCC) that 52 staff members have left service since January 2001, of which 11 were legal advisers. There are currently 27.4 vacancies within the area, 7.4 of which are for legal advisers. Salaries for legal advisers are advertised at £25,518 to £32,001 (depending upon experience); deputy justices'1082W
  clerks are advertised at £39,072 to £43,293; and admin/payments staff vacancies are advertised at £10,974 to £14,433.

  I am advised by Thames Valley MCC that no trials have been cancelled since 1 January 2001.

  Mentally Incapacitated People
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will publish the evidence presented to the consultation exercise on 'Making Decisions: Helping People who have Difficulty in Deciding for Themselves'. [70173]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Consultation on 'Making decisions: Helping People who have Difficulty Deciding for Themselves' is being conducted fully in accordance with the Cabinet Office's code of practice on written consultations. The code recommends that responses should be analysed carefully and that the results of the analysis should be made widely available. Responses are currently being analysed and, once completed, the results of that analysis, including an account of the views expressed, will be made public.

HEALTH

  Medicines Commission
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the annual report of the Medicines Commission for 2001; and if this will be published. [72975]

  Ms Blears
  We have received the report, and copies have been laid before both Houses of Parliament today in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Bound volumes have been placed in the Library containing the 2001 reports of the Medicines Commission, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Advisory Board on the Registration of Homoeopathic Products, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission, the Independent Review Panel on Advertising, the Independent Panel for Borderline Products and the Veterinary Products Committee.

  We are glad to acknowledge the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Medicines Act advisory bodies and thank them for the time and effort dedicated in the public interest to this important work.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the 2001–02 annual report and accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service will be laid before Parliament. [73106]

  Ms Blears
  The 2001–02 annual report and accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library, but formal printing and publication will not occur for another 6–8 weeks, pending preparation of a version in Welsh as required by the Welsh Language Act.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the annual report and accounts of the Medicines Control Agency. [73107]

  Ms Blears
  We have received the report, and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  NHS Pensions Agency
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the key targets for 2002–03 for the NHS Pensions Agency; and if he will make a statement about the future of the Agency. [72783]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have agreed the Agency's key targets for 2002–03, and have placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses. A review of the Agency will be completed by the end of this year. This will address the performance of the Agency and will examine the options ('prior options') for the future of the Agency.

  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the annual report and accounts of the NHS Pensions Agency. [69536]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have approved the annual report and accounts which have today been laid before the House of Commons in accordance with the requirements of section 7 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Child Care
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce child care centres in every community in the United Kingdom. [68254]

  Estelle Morris
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following emerging recommendations of the interdepartmental review of child care, recently carried out and due to report in the autumn, the Chancellor announced on 15 July that funding would be provided for children's centres to be set up in the most disadvantaged areas across England. The Government's long-term aim is to have such a centre in every disadvantaged ward in England. Building, where possible, on existing child care and Sure Start facilities, these centres will sit at the heart of the community offering integrated services and support to children, parents and child care providers. By March 2006, an additional 300,000 children and their parents will have access to health, education and other services through children's centres.

  Vaccines
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether pneumococcal vaccine will be added to the flu campaign for the elderly. [56920]

  Ms Blears
  The potential cost-effectiveness of introducing universal vaccination with pneumococcal polysaccharide for everyone over 65 years and efficacy of the vaccine in this age group is under investigation by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the Committee for the implementation of the Community action programme for the prevention of AIDS and certain other communicable diseases is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [57474]

  Ms Blears
  The European Union Committee for the implementation of the Community action programme for the prevention of AIDS and certain other communicable diseases was mandated under Article 5 of Decision 647/96/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (amended under Article 4 of Decision 521/2001/EC).

  The committee assisted the Commission in taking forward the programme by providing opinions on proposed measures by the Commission. It is due to terminate with the introduction of the new EU action programme on public health.

  The committee met once in the last year, in January 2002. The United Kingdom is normally represented by an official from this Department.

  Costs of the committee to public funds are minimal. Meetings last one day, and the Commission pay the travel costs of nominated representatives. UK Departments are required to pay subsistence and UK costs.

  The financial framework for implementation of the Community action programme for the prevention of AIDs and certain other communicable diseases, from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002, is euro 10.07 million.

  The Commission has now decided which projects it will fund. This list will be published on the Department's website.

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

  As an obligation to the Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 28 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final).

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/index_en.html.

  PPP
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) progress has been made, (b) targets have been set and (c) success has been measured, in the public-private initiative in the NHS. [66897]
  1085W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]The Government set out their policies about the role of the private sector in the national health service in detail in the response to the House of Commons Health Committee's first report on the role of the private sector in the NHS, published on 10 July 2002 (Cm 5567).

  The NHS plan in 2000 set two main targets for investment in new NHS buildings, involving PFI:

  Target 1over 100 new hospital schemes in total between 2000 and 2010 (both public and privately financed);

  Target 2over half of the major 38 schemes given the go ahead at the time (July 2000) will be open by 2003ȓ04 and the remainder will be under construction;
  progress against Target 1: 64 major and 33 medium-sized PFI schemes have been given the go ahead. A further four major and six medium-sized schemes are being built under the public procurement route, making a total of 107 new hospital schemes;
  progress against Target 2: 23 of the major PFI schemes are scheduled to become operational before the end of 2004. Three of the publicly procured schemes are scheduled to be operational by 2004;
  success against Targets 1 and 2: 12 major PFI schemes and eight medium-sized schemes are already built and operational, as are two of the publicly procured schemes;
  a further 12 major and 10 medium-sized schemes have signed final contracts and are under construction.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy to require the release of detailed information, withheld from the public on the grounds of commercial confidentiality when private finance initiative contracts are awarded in the NHS, after a period of three years to permit assessment of their value for money; [66435]

  (2) if he will provide information on PFI schemes, withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, to bona fide research bodies, to make objective assessments of their value for money. [67075]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Audit Office has indefinite access to all information in the business cases and private finance initiative contracts to allow independent, objective assessments of value for money.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what method the Government use to measure the value of risk in assessing value for money for NHS private finance initiative projects in the NHS. [65532]

  Mr. Hutton
  Her Majesty's Treasury and the Department's guidance requires that a register of all risks is compiled which will provide a means for monitoring the evaluation and allocation of risk throughout the procurement exercise and whole life of private finance initiative project.

  The methodology for assessing the values of risk includes standard techniques such as weighting and scoring analysis, single point and multi-point probability analysis. In addition, sensitivity analysis should always be undertaken on the risks which have been assessed as having relatively large values and those which are subject to the greatest uncertainty (e.g. due to lack of historical
  1086W
  information). National health service trusts are required to use as much empirical information as possible in all their risk calculations.

  Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if pre-existing plans for new hospitals, which already include the elements of diagnostic and treatment centres, will be fast-tracked when submitted for capital funding from the diagnostic and treatment centre funding programme; [66825]

  (2) what funds his Department plans to make available for the establishing of diagnostic and treatment centres by primary care trusts in (a) 2002, (b) 2003 and (c) 2004; [66828]

  (3) what the typical allocation of funds will be to a primary care trust to establish a diagnostic and treatment centre; and on what basis this will be calculated; [66829]

  (4) when he expects to announce the first tranche of diagnostic and treatment centres to be established by primary care trusts; [66830]

  (5) what his policy is on the establishment of diagnostic and treatment centres by primary care trusts. [66827]

  Mr. Hutton
  We committed ourselves in the NHS Plan to having eight diagnostic and treatment centres up and running by 2004 with a further 12 in development.

  On 21 February 2002, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health, announced the first wave of eight diagnostic and treatment centres. One of these is The Chase Hospital, Bordon, part of the North Hampshire Primary Care Trust. The Department has allocated £700,000 to North Hampshire Primary Care Trust to support this development.

  We are now looking to expand and bring forward the diagnostic and treatment centre programme further in order to grow capacity and reduce waiting times. We have asked the NHS to put forward proposals. In certain cases this may result in the acceleration of all or part of existing proposals for hospital development. The proposals may also include additional diagnostic and treatment centres established by primary care trusts.

  Capital funding will be available to support the development of some of these diagnostic and treatment centres. Some proposals will involve working with, and/or funding from the private sector.

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the smallpox contract awarded to Powderject is estimated to represent profit for Powderject. [67547]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has made no such estimate. Before letting the contract to Powderject, the prices offered by other companies for similar products were compared, and comparisons were made with the price being paid by the United States Government for its smallpox vaccine. On the basis of consideration of all the price information available relating to similar products, the vaccine was deemed to represent value for money.
  1087W
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason he has chosen to purchase a smallpox vaccine which is of a different strain from that ordered by the US Administration. [67544]

  Mr. Hutton
  The choice of smallpox vaccine strain took into account expert advice under the auspices of a specially convened sub-group of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).

  The advice of the JCVI sub-group was that there was no difference between the two strains on scientific grounds. Vaccines based on both strains were considered to have been effective in the past. However, the JCVI sub-group concluded that there was a greater body of evidence to demonstrate the efficacy of the Lister strain rather than for the New York City Board of Health strain, and that the smallpox vaccine has been challenged in the field more often by the more severe form of smallpox (variola major) with the strain chosen by the United Kingdom Government. The JCVI sub-group also recommended that using a different strain of vaccine from that used in the United States offered the greatest safeguard if difficulties arose with the production of either strain, ensuring that the alternative strain could act as a fallback.

  NHS Hospital Trusts
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS hospital trusts have been merged in the last five years. [67185]

  Mr. Hutton
  A list of national health service trusts which have been involved in major reconfigurations over the last five years has been placed in the Library. Most of these have merged by dissolution and establishment of new trusts, but there are also absorption mergers and parts of NHS trusts involved in the formation of new NHS trusts and primary care trusts.

  Health Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the outcome was of the Health Council held on 26 June; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [67732]

  Mr. Hutton
  I represented the UK at the Health Council in Luxembourg on 26 June 2002.

  The Council debated the Commission's package of proposals for review of pharmaceutical legislation, covering the authorisation of medicinal products through a centralised authorisation procedure and the constitution of the management board of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA). No conclusions were reached.

  During discussions of the framework convention on tobacco control, the Commission along with the incoming Danish presidency, urged member states to be flexible to allow the adoption of a strong European Union position for the next round of negotiations in Geneva in October. Some member states called for high level political input to seek to avoid adoption of a position that simply represented the lowest common denominator. The United Kingdom remains a supporter of a strong and effective convention.
  1088W
  Council conclusions on patient mobility were adopted; with the Commission expected to bring forward proposals during the Danish presidency.

  The rest of the agenda covered the presentation of new dossiers or updates on the progress of current legislation. The Commission presented a draft directive on the safety of tissues and cells, to complement the current one on blood safety, as well as one on traditional medicines. There were also two recommendations: one on smoking prevention and tobacco control and another on the reduction of risks associated with drug dependence.

  Details of these and other agenda items are set out in the table which will be placed in the Library. No votes were taken on any issue before the Council.

  Renal Dialysis
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the training of new doctors and nurses in order to staff the opening of new renal stations; and when he expects to provide additional dialysis in east Lancashire. [69163]

  Jacqui Smith
  The NHS plan commits the national health service to 7,500 more consultants and 20,000 extra nurses by 2004. As part of this expansion programme, the north-west deanery are planning a 15 per cent. increase during this year in the number of specialist registrar posts dedicated to the specialty of nephrology. This will support the renal development programme established for Lancashire and south Cumbria.

  Nurses required to support the new renal stations at Chorley have been recruited through a process of internal recruitment within the United Kingdom together with an overseas recruitment campaign. The same approach will be adopted for the future planned developments at Blackpool and Burnley.

  The Burnley Unit is a private finance initiative scheme which is expected to be commissioned during 2005, and in conjunction with the developments at Chorley and Blackpool, will significantly enhance the 'take-up' rates for each Lancashire from the current level of 73 per million to the planned 'take-up' rate of 90 per million by 2005.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact the opening of new renal stations in Lancashire will have on the number of patients at Royal Preston hospital; and if he will make a statement. [69217]

  Jacqui Smith
  The new renal facility at Chorley and South Ribble district general hospital is due to become operational in August 2002, and is expected to provide for 48 additional patients dialysing three times per week. Initially, patients currently being treated in Manchester hospitals will be given the choice of relocating to the new facility at Chorley. The facilities at Chorley are expected to achieve capacity by 31 March 2004.

  Once the new unit becomes operational, the Royal Preston hospital can then ensure that more clinically appropriate patients are managed at what is the main Lancashire renal centre, while the service also increases its 'take-on' rate for new patients.

  Social Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the net expenditure of each social services authority in England was in each year since 1990–91 at 2000–01 prices excluding expenditure on places in the private and voluntary homes sector; and what the percentage increase was in each year since 1990–91; [69716]

  (2) what the gross expenditure is of each social services authority in England in each year since 1990–91 at 2000–01 prices; [69713]

  (3) what the net expenditure was of each social services authority in England in each year since 1990–91 at 2000–01 prices; [69718]

  (4) what the net expenditure was of each social services authority in England in each year since 1990–91 at 2000–01 prices on purchasing places in the private and voluntary homes sector. [69717]

  Jacqui Smith
  Tables have been placed in the Library which provide the information requested except for net expenditure on places in the private and voluntary homes sector by local authorities for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94 (inclusive) and 2000–01 which is not available centrally.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the meaning of accredited training in relation to Minimum Standard 9.7 for homes for older people and Minimum Standard 20.10 for homes for younger adults. [70314]

  Jacqui Smith
  The administration of medication within care homes is a major responsibility and should not be undertaken lightly, since inappropriate administration could result in harm or, in some instances, the death of a service user. In this respect care home providers, therefore, must ensure that any staff who are charged with the responsibility to administer medication must fully understand the seriousness of this task, are trained in safe practices, and also have some awareness of the side effects of drugs on service users. The Commission is currently considering what forms of accredited training would be acceptable, but in the first instance, would suggest that training supplied by local pharmacists and community nurses would be acceptable.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will issue guidance to determine what constitutes regular contact with service users in respect of Care Home Regulations; [70318]

  (2) if he will list the occupational groups the members of which will be considered as persons having regular contact with service users in connection with the Care Home Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [70319]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Care Standards Commission takes 'regular contact with residents' to mean where a member of staff employed by the care home routinely interacts with residents on a one-to-one basis as part of their employment. This interaction may be restricted to talking to residents, but generally the commission will take it to mean where an individual is 1090W
  providing specific forms of care to a resident, such as personal care, nursing care, counselling and general support.

  The staff having regular contact with residents will also vary from home to home. A range of internal and external people are likely to have regular contact with residents. This could include care staff, ancillary workers, volunteers and management staff, social workers and specialist health care professionals.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reasons the Care Home Regulations make no reference to a requirement for a business and financial plan as specified in the National Minimum Standard for homes for older people 34.5; [70317]

  (2) what must be contained in a business and financial plan as specified in National Minimum Standard for older people 34.5. [70316]

  Jacqui Smith
  The care homes regulations and the national standards are related but they are not the same. There are, therefore, differences in the language and level of detail they contain. The regulations set out in general terms mandatory requirements with which care homes must comply. The national standards are an assessment tool which the commission must take into account when it makes a decision about whether a care home conforms to the regulations. However, the commission may also take into account any other factors it considers reasonable or relevant to do so. The regulations do not, therefore, specifically refer to business and financial plans.

  The regulations and standards do not specify what must be contained in a care home's business and financial plans. In deciding whether a care home's business and financial plans conform to the requirements, the commission will need to satisfy itself that they contain sufficient information to ensure that service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home.

  Queen Alexandra Hospital (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what companies and organisations have expressed an interest in being involved in the private finance initiative for the Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth; when he expects to make a decision on which of these will be involved; and if he will make a statement; [71000]

  (2) what the reasons are for the cost of the private finance initiative of Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, being raised; and if he will make a statement. [70998]

  Mr. Hutton
  The bidding process is still under way, but I am advised by Portsmouth Hospitals National Health Service Trust that three organisations were chosen to go through to the next stage. These were: The Hospital Company, Key Health Services and Summit Healthcare I cannot, at this time, confirm when the bidding process will be completed.

  The time scale for a final decision is a matter for the trust itself. The final business case has not yet been submitted because the bidding process is not complete. The cost for the private finance initiative, specified at the outline business case stage, was an estimate and would be

  1091W
  expected to increase over the period required to complete the project, partly as a result of inflation and other outside cost pressures.

  Doctors (Suspensions)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2002.Official Report, column 1209W, on doctors (suspensions), for what reasons absence or special leave or gardening leave are not included in official statistics; and what guidance Is issued to NHS trusts on (a) staff suspensions and (b) placing staff on special or gardening leave. [70724]

  Mr. Hutton
  The process of formal monitoring of suspensions lasting over six months began in March 1995, six months after the issue of HSG(94)49, the current guidance on suspension of hospital and community medical and dental staff.

  As a result of an undertaking to the Public Accounts Committee in April 1995, the Department monitors formal suspensions lasting over six months on a quarterly basis. This has enabled the financial implications of those suspensions to be monitored and helped to ensure that Individual cases are being actively managed.

  Information on special leave is collected on an ad hoc basis when concerns are raised. No official guidance has been issued on the use of special or gardening leave. In December 2001, the Chief Medical Officer wrote to all national health service trusts requesting information regarding the use of this type of leave. This information is currently being analysed.

  Correspondence
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department intends to answer the letter of the hon. Member for North Norfolk of 1 March, in relation to Kelling Park Nursing Home. [71537]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent on 16 July 2002.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 20 March 2002 from the hon. Member for Totnes regarding Mrs. B. A. Bence of Kingsbridge, Devon, a constituent. [59795]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]A reply was sent on 3 July 2002.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the percentage cost is to the NHS of(a) a digital hearing aid and (b) an analogue aid; and what the differential was 12 months ago. [71758]

  Jacqui Smith
  Under the national health service contract, digital hearing aids had been available at a cost of between £140 and £205 each, for moderately powered aids. The contracts and prices have been renegotiated by a team set-up by Ministers and led by James Strachan, Chief Executive of Royal National Institute for the Deaf, which includes representatives from the Department and the Purchasing and Supply Agency (PASA), and allows moderate powered digital aids to be purchased at £65 to £75 each plus value added tax (VAT).
  1092W
  The cost of a moderately powered NHS analogue aid ranges from £59 to £126 each plus VAT.

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the shortfall of social workers in(a) Portsmouth, (b) Hampshire and (c) the South East; and if he will make a statement. [72025]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on vacancy rates for social workers is not available centrally.

  Bed Blocking
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's strategy to tackle bed blocking. [71769]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government set a target in October 2001 to reduce the number of acute hospital beds blocked at any one time by 1,000, by 31 March 2002. In March 2001 there were 5,938 beds blocked by the over-75s, and at the end of March this year 4,691 were blocked.

  The Government will shortly be consulting on its plans, first announced in, "Delivering the NHS Plan", to introduce a system of charges for delays where people are ready for discharge and are awaiting social services input.

  Later in the year, the Government will be responding in full to the House of Commons Health Select Committee's forthcoming report on delayed discharges.

  Audit Commission Reports
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to implement the recommendations of the Audit Commission's reports, "Fully Equipped" and "Fully Equipped Two"; and if he will make a statement. [71799]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are progressing their programme to improve equipment services for older and disabled people, and in doing so, are taking fully into account the recommendations made by the Audit Commission in its two reports on the subject.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement recommendations from the Audit Commission's report, "Fully Equipped Two". [72464]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are progressing their programme to improve equipment services for older and disabled people and, in doing so, are taking fully into account the recommendations made by the Audit Commission in its two reports on the subject, "Fully Equipped", published in March 2000, and "Fully Equipped Two".

  Nurses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS nurses have left the NHS to take nursing posts in north America in the last year. [72478]
  1093W
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected by the Department.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the shortfall of(a) nurses, (b) general practitioners, (c) cancer specialists and (d) consultants in (i) St. Helens and Knowsley Health Authority, (ii) Merseyside, (iii) the North West and (iv) England. [71279]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government's plans for increasing the size of the national health service work force were set out in the NHS Plan and our manifesto before the last election. Both targets for increasing nurse numbers have been met ahead of schedule. Our latest projection for 2008 is 35,000 more nurses than there were in 2001. This has not been broken down by strategic health authority (StHA).

  The NHS Plan set a target of 2,000 more general practitioners (GPs) and 7,500 consultants in England by 2004, over the 1999 baseline. To date, there has been an increase of 483 GPs and 3,130 consultants. The target has been broken down by StHA level. Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority have an envelope of 141 more GPs and 377 more consultants by 2004.

  The number of cancer specialists employed in the NHS is growing. As at March 2002, there were 3,857 cancer specialists in England. This represents an increase of 17 per cent. since 1999. We are on track to hit the target set out in the Cancer Plan of nearly 1,000 extra cancer consultants by 2006, this target has not been broken down by StHA.

  Length of delayed discharge—patients of all ages—quarter 4 2001–02 National and regional summary

  Area

  Total delayed less than 8 days

  Total delayed 8–14 days

  Total delayed 14–28 days

  Total delayed more than 28 days

  Percentage delays less than 8 days (ail ages)

  Percentage delays 8–14 days (all ages)

  Percentage delays 14–28 days (all ages)

  Percentage delays more than 28 days (all ages)

  Percentage HAs included in analysis

  England

  1,323

  1,067

  1,130

  1,968

  24.1

  19.4

  20.6

  35.9

  95.8

  Northern and Yorkshire

  125

  72

  92

  126

  30.1

  17.3

  22.2

  30.4

  92.3

  Trent

  113

  49

  71

  61

  38.4

  16.7

  24.1

  20.7

  100.0

  West Midlands

  247

  153

  124

  185

  34.8

  21.6

  17.5

  26.1

  100.0

  North West

  119

  115

  93

  143

  25.3

  24.5

  19.8

  30.4

  93.8

  Eastern

  —

  120

  118

  205

  —

  27.3

  26.8

  46.6

  85.7

  London

  104

  163

  190

  404

  12.1

  18.9

  22.0

  46.9

  92.9

  South East

  299

  254

  278

  611

  20.7

  17.6

  19.3

  42.4

  100.0

  South West

  316

  141

  164

  233

  37.0

  16.5

  19.2

  27.3

  100.0

  Health authority summary

  Health authority

  Total delayed less than 8 days

  Total delayed 8–14 days

  Total delayed 14–28 days

  Total delayed more than 28 days

  Percentage delays less than 8 days (all ages)

  Percentage delays 8–14 days (all ages)

  Percentage delays 14–28 days (all ages)

  Percentage delays more than 28 days (all ages)

  HA included

  Bradford

  9

  0

  2

  0

  81.8

  0.0

  18.2

  0.0

  Yes

  County Durham and Darlington

  12

  6

  5

  7

  40.0

  20.0

  16.7

  23.3

  Yes

  East Riding and Hull

  7

  2

  6

  6

  33.3

  9.5

  28.6

  28.6

  Yes

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  7

  6

  14

  15

  16.7

  14.3

  33.3

  35.7

  Yes

  Leeds

  10

  5

  16

  32

  15.9

  7.9

  25.4

  50.8

  Yes

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  23

  4

  8

  11

  50.0

  8.7

  17.4

  23.9

  Yes

  North Cumbria

  4

  10

  11

  44

  5.8

  14.5

  15.9

  63.8

  Yes

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Sunderland

  15

  9

  3

  4

  48.4

  29.0

  9.7

  12.9

  Yes

  Tees

  31

  21

  15

  6

  42.5

  28.8

  20.5

  8.2

  Yes

  Social Workers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the shortfall of social workers in(a) St. Helens, (b) Merseyside, (c) the North West and (d) England. [71281]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on vacancy rates for social workers is not available centrally.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the public consultations undertaken by his Department since June 2001, stating in each case the(a) number of respondents and (b) percentage of those specifically consulted who responded. [60145]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]Since June 2001, the Department has undertaken 87 public consultations. A list of these will be placed in the Library.

  The Department does not collect the number of respondents nor the percentage of those specifically consulted who responded either centrally or at all and it would be disproportionately expensive to assemble the information.

  Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 168W, on hospital discharges, for what reason statistics for the Eastern Region on discharges that were delayed for less than eight days are not available. [64852]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 27 July 2002]The statistics were not available because of inconsistencies in the data provided by some health authorities in eastern region. By checking with hospitals in the former eastern region, I have been able to estimate the number of discharges delayed for less than eight days in that region. I have placed some corrected figures in the Library.
  1095W

  Health authority summary

  Health authority

  Total delayed less than 8 days

  Total delayed 8–14 days

  Total delayed 14–28 days

  Total delayed more than 28 days

  Percentage delays less than 8 days (all ages)

  Percentage delays 8–14 days (all ages)

  Percentage delays 14–28 days (all ages)

  Percentage delays more than 28 days (all ages)

  HA included

  Wakefield

  0

  5

  10

  0

  0.0

  33.3

  66.7

  0.0

  Yes

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  No

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  7

  4

  2

  1

  50.0

  28.6

  14.3

  7.1

  Yes

  Barnsley

  4

  0

  0

  0

  100.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Yes

  North Derbyshire

  14

  2

  0

  0

  87.5

  12.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Yes

  Southern Derbyshire

  9

  8

  4

  1

  40.9

  36.4

  18.2

  4.5

  Yes

  Doncaster

  4

  1

  8

  6

  21.1

  5.3

  42.1

  31.6

  Yes

  Leicestershire

  18

  8

  8

  8

  42.9

  19.0

  19.0

  19.0

  Yes

  Lincolnshire

  6

  7

  6

  3

  27.3

  31.8

  27.3

  13.6

  Yes

  North Nottinghamshire

  12

  7

  11

  10

  30.0

  17.5

  27.5

  25.0

  Yes

  Nottingham

  13

  9

  13

  4

  33.3

  23.1

  33.3

  10.3

  Yes

  Rotherham

  8

  5

  2

  5

  40.0

  25.0

  10.0

  25.0

  Yes

  Sheffield

  23

  1

  13

  10

  48.9

  2.1

  27.7

  21.3

  Yes

  South Humber

  2

  1

  6

  14

  8.7

  4.3

  26.1

  60.9

  Yes

  Birmingham

  65

  51

  35

  90

  27.0

  21.2

  14.5

  37.3

  Yes

  Coventry

  21

  9

  8

  16

  38.9

  16.7

  14.8

  29.6

  Yes

  Dudley

  8

  8

  6

  2

  33.3

  33.3

  25.0

  8.3

  Yes

  Herefordshire

  11

  2

  2

  5

  55.0

  10.0

  10.0

  25.0

  Yes

  Sandwell

  3

  1

  6

  17

  11.1

  3.7

  22.2

  63.0

  Yes

  Shropshire

  3

  3

  1

  2

  33.3

  33.3

  11.1

  22.2

  Yes

  Solihull

  33

  1

  2

  0

  91.7

  2.8

  5.6

  0.0

  Yes

  North Staffordshire

  16

  5

  3

  1

  64.0

  20.0

  12.0

  4.0

  Yes

  South Staffordshire

  19

  15

  19

  15

  27.9

  22.1

  27.9

  22.1

  Yes

  Walsall

  6

  6

  4

  7

  26.1

  26.1

  17.4

  30.4

  Yes

  Warwickshire

  34

  38

  19

  11

  33.3

  37.3

  18.6

  10.8

  Yes

  Wolverhampton

  8

  6

  3

  5

  36.4

  27.3

  13.6

  22.7

  Yes

  Worcestershire

  20

  8

  16

  14

  34.5

  13.8

  27.6

  24.1

  Yes

  South Lancashire

  12

  1

  0

  0

  92.3

  7.7

  0.0

  0.0

  Yes

  Liverpool

  3

  7

  5

  17

  9.4

  21.9

  15.6

  53.1

  Yes

  Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  No

  Morecambe Bay

  4

  10

  13

  38

  6.2

  15.4

  20.0

  58.5

  Yes

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  8

  7

  11

  19

  17.8

  15.6

  24.4

  42.2

  Yes

  Salford and Trafford

  3

  10

  7

  5

  12.0

  40.0

  28.0

  20.0

  Yes

  Sefton

  4

  7

  10

  7

  14.3

  25.0

  35.7

  25.0

  Yes

  Stockport

  0

  3

  1

  2

  0.0

  50.0

  16.7

  33.3

  Yes

  West Pennine

  14

  0

  6

  9

  48.3

  0.0

  20.7

  31.0

  Yes

  Bury and Rochdale

  4

  2

  2

  3

  36.4

  18.2

  18.2

  27.3

  Yes

  North Cheshire

  —

  10

  10

  8

  —

  41.7

  41.7

  33.3

  Yes

  South Cheshire

  5

  5

  6

  9

  20.0

  20.0

  24.0

  36.0

  Yes

  East Lancashire

  5

  6

  2

  0

  38.5

  46.2

  15.4

  0.0

  Yes

  North West Lancashire

  39

  5

  3

  0

  83.0

  10.6

  6.4

  0.0

  Yes

  Wigan and Bolton

  18

  19

  11

  7

  32.7

  34.5

  20.0

  12.7

  Yes

  Wirral

  0

  23

  6

  19

  0.0

  47.9

  12.5

  39.6

  Yes

  Bedfordshire

  3

  6

  4

  11

  12.5

  25.0

  16.7

  45.8

  Yes

  North Essex

  —

  6

  18

  41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  No

  South Essex

  0

  16

  17

  66

  0.0

  16.2

  17.2

  66.7

  Yes

  Suffolk

  —

  63

  64

  96

  —

  33.5

  34.0

  51.1

  Yes

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  14

  15

  21

  0.0

  28.0

  30.0

  42.0

  Yes

  Norfolk

  12

  14

  7

  6

  30.8

  35.9

  17.9

  15.4

  Yes

  Hertfordshire

  17

  7

  11

  5

  42.5

  17.5

  27.5

  12.5

  Yes

  Hillingdon

  0

  17

  25

  16

  0.0

  29.3

  43.1

  27.6

  Yes

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  4

  9

  5

  13

  12.9

  29.0

  16.1

  41.9

  Yes

  Redbridge and Walfham Forest

  13

  10

  13

  20

  23.2

  17.9

  23.2

  35.7

  Yes

  Croydon

  10

  5

  1

  6

  45.5

  22.7

  4.5

  27.3

  Yes

  Kingston and Richmond

  7

  10

  6

  49

  9.7

  13.9

  8.3

  68.1

  Yes

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewishan

  3

  18

  22

  35

  3.8

  23.1

  28.2

  44.9

  Yes

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0

  18

  30

  40

  0.0

  20.5

  34.1

  45.5

  Yes

  Barking and Havering

  41

  10

  22

  65

  29.7

  7.2

  15.9

  47.1

  Yes

  Brent and Harrow

  6

  3

  2

  5

  37.5

  18.8

  12.5

  31.3

  Yes

  Camden and Islington

  16

  13

  17

  30

  21.1

  17.1

  22.4

  39.5

  Yes

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslo

  4

  11

  17

  49

  4.9

  13.6

  21.0

  60.5

  Yes

  East London and the City

  —

  22

  13

  58

  —

  25.9

  15.2

  68.2

  Yes

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  0

  17

  17

  18

  0.0

  32.7

  32.1

  34.6

  Yes

  Bromley, Bexley and Greenwich

  —

  20

  8

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  No

  Berkshire

  29

  19

  35

  72

  18.7

  12.3

  22.6

  46.5

  Yes

  Buckinghamshire

  25

  14

  7

  25

  35.2

  19.7

  9.9

  35.2

  Yes

  East Kent

  7

  9

  13

  23

  13.5

  17.3

  25.0

  44.2

  Yes

  West Kent

  4

  27

  16

  41

  4.5

  30.7

  18.2

  46.6

  Yes

  East Surrey

  8

  10

  12

  16

  17.4

  21.7

  26.1

  34.8

  Yes

  West Surrey

  21

  20

  34

  85

  13.1

  12.5

  21.3

  53.1

  Yes

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  26

  46

  38

  62

  15.1

  26.7

  22.1

  36.0

  Yes

  West Sussex

  50

  13

  30

  14

  46.7

  12.1

  28.0

  13.1

  Yes

  Northamptonshire

  28

  9

  24

  37

  28.6

  9.2

  24.5

  37.8

  Yes

  Oxfordshire

  9

  16

  12

  15

  17.3

  30.8

  23.1

  28.8

  Yes

  North and Mid Hampshire

  18

  18

  23

  98

  11.5

  11.5

  14.6

  62.4

  Yes

  Southampton and SW Hampshire

  36

  29

  23

  99

  19.3

  15.5

  12.1

  52.9

  Yes

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  38

  24

  11

  24

  39.2

  24.7

  11.1

  24.7

  Yes

  Somerset

  13

  9

  7

  5

  38.2

  26.5

  20.1

  14.7

  Yes

  South and West Devon

  44

  6

  8

  0

  75.9

  10.3

  13.1

  0.0

  Yes

  Wiltshire

  12

  16

  9

  26

  19.0

  25.4

  14.1

  41.3

  Yes

  1096W 1097W

  Health authority summary

  Health authority

  Total delayed less than 8 days

  Total delayed 8–14 days

  Total delayed 14–28 days

  Total delayed more than 28 days

  Percentage delays less than 8 days (all ages)

  Percentage delays 8–14 days (all ages)

  Percentage delays 14–28 days (all ages)

  Percentage delays more than 28 days (all ages)

  HA included

  Avon

  107

  46

  83

  107

  31.2

  13.4

  24.2

  31.2

  Yes

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  37

  17

  12

  31

  38.1

  17.5

  12.4

  32.0

  Yes

  Dorset

  55

  13

  11

  8

  63.2

  14.9

  12.6

  9.2

  Yes

  North and East Devon

  48

  21

  17

  21

  44.9

  19.6

  15.9

  19.6

  Yes

  Gloucestershire

  0

  13

  17

  35

  0.0

  20.0

  26.2

  53.8

  Yes

  NHS Maternity Units
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list NHS maternity units in descending order of the percentage level achieved against the standards expected of such a unit. [67457]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]There is no data available centrally on percentage levels against standards for maternity units.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason general practitioners practising within the area covered by the North Surrey PCT have been refused permission by the PCT to refer expectant mothers to the maternity units of their choice. [67468]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]North Surrey Primary Care Trust has not stopped general practitioners referring expectant mothers to the maternity unit of their choice.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff vacancies there are in the mental health sector of the NHS, broken down by region. [67972]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) today.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many remanded prisoners were transferred under the provisions of section 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in each of the last six years, including the most recent year for which figures are available. [70239]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  Section 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 empowers the Home Secretary to transfer people from prison to hospital who require urgent treatment in a psychiatric hospital. The section covers those remanded by the courts to custody; those convicted but awaiting sentence; those detained under the Immigration Act 1971; and civil prisoners.

  Figures for remand prisoners only are not available. The figures are for all four categories.

  Number

  1995

  473

  1996

  481

  1997

  495

  1998

  482

  1999

  464

  2000

  393

  1098W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the money to improve wards and conditions for psychiatric patients announced on 6 April 2001 was spent. [68148]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]£3,890,200 was spent in the financial year 2001–02.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the monitoring of children for the first signs of the onset of mental illness. [67947]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 24 April 2002,Official Report, column 351W, regarding current mental health promotion and early intervention services for children and adolescents. Additionally, under the NHS Plan, 50 early intervention services will be established over the next three years to reduce treatment delay in psychosis. All young people who experience a first episode of psychosis such as schizophrenia will receive the early and intensive support they need. This is expected to benefit 7,500 young people in the 14–35 age range each year. The early detection of the onset of mental illness is also an issue we expect to consider in the child and adolescent mental health services strand of the children's national service framework on which work is currently progressing.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies exist in(a) clinical psychology and (b) psychiatry in each health authority. [58841]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of vacancies and the vacancy rates for clinical psychology and consultants in psychiatry and psychotherapy have been placed in the Library.

  Hotspot Councils
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 176W, on care funding, what his definition is of hotspot councils; and what the names are of the hotspot councils as referred to in Annexe B. [68748]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 176W, and the information

  1099W
  provided in Annexe B. 'Hotspot' councils were those 55 Food Safety selected to receive additional funding. The 55 councils are as follows:

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnet

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Birmingham

  Bracknell Forest

  Brighton and Hove Bristol

  Bromley

  Buckinghamshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cumbria

  Dudley

  East Sussex

  Enfield

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Hackney

  Halton

  Hampshire

  Haringey

  Havering

  Hertfordshire

  Hillingdon

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Knowsley

  Leeds

  Medway Towns

  Milton Keynes

  North Somerset

  Northamptonshire

  Peterborough

  Portsmouth

  Reading

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Sheffield

  Slough

  South Gloucestershire

  Southampton

  Southend-on-Sea

  St. Helens

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Surrey

  Sutton

  Swindon

  Thurrock

  Waltham Forest

  Warwickshire

  West Berkshire

  West Sussex

  Wiltshire

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Wokingham

  York.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the level of public confidence in the Government's arrangements for food safety measured by public opinion surveys in each year since 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [69086]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has had responsibility for food safety since its establishment in April 2000. Levels of public confidence have been measured quantitatively rather than estimated as part of the annual "Consumer Attitudes to Food Standards", published in January 2001 and February 2002. In the most recent survey, 71 per cent, of consumers are aware of the FSA and, among them, levels of trust are high approximately 80 per cent. When asked how confident they were about the role played by the FSA in protecting health with regard to food safety, only 13 per cent, of consumers stated that they were not confident. Both surveys were widely reported by national media and are freely available on the Agency's website. The next annual survey will be published in early 2003. There were no similar surveys or estimates of public confidence by the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, now the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, before 2000.

  Cancer
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Government funding was allocated to(a) treatment for and (b) research in (i) prostate, (ii) breast, (iii) lung and (iv) colon cancer in each of the last 10 years. [69292]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 12 July 2002]The Department does not collect figures on the cost of national health service services in a way that enables an accurate figure to be calculated for the cost of treatment or research for individual cancers.

  Residential Child Care
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will undertake research into the reasons underlying the increase in the number of children being looked after in residential placements in the south west since 1997. [70356]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]The most recently published figures for children looked after by local authorities at 31 March 2001 show that, over the past three years, while the overall number of children looked after by local authorities in the south west region has risen slightly, the relative proportion of children in residential placements has declined from 9 per cent, to 8 per cent. There is no evidence that south western local authorities have increased their use of placements in residential care.

  Doctors (Recruitment)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), of 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 298W, on doctors (recruitment), how many health care professionals from developing countries have been

  1101W
  provided with formal training and education in the UK since 1997; and of these, how many returned to their home countries after completing their studies. [71046]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]The information requested is not collected centrally.

  NHS Leadership Centre
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 1317W, on the NHS Leadership Centre, how many people are employed by the NHS Leadership Centre. [71038]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]The leadership centre is part of the National Health Service Modernisation Agency. As at 1 July 2002, there are a total of 48 staff who work for the leadership centre. 26 of those staff are on secondment or fixed term contracts from the NHS.

  Overseas Recruitment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has recently met the Secretary of State for International Development concerning the recruitment of nurses and doctors from developing countries. [71041]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 July 2002]No. Officials from the two Departments are due to meet at the end of July to discuss the recruitment of health care professionals.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost to the NHS is of compliance with new junior doctors' hours regulations. [71563]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]The junior doctors' hours regulations are those incorporated into the new contract for junior doctors which requires Pre-Registration House Officers to be contracted for no more than 56 hours from August 2001, with senior house officers and specialist registrars following suit in August 2003.

  The estimated cost of implementing the new contract from January 2001 to December 2003 is in the region of £210 million on a total junior doctors' pay bill of some £1.3 billion per annum. However, detailed information on doctors' pay is not held centrally. The driving principle underlying the new contract was to create financial disincentives through the pay bill if trusts continued to employ doctors in non-compliant posts. The effect of these cost pressures on trusts has been to bring overall non-compliance down from 44 per cent. in March 2001 to 32 per cent. in March 2002, with consequent potential long-term reductions in the junior doctor pay bill.

  Acute Services
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make a decision on the re-organisation of acute services in East Kent. [71189]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the information I gave him in my response of 16 July 2002,Official Report, column 219.

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.

NHS Communities
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to facilitate local National Health Service communities that need to invest now in additional capacity to meet the access targets set out in the National Health Service Plan, ahead of the capital investment announced for the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we have asked health authorities to draw up capacity plans which assess the physical and workforce capacity required to meet the targets in the NHS Plan. This process will include reviewing existing schemes which may either need to be brought forward or alternatives provided to bridge any likely gap.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does it mean that there will be a review of financial and staffing considerations? Furthermore, does my noble friend agree that in order to get the best out of the welcome additional funding for the NHS, we need financial flexibility?
Finally, what advice would my noble friend give to Bradford Hospitals Trust? That trust has consistently received a three-star rating and has met its previous targets by using its resources, including the private sector, to full capacity. However, it will not be able to meet its new targets unless it has up-front new funding immediately in order to provide temporary theatres and additional diagnostic equipment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on championing the cause of Bradford Hospitals Trust. It is a good trust which during the past few years has been run effectively. I am aware of the issues it is facing as regards the long-term project for a new hospital and the immediate need to raise capacity. The best option for the trust is to continue to discuss these matters with the primary care trusts and the local strategic health authority. As a health community, it is required to draw up capacity plans which can consider the issues raised by my noble friend. I have confidence that the Bradford health community will once again rise to that challenge.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I and other noble Lords have found the Question difficult to understand? Will he define his interpretation of "National Health Service
182
community"? Secondly, what kind of investment in additional capacity does he envisage those communities making?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, "National Health Service community" would probably mean the health authority, the primary care trust and the other trusts within the boundary of a strategic health authority, of which there are 28 in England. As regards the second question, we have a major capital 10-year programme to produce 100 new hospitals in the NHS. Not all of them will come on stream within the next year or two. In the interim, the NHS needs to raise its capacity in order to reduce the number of patients waiting for treatment. The issue faced by Bradford Hospitals Trust is that while developing a major new hospital it must increase capacity now and in the next few years in order to meet waiting list targets.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, what additional control will the proposed foundation hospitals have over their development policies and finances?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend has raised the question of foundation trusts, which we intend to develop as a way of giving more local discretion and control to those NHS trusts that have a proven track record of providing good high-quality services to their local communities. We are working on the very issues raised by my noble friend. I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but will do so in due course.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, one of the objectives of the new NHS Plan was to reduce health inequalities. What progress has been made in access to GP resources and services, particularly in poorer areas where single-practitioner GP surgeries are still common?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we must be careful not automatically to conclude that every single-handed GP practice is a poor one—many are of high quality. In those circumstances, we would encourage single-handed practices to work with other single-handed practices so that they are able to provide a complete range of primary care services.
Secondly, as regards health inequalities, since the passage of a Bill in the previous Session we have been able to develop the funding formula. Those parts of the country in which there are fewer GPs than the national average will receive additional growth in order to develop services in primary care. That may be to recruit more general practitioners, but it may also be to recruit more nurses who, if encouraged to do so, can take on major responsibilities within primary care.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, perhaps I may direct the Minister to the clear targets set by the Government for access to primary care. Does the Minister accept the judgment of Dr John Chisholm of the BMA that if sufficient money is not put into primary care and the

183
GP contract, primary care will crumble and general practice will collapse? Will he commit the Government to providing sufficient funding?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, those comments, if they are accurate, are somewhat overstated. Of course primary care is of great importance to the future development of the NHS. That is why primary care trusts have been formed and why, by 2004, 75 per cent of the entire NHS budget will be devolved to those trusts. It will then be for primary care trusts to decide where to invest their resources. They will be able to make decisions leading to greater investment in primary care. Indeed, if we return to the circumstances in Bradford, one reason why the trust wishes to reappraise its proposals for a large, acute hospital is the recognition that a greater investment in primary and community care may have a dramatic effect on the range of services that would need to be provided in a new hospital.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, my noble friend raised the question of a proven track record. What happens in a case where an amalgamation has taken place; that is, where two health authorities are brought together and one has performed well while the other has performed only reasonably well? How is the track record of such an amalgamation assessed?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have experience of that kind of case. Within the next few days we shall publish our latest performance ratings of NHS trusts. That will deal with the circumstances where two trusts have merged.
As regards foundation trusts and the criteria set for successful applicants to become foundation trusts, we shall take into account a whole host of factors. If one trust merged with another because it was thought that that could bring to the second trust a great deal of quality management, surely that would be a factor in determining whether the merged trust was a suitable candidate to become a foundation trust—if the overall performance of the two merged organisations showed improvements over a specified period.

Science Advisers
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hoyle Lord Hoyle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to increase awareness of the importance of science in the various government departments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government's paper, Investing in innovation: A Strategy for science, engineering and technology was published today. Not only does it give details of the increase in funding for the science budget from £2.1 billion this year to
184
£2.9 billion in 2005–06; it also sets out the measures we shall be taking to improve the way that government departments obtain and use research and scientific advice.
In the future, departments which use or commission a significant amount of scientific research will need to appoint a chief scientific adviser. Departments will also be required to cost their science and innovation strategies, which should include their knowledge transfer objectives, and to have policies covering the professional development and career progression of their practising scientists. In addition, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser will introduce a rolling programme of external scrutiny and benchmarking of the arrangements departments have in place for using science and managing research.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that detailed and informative reply. I welcome the proposal he has outlined. Can he describe in more detail what is the exact job description for the scientific advisers in each department?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I knew that it would be a mistake to keep my first response so short. Of course a number of major departments already have chief scientific advisers. We envisage their role very much as a part of the top management team. They bring a different perspective to senior management decisions and they direct departmental research programmes. Most important, they provide points of contact with the outside scientific community. Over recent years we have seen how vital is that kind of contact. Furthermore, we shall make it clear that the chief scientific advisers are to be in charge of the continuous professional development of the scientists within their departments.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, what are the Department for Education and Skills and the learning and skills councils doing to ensure that careers information teachers and advisers are sufficiently experienced and qualified to encourage more young people to take up careers in science and engineering? No doubt the noble Lord would expect me to say, "Girls as well as boys".
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, a series of programmes have that as their central role. It is also important to note that the new Council for Science and Technology has allowed us to embark on a process of rationalising all the information being published by institutes and other bodies so that the careers information being sent to schools is produced in a simple form that teachers can use, as opposed to the enormous amount of literature they currently receive which, according to our recent studies, is simply being thrown away. We are acting on that point through the Engineering and Technology Board.
The second programme I should mention is the science and engineering ambassadors schemes which seek to ensure that schoolchildren understand exactly what careers in science and technology are all about.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that science education in schools would be helped greatly if more teachers were teaching the subject because that was the one they had been trained to teach? Teachers are being asked to teach subjects for which they have not been trained.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree totally with the noble Baroness. It is of fundamental importance to education that those teaching the science subjects are appropriately qualified. It is a matter of great concern that, for example, a considerable number of people teaching physics in our schools do not have a qualification in the subject. That is a source of great worry.
This problem was addressed in the Roberts report. We are looking at increasing funding in the area to ensure that we recruit more scientists and technologists. However, we are recruiting in an area where people can take other jobs that are reasonably well paid. We are tackling the issue which, as I have said, was addressed both in the Roberts report and in the paper I referred to in my original Answer.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I welcome the reply given by the Minister to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. It is good that there will now be scientific advisers in more departments. What co-ordination will there be among those scientific advisers? Has the Chief Scientific Adviser in his own department—who has been called the Chief Government Scientist—had a degree of de facto responsibility for co-ordinating effort between departments? If so, will this continue?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Chief Scientific Adviser has a committee on which sit the chief scientists of each department or their representatives. That has been quite effective in co-ordinating certain issues. The whole purpose of these measures is to ensure greater quality control by the Chief Scientific Adviser of the work being carried out in government departments. That will be achieved in two ways. First, in future he will be involved in the appointment of the chief scientific officers in each department to ensure that there is proper quality control; and, secondly, as I mentioned, he will carry out a peer review of the science undertaken in each government department. He will have a considerable degree of ability to maintain quality within government departments.

NHS Patients: Treatment Overseas
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the extra cost to the National Health Service of treating patients abroad; and what will be the effect on the finances of National Health Service hospitals.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the cost of treating patients abroad will be met from existing local budgets. It is up to primary care trusts to commission treatment for their local populations within the resources that they have available.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can he say how many patients have been treated abroad so far and how many are expected to be treated abroad?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, so far as concerns the test-bed scheme, as it is described, 190 patients received treatment in France or Germany between January and April at a cost of around £1.1 million. We do not have figures or estimates for such treatment in the future. That will depend on local decision-making within the National Health Service. We are evaluating the impact of the first pilot scheme and we will make that information available to the NHS. I hope that that will then inform future decisions.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Government have prayed in aid commercial confidentiality when discussing the terms of these contracts with overseas providers. The outcome of the evaluation will be absolutely crucial. When will the results of the evaluation of the pilot schemes be available?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot give a precise date because it has not yet been decided. It is the case that there are issues of commercial confidentiality. I have disclosed that the total cost of the January to April scheme was about £1.1 million. I understand that the costs of specific procedures are comparable to the costs of purchasing procedures in the UK private sector.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, given the need for savings in the costs of bureaucracy, is my noble friend advising PCTs to open euro accounts for transactions of this kind with others in the euro-zone countries?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall be happy to pass on my noble friend's advice to the NHS. I am sure that it will be very glad to receive it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people—including myself—admire the Government for taking the difficult decision to have patients treated overseas? Can he explain how other countries succeed in running their health services in such a way that they can look after their own patients and have room enough to spare to look after others when we do not seem to be able to look after our own?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl should look no further than the record of his own government over 18 years, during which time there was consistent under-investment in the resources of the National Health Service. We have committed ourselves, over a five-year period, to raising the

187
amount of money spent on health in this country to 9.4 per cent of GDP. That will bring us up to roughly the level of spending in France. We will then be in a position to ensure that the targets we set will be met; that we will reduce waiting lists; and that we will have first-class services. In the mean time, it surely makes sense to use whatever capacity is available—whether in this country or abroad—to cut the amount of waiting that NHS patients have to deal with at the moment.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is legitimate for the more than 1 million people waiting for treatment to ask that the NHS spends its money wisely? Will he answer the simple question posed by my noble friend Lady Sharples? What is the extra cost of treating NHS patients abroad compared with treating them in the NHS?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thought I had answered that question. I said that the January to April pilot cost £1.1 million. I said also that the costs of specific procedures purchased abroad are comparable to the costs of purchasing procedures in the UK private sector. There are enormous variations in the costs of treatment in the National Health Service. It would be virtually impossible to give a two-line answer that out of those procedures some are worth more in relation to NHS costs. The noble Baroness was responsible for financial management in the NHS—she was a distinguished financial manager, if I may say so, for many years—and she will know that there are enormous variations in NHS costs. Of course we want to see value for money in using the private sector. We want to see comparability wherever commissioners purchase services—whether in the NHS or in the private sector—but, at the moment, it makes sense to use additional capacity to cut the number of people on waiting lists.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, the Minister said that the continental costs were comparable to the private sector costs in this country. Did the purchasing go out to tender to the private sector in this country?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the NHS is using the private sector in this country to a great extent. Indeed, according to data made available to the department by the Independent Healthcare Association, between April 2000 and March 2002, at least 73,000 day cases, out-patient appointments and in-patient treatments were carried out for NHS patients in the independent sector. We are using the independent sector in this country, but we will also use other providers where it is appropriate to do so.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, does the Minister agree that any money spent on ill patients is well spent? We know that there have been years of
188
neglect which have caused the NHS almost to pack up. We should all be pleased for patients who are having their hip operations abroad at whatever cost.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend has put the matter very well.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, bearing in mind the question directed to the Minister by my noble friend Lord McColl, did the purchasing go out to tender?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the NHS is using the independent sector and is reaching agreement around the country. Many different contracts have been agreed between the NHS and the independent private healthcare sector in this country. I have described a pilot scheme under which agreements have been reached with hospitals in France and Germany to provide even more capacity in addition to that being bought from the independent private care sector in this country. So the question of tendering simply does not arise.

Passive Smoking
3 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to protect employees from the effects of passive smoking at work, and children from the effects of passive smoking at home and in public places.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, passive smoking over a prolonged period is dangerous. We are taking action to ensure that smokers are aware of the dangerous effects that their habit has on those around them. The public places charter is encouraging the provision of smoke-free places to eat and drink, and local tobacco alliances are being specifically funded to develop projects tackling passive smoking.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. He will be aware that the Government's own scientific committee on tobacco and health has now concluded that passive smoking is a cause of cancer, heart disease and respiratory illness; and that American physicians now have an obligation to warn non-smokers against exposure to second-hand smoke. So does my noble friend appreciate that the lack of progress in introducing the approved code of practice on passive smoking at work proposed by the HSC almost two years ago—and indeed supported by my noble friend's department in the White Paper, Smoking Kills, four years ago—is most disappointing? Does my noble friend accept that children need to be protected, and that it is unacceptable for parents to take them into designated smoking areas such as those in airport lounges?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is an issue in regard to parental responsibility. Judgments

189
have to be made by parents, just as we should encourage the provision of non-smoking areas as much as possible. As regards the approved code of practice, we are giving careful consideration to the commission's proposals. As part of that careful consideration, we have asked the Health and Safety Commission to consider the implications of the code on the hospitality sector and on small businesses generally. We shall be considering what further advice the commission gives us.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the reply he has just given is identical to the one he gave in February 2001? Clearly, there has been no progress since the matter was last debated in this House. Perhaps I may invite the Minister to accept the statement of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It invites the Government to make smoke-free areas the absolute norm in enclosed places to which the public have access. Is that any more to the Minister's taste?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am glad that I am consistent in my responses to this House. I have said that we take this matter very seriously. That is why the Health and Safety Commission has consulted on its approved code of practice. It is why the Government are giving consideration to it, and why we have asked the commission to do further work, looking at the impact of such a code of practice on small businesses. Surely that is an appropriate and proportionate way to proceed. Of course I understand the importance of such a code of practice. But we must also bear in mind the potential impact of such a code on business generally and on small businesses in particular. I do not believe that it is wrong for the Government to say to the Health and Safety Commission that we want it to look very carefully at the likely impact on small businesses.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are now proven strong links between passive smoking and childhood asthma? What further advice can the Government give to parents to alert them to this great danger to their children? Will my noble friend further agree that, despite all the advice given on passive smoking, we ought to be moving towards a total ban on smoking on all forms of public transport?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have to be wary of legislating for bans in this area. Our focus needs to be on health promotion and health education. I agree with the substance of my noble friend's point about asthma attacks in children. That is one of the issues that we should seek to take forward in any future education campaigns.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, endless no-smoking areas seem to be provided now, and hardly
190
any smoking areas. Poor smokers! Why do people who have given up smoking have to be quite so nasty to those who have not?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not a health fascist. It is entirely appropriate that smoking and non-smoking environments are provided. We should not seek to demonise smokers. We should seek to encourage them to give up smoking if they wish to do so. We need a proportionate response. The smoking cessation services on which we have embarked have had great success in helping those who have given up smoking to continue the good work.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, how long will it be before we get any action on this issue? Four years ago there was a report; two years ago there was a code of conduct; and we are still consulting and wanting to know about a proportionate response—and people are dying of lung cancer.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness a date, but I can tell her that we are continuing to give this matter very great consideration. It is important that the Health and Safety Commission gives us further advice on the potential impact on small businesses, and that we should await that advice before making any further decisions.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, in my noble friend's original Answer, he said that passive smoking can be dangerous over long periods. Being asthmatic, I know that it can be dangerous over very short periods. Does my noble friend agree that although many places have no-smoking areas, drifting smoke from smoking areas can frequently be present?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree. That is why we encourage businesses and those who run public buildings to ensure that there are proper non-smoking areas. We all know that it can be uncomfortable in a restaurant when smoke wafts over to the non-smoking area. That is the reason why we must consider carefully the impact of the code on small businesses and the measures that they would have to take to avoid that.

Public Services (Disruption) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Export Control Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons be now considered.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 20 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
Where export controls apply to goods which are within one or more of the categories mentioned in paragraph 1(1) of the Schedule, the guidance issued under section (Guidance about the exercise of functions under control orders) shall have regard to their issues relating to sustainable development and to any possible consequences of the goods being controlled that are of a kind, mentioned in the Table in paragraph 3 of the Schedule:",
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason—
1A Because it is inappropriate to make provision in Clause 1 about the contents of guidance under Clause 7 and Lords Amendment No. 17 (as amended by the Commons) makes more appropriate provision.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.
Lords Amendment No. 1 inserted text relating to guidance in Clause 1. I hope that, on reflection, the House will be prepared to agree, as the Commons reason explains, that it is indeed inappropriate to make provision on the contents of guidance in Clause 1 rather than in the clause which actually relates to guidance about the exercise of functions under control orders. I hope also that the House will agree with the Commons that more appropriate provision is indeed made in Amendment No. 17, as amended by Amendment No. 17A. For all these reasons, I hope that the House will agree not to insist on their Amendment No. 1.
As the issues raised are so similar, I propose also to address Lords Amendment No. 17 and Amendments Nos. 17A and 17B.
As the House will be aware, the Commons agreed to Lords Amendment No. 17, but with the proviso that the earlier Liberal Democrat amendment, represented by the first seven lines of subsection (4) as it appears on the Marshalled List, be deleted and replaced with the words,
"The guidance required by subsection (3) must include guidance about the consideration (if any) to be given".
Your Lordships will remember that the text I have just read out is that originally proposed by the Government in this House. Under Amendment No. 17B, the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Joffe, have suggested that the Government consider replacing the earlier Liberal Democrat amendment with a slightly different text, namely that:
"The guidance required by subsection (3) must state that consideration shall be given, so far as relevant".
In considering Amendment No. 17B, I should like first to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and to my noble friends and colleagues for their courtesy in meeting me last week to discuss this amendment. I hope that it was a productive meeting.
192
At that meeting, I explained that I was most grateful for the care that had been taken to address the concerns we had with the earlier Liberal Democrat amendment. I also added that I entirely sympathised if some found it hard to understand why we were unable to support their amendment. I consider that this latter point—the need for all to understand the Government's reasoning—makes it all the more important for me to explain clearly exactly why it is that we are unable to agree.
I hope that when I have outlined the damaging, and I am sure unforeseen, consequences of Amendment No. 17B, all will agree with me that the House should not support it. I also hope that, in the course of my speech, I will be able to provide sufficient reassurance about the effect of government Amendment No. 17A to enable the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Joffe, to withdraw their Amendment No. 17B and join the rest of the House in agreeing with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17A to Amendment No. 17.
Amendment No. 17B goes a long way to addressing one of the concerns that the Government have already expressed on several occasions. This was that amendments to the Bill might force the Government into a situation where departments were obliged to give some consideration to issues of sustainable development, and all the issues in the schedule table, whether or not they were remotely relevant to a particular case. However, those who have read Hansard for the most recent debate on the Bill in the other place, on 24th June, will be aware that this was not our only concern about the earlier Liberal Democrat amendment, and indeed that this same serious concern extends to the new proposal before us today. If I may I shall explain in detail why that is the case.
Under the Government's proposed amendment, the Bill imposes a duty to have regard when exercising licensing powers to the consolidated national and EU criteria. Unfortunately, Amendment No. 17B has the effect of establishing a new and, in certain important respects incompatible, duty to have regard to issues as described in the amendment.
Under the Government's proposed Amendment No. 17A, the subsection (5) duty to have regard to the guidance addressing the issues set out in subsection (4)(i) and (ii) is informed by the reference in subsection (8) to the consolidated criteria. Indeed, were there ever any uncertainty about our intentions in this regard, review of proceedings of the passage of this Bill in Hansard for the past few months should put the matter beyond doubt. However, the terms of Amendment No. 17B, which says that,
"the guidance…must state that consideration shall be given, so far as relevant to",
actually set up a separate duty. As this would be a primary legislative requirement, it would have the capacity to take precedence over the consolidated criteria and EU code. Thus this duty would conflict with the Government's existing commitment, given to Parliament and to our European partners, to consider strategic export licence applications against the consolidated criteria.

193
As anyone who has examined the consolidated criteria will know, the criteria contain a wealth of detail, setting out the various and sometimes conflicting considerations that must all be taken into account. The terms of the new duty that would be laid upon the Government by Amendment No. 17B would have no such detail, nor would it acknowledge the possibility that considerations might conflict or that risks might vary in magnitude. Thus, such a duty has the potential to require us to take a different approach to licensing decisions within the UK from that taken by the rest of the EU and to require the Government to take licensing decisions against criteria that were different from those in the EU code of conduct. It is even conceivable that in the future this duty might make it impossible for the UK to subscribe to the EU code. This cannot be right.
Moreover, under the Government's proposed amendment, the subsection (5) duty to have regard to the guidance which addresses sustainable development and the schedule table issues is informed by the reference to the consolidated criteria in subsection (8) of this clause. The creation of this new and different duty puts this link with the criteria at a distance, with the result that the definition of all the schedule table issues and sustainable development is no longer informed by the definitions in the criteria.
The proposed amendment would require the Government to give consideration so far as relevant to "issues of sustainable development"—no more and no less. Relevant issues of sustainable development in this context would extend way beyond the terms of criterion 8. For example, it might encompass issues relating to environmental, animal and plant preservation and protection. To extend the application of this term in such a way would put us completely out of step with our European partners, and would create considerable uncertainty for all operating under the export licensing regime, not to speak of putting UK industry at a competitive disadvantage in world trade.
I hope that this explanation has given the House some indication of why Amendment No. 17B, however well intentioned, would have inappropriate and damaging consequences. However, before I in due course ask the House to join me in inviting the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Joffe, to withdraw their amendment, I shall try to give some reassurance about the effects of government Amendment No. 17A.
I should first set the amendment in context. Noble Lords will remember that we acted several months ago to strengthen significantly the role played by guidance and the consolidated criteria under the Bill, by making it a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers and by stating that the consolidated criteria constitute such guidance on general principles. The Bill thus makes clear the prominent role that the Government intend the consolidated criteria to have. It is also clear that the Government intend it to be a requirement for all future governments to issue guidance on how they propose to consider sustainable development and all relevant consequences listed in the schedule when
194
exercising their licensing powers. The only way to change this requirement would be by primary legislation.
I know that many have been concerned that: the words in Amendment No. 17A, "if any", might allow a future government simply to decide to ignore important issues such as sustainable development when considering export licence applications. However, this is not the case. Under the Government's original proposal, now represented by Amendment No. 17A, it would not be possible for a future government simply to decide to ignore sustainable development or any of the schedule table issues by saying, "We have considered sustainable development and concluded that it has no place in the consideration of any export licences". I can assure the House that that would not meet the requirements of the clause proposed by the Government.
All governments need to be able to take justifiable decisions—I deliberately emphasise the word justifiable here—that there is no need for sustainable development or indeed any of the other schedule consequences to be considered in certain specific cases. However, when exercising licensing powers in accordance with general principles guidance issued under this clause, this ability to take such justifiable decisions would not extend to ignoring relevant information.
I would remind the House that it is a basic principle of government that when taking a decision, Ministers must always take into account all relevant information. I mention this now because it has been put to me that the fear is that a future government might see government Amendment No. 17A as a means to avoid taking relevant information into account. A Minister who fails to take relevant information into account when reaching a decision risks opening him or herself up to judicial review for having taken an improper decision.
It is clear to me that we all share the same goal—to ensure that future governments cannot simply choose to ignore issues such as sustainable development, human rights and all the other issues set out in the table in the schedule. Therefore, in the light of the assurances I have just given, and a clear statement that it is my and the Government's belief that government Amendment No. 17A would not allow future governments simply to ignore these important issues, I hope that the House will agree with the Government.
For all these reasons, I ask the House not to insist on its Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A. In due course, I shall also be asking the noble Lords in whose name Amendment No. 17B stands to agree to withdraw their amendment. Finally, I shall also be asking the House to achieve our common goal and avoid these unnecessary and damaging effects by begging to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17A to Lords Amendment No. 17.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 17B tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 17A.
I have listened carefully to the Minister's courteous and detailed response but remain unconvinced about the additional duty that would be placed on the Government. I shall touch on that matter later.
The purpose of Amendment No. 17B is to ensure that the Government are obliged in practice to give consideration to the possible impact upon sustainable development when making export control decisions. The Government assure us that they have every intention of doing that but refuse to commit themselves unreservedly to do that in the Bill. Instead, they have introduced the weasel words "if any" which sound so innocuous but which appear to give the Government discretion to exclude virtually whatever they wish from the guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State. I emphasise here that I accept that the Government cannot totally disregard sustainable development but the ability to define at their discretion when they will exercise the right to disregard it is fundamental to the case for the amendment.
It is difficult to envisage how the Government will produce meaningful guidance on general principles on an "if any" basis unless they include with the general guidance a description of the types of transaction in respect of which sustainable development would not be a consideration. If I am mistaken in arriving at that conclusion, I hope that the Minister will in his response outline precisely how the Government propose to give guidance on an "if any" basis. It would seem that under the proposed government amendment the Secretary of State would be free to provide guidance that sustainable development should be excluded from consideration where, for example, an overpriced air traffic control system was being sold to an impoverished country. Does the Minister agree that the Secretary of State would have the power to do that?
One of the hallmarks of this otherwise excellent Bill is what I would categorise as government spin ingrained in legislation. The Government purport to include sustainable development as a consideration but then introduce the words "if any" which substantially negate that effect. Likewise, as regards the extraterritorial trafficking of arms the Government purport to criminalise that activity on the part of UK citizens but then provide a loophole under which they can lawfully traffic outside the United Kingdom.
The Minister has argued that there is concern about the definition of "sustainable development" that would lead to the Government having to issue guidance on a number of different areas that went
196
beyond the European Union code. But does he not accept that the whole point of a guidance section is that the Government should set out clearly what the definition is and issue guidance about what is and is not relevant?
In the other place Nigel Griffiths argued that the original Lords amendment was inconsistent with the European Union code of conduct on arms exports and that that made it impossible for the United Kingdom to abide by the code. The Minister developed that argument earlier in the debate. In fact, there is nothing at all in the proposed amendment which conflicts with the European Union code. Legal advice taken from Matrix Chambers confirms that. Will the Minister draw the House's attention to the conflicts that he fears would arise under the amendment? The preamble to the European Union code is clear. It is determined to set high common standards which should be regarded as the minimum for the management and restraining of conventional arms transfers by all member states. It is clear that those are minimum standards. There is no reason at all why the Government should not extend their provision to cover items which are not inconsistent with the European code but sympathetic to it.
The Government's other concern about removing the words "if any" was their need for flexibility. That concern is also misplaced. It must be remembered that what we are concerned with in this amendment is guidance. All that is required is that the Secretary of State pay due regard to the guidance. If sustainable development is not an important consideration, the guidance could state that little or no weight needs to be placed on it.
Overall, it is difficult to find any credible reasons for the Government not to accept the Lords amendment. However, Amendment No. 17B is proposed in a spirit of compromise and is carefully drafted to meet the flexibility concerns expressed by the Minister on Report. In col. 1101 he said that,
"the Government need to be able to take common-sense decisions and to reach a judgment when taking export licensing decisions that particular considerations are simply not relevant in certain cases and situations".—[Official Report, 18/04/02; col. 1101.]
That is precisely what the amendment seeks to achieve. It is carefully crafted to include the Minister's wording with regard to relevance. In the amendment "if any" has been replaced by "so far as relevant".
Legal opinion from Matrix Chambers advises that the phrase "so far as relevant" still provides the Government with some flexibility, giving them the option of not considering sustainable development and the relevant consequences in cases where it is clearly not relevant, such as an uncontroversial single shipment of arms to, say, the USA or Canada. However, it does not allow the Government to ignore sustainable development and the relevant consequences where they are relevant. The result would be that where sustainable development is relevant it must be considered but where it is not relevant the Government do not have to consider it, which, I understand, is exactly what the Government wish.

197
In making the case for the amendment I have focused on the effect of the words "if any" on sustainable development. In point of fact, the government amendment extends well beyond that. It applies by virtue of subsection (4)(ii) to all the other relevant consequences included in the table in paragraph 3 of the schedule such as adverse effects on peace, security, internal repression and breaches of human rights. It enables the Secretary of State to give guidance that all or any of those matters should be ignored in certain circumstances as defined by the Secretary of State. That absolute right of the Secretary of State to define the circumstances in which he may simply disregard those issues has the potential to undermine many of the purposes of this excellent Bill. This amendment would limit the Secretary of State's right to disregard those issues to cases where they are irrelevant and do not need to be taken into account. It in no way contradicts the Government's intentions as expressed from time to time.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 17B to which I have added my name. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, will consider pressing the amendment as he has worked extremely hard on it to make it acceptable to the whole House. He has in particular addressed the concerns raised by the Conservative Front Bench at the previous stage of the Bill.
The issue that is at stake is the wording "if any". I hope that the Minister does not mind my saying that I consider that that is an appalling piece of drafting which is wide in its scope. Those two words enclosed by brackets cause much disquiet.
The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, rehearsed the arguments comprehensively—including on issues affecting the air traffic control system in Tanzania. Organisations such as the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, when considering grants, view the absence of sustainable development as a had deal—so one wonders why the Government went ahead. That decision places question marks over whether there should be a much stronger push for the expression "sustainable development".
The Minister mentioned the European Union code of conduct but that leads to minimum criteria. Considering the excellent work done by the DfID in pushing hard for sustainable development and its incorporation into almost every aspect of policy, the Government could have used the opportunity to give a definition of "sustainable development" in the Bill.
The noble Lord mentioned many of the legal points and the opinion given by Matrix Chambers, which I will not repeat. The Minister said that the amendment will not meet with favour this evening but I hope that the Government will examine increasing the role of sustainable development in future.
When will the Government publish their internal review of the application of criterion 8 to export licensing? That will have some impact on the Minister's assertions.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I too am concerned with Amendments Nos. 17A and 17B. I understand the problems that government Amendment No. 17A seeks to address but the primacy of sustainable development in any dealings with the developing world is a very serious matter. I am not sure that the Bill as amended by the Government takes full enough account of that. Amendment No. 17B of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, certainly does—while leaving the Government with flexibility.
My noble friend the Minister maintains that the government amendment makes it impossible to wriggle out of taking proper account of sustainable development. I hope that he will clarify that specifically.
Lingering doubts—I express my thanks to a DTI official, Jane Whewell, for her help in trying to allay them—are felt by many experts and pressure groups, as well as by noble Lords. I ask my noble friend to fulfil his undertaking in Committee on 4th March, to which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred, to review criterion 8 dealing with sustainable development.
Will my noble friend say when that review will be completed? Will it be published—and will it, in the process, make the standards for judging the sustainable development impact of an export licence identical with those of the Export Credits Guarantee Department so that there will be truly joined-up government in this most important area? Among other things, that would obviate snarl-ups such as the BAe contract with Tanzania.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned that these Benches supported sustainable development at an earlier stage, it is only right that I should explain our current position.
The Minister spoke about the need to strike a balance. My colleagues in another place have reached the conclusion that government Amendment No. 17A to the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Redesdale, has taken the Government a long way. Given that the Government will always take sustainable development into account, we would not oppose Amendment No. 17A. While we accept that both noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, feel strongly about the matter, we believe that the Government will deal with it in an appropriate and balanced way.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Oxfam Association and a trustee of Saferworld—two organisations that have taken a close interest in the Bill's subject matter.
Amendment No. 17B must be taken particularly seriously in light of the Government's recent decision to change the criteria in relation to the delicensing of component parts for F16s destined for Israel. On 8th July my right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announced changes to the guidance on the sale of arms

199
components that are incorporated in larger arms systems. Although the status of the consolidated criteria is deemed to be unchanged, five other criteria will also be considered. That disturbing precedent creates a contradiction at the heart of UK policy whereby the export of arms systems from the United Kingdom must be examined carefully against ethical principles enshrined in the consolidated criteria. At the same time, a new fast-track approach is to be taken to UK arms components.
The amendment is concerned with strengthening the Bills guidance section, which is crucial in light of recent developments. My right honourable friend recently defended the decision to change the guidance on the basis of the importance of UK links to the United States and the defence industry, rather than on the basis of the consolidated criteria. That is worrying. I am concerned that despite government assurances that the new Bill will contain tough new provisions to ensure that British arms do not contribute to internal aggression or undermine regional stability and sustainable development, the Secretary of State can issue new guidance that changes licence decision-making as and when that Minister sees fit.
The Government have assured the House that the inclusion of the words "if any" would not allow the current or a future government to issue guidance that would ignore sustainable development. The Government argue that public pressure and the media would prevent future governments making any change that would weaken the role of sustainable development or any other consequences in the schedule—but the new guidance issued by my right honourable friend does precisely that, so I am concerned about the extent to which we can accept the Government's assurances. We have clearly seen that guidance can be rewritten and refocused at will to reflect changing priorities.
The Government have frequently argued that the European Union code of conduct has light and shade aspects and is open to interpretation. It is precisely the need for clarity that makes the amendment so crucial. Clause 1 is about guidance. Government claims about a need for total flexibility are unfounded. Guidance, by its very nature, is fluid. Surely any of the Government's concerns—be they about definition or policy—can be put before Parliament.
Notwithstanding many important debates on the Bill, many key decisions can still be taken without clear consultation with Parliament. The Bill states that guidance can be published in such a manner as the Secretary of State sees fit. In response to previously proposed amendments to ensure that any guidance is published as soon as possible or after consulting Parliament, the House has repeatedly been assured that such amendments are unnecessary. The Government have made great play of their commitment to consultation. We were told that they would always issue guidance immediately it was decided, as licensing decisions based on unpublished
200
guidance would be open to legal challenge. Yet the timing of the Foreign Secretary's surprise statement on 8th July, in which he set out how the Government,
"will in future approach licence applications for goods where it is understood that the goods are to be incorporated into products for onward export",
raises serious questions about timing. In the same statement, the Foreign Secretary explained that the Government had considered against this background,
"its response to a number of applications for the export of parts, subsystems and components to the USA for incorporation into equipment eventually destined for other countries. These include Head Up Display units (HUDs) for incorporation in F-16 aircraft scheduled for delivery to Israel in 2003".—[official Report, Commons, 8/7/02; col. 651W.]
Clearly, that consideration—and, at least in the case of the components for the F-16s, the decision to issue a licence—took that new guidance into account before it was published. Indeed, if we are to believe some reports, the decision about the F-16 was taken some time ago. If that is the case, the implications involving the Government's earlier reassurances regarding extensive consultation and timely information bear some scrutiny.
Finally, the Minister referred—we do nothing but applaud his personal good will and commitment to all of these issues—to potential conflicts with the European Union. Has he seen the advice given by Matrix Chambers earlier this month? The advice was:
"The government's assertion that wording such as that suggested…would conflict with its international legal obligations and EU law is incorrect. If there are overriding considerations such as an international or European obligation, then this is a valid reason for deciding to comply with them and for disregarding the UK guidance. There is no conflict".
I believe that the matters raised by the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Redesdale, are very important. I am sorry that the Minister did not choose to listen to their arguments before giving such an absolute reply. He replied to the debate before he had listened to it, which was unfortunate. I hope that when he replies, he will take up more fully some of the very serious matters that have been raised.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, too, support my noble friend's Amendment No. 17B, which we thought offered a reasonable compromise through the use of the phrase, "so far as relevant", although the previous proposed phrase—"regard shall be had"—seemed adequate.
While the Minister is listening to our niceties of phrase, other sections of government are pushing this Bill ahead despite considerable public concern about the use of British equipment in Tanzania, Sudan and other countries and territories in which sustainable development could be ignored. Now we have the additional consolidated criteria which were introduced on 8th July, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. The NGOs, working with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, who have had to suffer the direct impact of Israeli F-16s and the subsequent damage to life and property, have been astonished, as are their many supporters in this country, at this Government's ability, as the noble

201
Lord said, to ignore human rights and sustainable development and to publish the changes without consultation. On such occasions, one wonders about our right as a nation to pontificate on good governance in Africa and elsewhere when our own executive appears to have the freedom of action to escape parliamentary scrutiny and introduce new criteria that merely reaffirm partnership with our Atlantic allies.
The Foreign Secretary's statement contained the phrase:
"The Government continues to be seriously concerned about the situation in the Occupied Territories".—[Official Report, Commons; 8/7/02, col. 651W.]
That looks a little lame alongside our statements of faith in the Atlantic alliance. I do not see how the Government can reconcile the two. The Minister's use just now of the words, "justifiable decision", does not help me and I doubt whether it helps other noble Lords. The underlying question for me is: to what extent are we, and the principles relating to export control, being held to ransom by our relationship with the United States?
Meanwhile, I welcome the Minister's statement that there is a need for clearer procedures within Whitehall for reaching decisions where sustainable development is an issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, we look forward to the review of criterion 8 in the guidance. I strongly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, that in keeping close to the international criteria, we should also be aware of and follow the stronger ECGD statement of business principles to ensure consistency in policy. I hope that the Minister will confirm that.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the extent of the discretion currently allowed in the interpretation of the criteria. When some of us were students, we learned how a bold statement could die the death of a thousand qualifications. I fear that a bold statement about guidance on sustainable development could die a similar death. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, is therefore preferable because it imposes a clear and inescapable duty.
I say to the Minister that the arrangement gives to the Government proper discretion, freedom and flexibility because of the phrase, "so far as relevant". I find it very difficult to understand why the Government cannot agree to Amendment No. 17B.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I again bring to the attention of the Minister the degree of concern felt on these Benches about the proper combination in such a Bill of national interest and of a moral commitment to sustainable development, especially in the developing world. There are those on these Benches who wish to be reassured, if there is a Division on the amendments, about the way in which the Government would seek to apply the Bill, once it has been enacted, and the guidance under it.
202
I have four questions for the Minister. It would greatly assist the House if the Minister answered them, as usual, in his clear and constructive way. First, is Amendment No. 17A to be read so as to endow the Minister with a discretion that is absolute? I f not, what are the qualifications?
Secondly, what is the source of the Government's present criteria for determining issues involving sustainable development in relation to export control licences? Where do we look for it? The clarity of the Foreign Secretary's statement in July clearly set out issues of national interest that would properly play their part in the making of a decision but it said nothing about the relevance, if any, of sustainable development to those criteria. In addition, the Bill—and the guidance, about which we know nothing as yet—says nothing about any criteria. Are we on these Benches to look to the European code of conduct, to a government paper produced on a previous occasion or to some other statement? If that could be provided today, it would be helpful and it would reassure us that there are criteria that the Government would apply in maintaining the balance between national interest and the needs of sustainable development.
Thirdly, will the Government consult on the guidance that they propose to publish so that those who are interested can play their part in making suggestions about what it should contain?
Lastly, if the Government say that the Bill is clear and that any public concern is met by the opportunity for the public to exert pressure in an appropriate case, how will the public know about such a case? Does the Government's approach that public pressure will play a balancing role implicitly mean that the Government will make public those cases in which they have had to make a decision or are about to make a decision which balances national interest considerations and those involving sustainable development? If it does mean that, could that be made explicit?
Answers to those questions, as best can be given today, would reassure us on these Benches that, whatever the terminology of this Bill—Amendment No. 17A smacks more of an author such as Kafka than any declaration of rights in this field—the Government's intention, which they would be prepared to carry out, would satisfy the public that when the Government make decisions, they will take into account the needs of sustainable development, where they are relevant, and give effect to them if the factors involved justify it.
My noble friend should not be misled by the fact that although this is a non-political question, those on the Opposition Benches confidently expect an appropriate and balanced approach by the Government. So do we, but we would like considerably more particulars than the other side asked for, in the way in which I have just put them.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, perhaps I may echo the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in relation to Kafka. I find it absolutely extraordinary that for the past 42 minutes we have been debating an

203
issue in respect of which, so far as I am aware, no noble Lord is not in favour of the proposition that the Government should take into account sustainable development in their export criteria. That seems to be common ground between us all; yet we are again debating two small words and five small letters—"if any".
My noble friends and I have thought long and hard about whether the Government are being devious here. I have to conclude that they are not. We can therefore conclude only that this is a problem with the lawyers. On many occasions in this House—I say this as a former lawyer, and I am not looking at the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, at this point—we have had considerable sympathy with Jack Cade in the peasants' revolt, who indicated that when they arrived in London they would first kill all the lawyers. I believe that in this situation the Government have impaled themselves on their own legal advice.
As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has indicated, one of the problems for the Government is that the umbrella organisation, the UK working group on arms, instead of simply accepting the legal advice that the Minister has been given, obtained their own legal advice stage by stage, step by step, as the Bill went through Committee, Report stage and Third Reading, until its arrival with your Lordships today.
The nub of the Government's argument during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House and through the House of Commons was that without the use of the words "if any", the Government would not in a relevant case be able to consider issues relating to sustainable development; or rather that where issues of sustainable development were not relevant, if the words "if any" were removed, the guidance would have to require them to consider issues relating to sustainable development where it was not relevant. We accepted that.
The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, and my noble friend Lord Redesdale tabled an amendment that provided for consideration of sustainable development where it was relevant. So we accepted the Government's statement on relevance. We understood the point of the words "if any", and my noble friend's amendment dealt with the Government's concern.
When the matter returned to the House of Commons, the Government raised the point about compatibility with European Union law. That was an entirely new point, which had not been raised in your Lordships' House. I do not need to rehearse the arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, replied very succinctly and adequately to the point and to the advice that had been obtained by the UK working group on arms; namely, that the European Union criteria would override any British criteria, were that to become a problem.
I fear that the Government will not move on this point. As I have said, they have clearly impaled themselves on their own legal advice. If they do not intend to move on it, I believe that the Minister should give a significant assurance in Hansard for future
204
generations. The argument made from our side and from the Labour Benches is that the inclusion in this clause of the words "if any" means that a Secretary of State, if so minded, would be entitled to issue guidance stating that no consideration is to be given to any of the issues set out in the clause, including sustainable development.
If that is not the case, and if it is not the case that it would be impossible to challenge any such guidance on the grounds that it was ultra vires, which seems to be the Government's case, it would help those of us who believe that the legal advice the Government are receiving is wrong if the Minister could confirm that in his view no one could argue that it was an ultra vires deception. If the Minister could give us that clear undertaking, it would go a long way towards removing many of the concerns that noble Lords on all sides of the House have about those two small words, "if any".
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I gave a very long initial answer because during the course of our consideration of the Bill we had already looked at the question of whether we could solve this problem by the use of the word "relevant" and had decided that we could not.
I begin by answering the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. I have set out in great detail the reasons why we feel that Amendment No. 17B has unforeseen and damaging consequences and why it conflicts with the EU position. It would not be sensible to repeat that detail. It is on the record. The legal advice that we have received is quite clear.
The noble Lord also asked how the Government propose to issue guidance on the term "sustainable development" and speculated about that. There is no need for such speculation. We have already made it clear that the guidance on general principles of sustainable development which we intend to publish is that of criterion 8 of the EU code.
I had hoped that I had reassured the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, about what we still believe this clause provides. There is no need to repeat it. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, asked for a clear statement for Hansard. For that very reason, I gave a very carefully considered statement of my view of the legal position to reassure people in the future about what the Government believe this clause does.
The noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Joffe, raised the question of the air control system in Tanzania. There will be no decision where there is not a question that the Secretary of State has to make a judgment on these issues. But that is not the issue that the House needs to confront in considering this amendment.
Under the Government's proposed amendment, the subsection (5) duty to have regard to the guidance, which addresses sustainable development, and the schedule table issues is informed by the reference to the consolidated criteria in subsection (8) of this clause. Lords Amendments Nos. 17 and 17B, however, both set up a separate duty which has the capacity to take precedence over the consolidated criteria and the EU

205
code and thus conflicts with the Government's existing commitment given to Parliament and to our European partners to consider strategic export licence applications against the consolidated criteria.
We have to decide today which of those approaches is the right one. I urge the House to take a balanced view, based on the merits of the proposals before it, and agree not to insist on amendments which have the capacity to take precedence over and conflict with the consolidated criteria, but instead to agree with the Government's Amendment No. 17A, which ensures that the subsection (5) duty to have regard continues to be informed by reference to the consolidated criteria in subsection (8) of the clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, raised the question of inter-departmental discussions on criterion 8 review. I was pleased to announce on 4th March this year that the Cabinet Office was leading a discussion on how criterion 8 of the consolidated criteria—the sustainable development criteria—can most effectively be applied in assessing relevant export licence applications. Although I have not been involved in those discussions, I understand that the Government hope to make an announcement of their results as soon as possible.
As I said, I have not been involved in those discussions, but I want to make one point clear. I understand that the discussions involved all government departments with an interest and addressed the need for clearer procedures for reaching decisions where sustainable development is an issue rather than changing policy with regard to criterion 8 of the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. I want to make that clear so that there is no misunderstanding on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised the issue of the incorporation statement. The most important point about that statement is that it very clearly demonstrates a point which we have made on a number of occasions during this debate; that is, that issues can arise where the consolidated criteria do not provide specific guidance on the approach to be adopted. It is right and proper that the Government issue guidance in such cases, and that will remain true in the future.
One might ask why the issue of the incorporation of parts into larger armaments has not been raised previously. The fact is that it has not been raised by any political party inside or outside Parliament. Clearly with a new situation such as that, it is necessary to produce new guidance to cover the point.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? I am very grateful to him for dealing with this point, but there is another matter with which he has not dealt. What is worrying is that it is clear that the Secretary of State may suddenly move the goalposts without telling anyone that he is proposing to do so and without providing an opportunity for consultation.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this was clearly a case where a decision had to be arrived at in
206
the light of a totally new situation. In those circumstances, it is right and proper that the Government give clear guidance on the basis of which they will take decisions.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, on that matter, would this not have been a classic case for putting before the defence exports scrutiny committee that we have struggled so hard to bring about under this legislation and which to date the Government have refused to set up?
4 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that question, which concerns a proposal that we have debated in this House and which has many difficulties attached to it, is probably the type of question on which such a committee could have been asked to give its view. Nevertheless, those decisions had to be taken and some guidance had to be given at that moment.
I turn to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. I believe that his first question concerned the issue of absolute action. As I explained earlier, Amendment No. 17A needs to be seen in context. It does not stand in isolation and should be seen in the context of the rest of the clause, which refers to the consolidated criteria, and, indeed, in the context of the proceedings of the passage of the Bill, as reported in Hansard. Under the Bill, it would not be possible—I have made this point previously—to choose to ignore issues such as human rights and the other issues listed in the schedule.
The noble Lord asked what was the basis of the guidance. It is clearly the EU criteria. In fact, we shall not consult on the EU criteria because they are the criteria and there is no point in consulting on them. The noble Lord also asked about individual decisions. We do not ever comment on individual decisions in a case such as this.
I hope that I have set out the Government's position and explained why we cannot accept Amendment No. 17B—that is, because it produces damaging and unforeseen consequences. I hope also that I have dealt clearly with the question of reassurance for the record in Hansard, and that noble Lords will be reassured by that.
I ask the House not to insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 2, page 1, line 19, at beginning insert "Subject to the provisions of section (Academic Freedom),"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
3A Because Lords Amendment No. 16 makes more appropriate provision.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason

207
numbered 3A. In moving this Motion, I shall speak also to the amendments and reasons numbered 4, 4A, 6, 6A, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 13 and 13A, which all deal with the issue of academic freedom.
In the course of debate in this House and elsewhere on the impact of the Bill on academic freedom, it has become clear that government, opposition parties and the representative bodies of the universities essentially share the same objectives. Those are to find a way of providing protections that would prevent a government in future using the powers in the Bill to damage academic freedoms while, at the same time, ensuring that the Bill provides the Government with the powers that they need for an effective and up-to-date export control regime.
The debate has been about how best to achieve a proper balance between those two objectives. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, expressed it in debate on Report,
"the most interesting and difficult parliamentary conflicts are those which are between right and right".—[Official Report, 18/4/02; col. 1118.]
The Government and others have been concerned that amendments introduced by the Opposition created, if unintentionally, damaging loopholes in the Bill. But others have been concerned that the new clause introduced by the Government on Report did not go far enough in protecting academic freedoms.
Against that background, I am pleased to say that Amendments Nos. 10B and 10C proposed in lieu of Amendment No. 10 have been prepared in discussion with the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Roper. I am grateful for the constructive approach that all have taken in trying to achieve our shared goal. In particular, I acknowledge the pivotal role of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in obtaining agreement on our text with which both Opposition parties, Universities UK and the Government are content.
The House will recall that on Report both the Government and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, proposed new clauses that sought to provide reassurance that the Bill could not be used by a future government in a way that damaged important academic freedoms. The House accepted both clauses. The new clause that I have tabled will take the place of both those clauses. Technically, it replaces the Government's clause but it is offered in lieu of the clause introduced by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, as well.
Following the extensive debates that we had in this House both on Report and at Third Reading, we reflected further on the issues raised and concluded that there were two legitimate concerns about the Government's clause which we should seek to address. The first was that, in obliging the Secretary of State simply to have regard to the need to avoid certain unreasonable restrictions, the clause did not place a particularly strong obligation upon the Secretary of State.
208
The second was that concerns remained about whether the clause would apply to the communication of research or communications in the course of research prior to the research being published. The new clause that we have tabled deals with both those issues.
First, it introduces in subsection 1(a) a reference to a new activity to be protected by the clause, namely,
"the communication of information in the ordinary course of scientific research".
This is in addition to the activities of publishing information or communicating published information. I believe that that addresses the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, at Third Reading about communications between academics and their research students and by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the fact that an academic carrying out research that will lead to publication will not, while the research continues, want others to discover what he is doing and will, therefore, keep that research private.
The second way in which this clause goes further than that agreed on Report is that it places a stronger duty on the Secretary of State in terms of the requirements upon him or her to ensure that these freedoms are protected when drawing up control orders. It therefore also increases the ability of the court to strike down unacceptable provisions in a control order. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, expressed the view on Report that the clause we had introduced on Report—Clause 9—created,
"only the lowest kind of whisper of a restriction".—[Official Report, 20/5/02; col. 532.]
The Government would certainly argue that it did more than that, but we did accept that there was scope to strengthen the requirements placed by the clause on the Secretary of State. I believe that it would be helpful for the House, and for future reference, if I explain in some detail, what the legal effect of the revised clause would be.
The clause would state that it is for the Secretary of State to determine that any interference in any of the freedoms described in the clause is necessary in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time and having considered the reasons for seeking to control the activity in question and the need to respect the freedom to carry on the affected activity. This formulation makes explicit that the Secretary of State must form his or her view of the need for the interference in the light of all the relevant facts and other surrounding circumstances. These will include international obligations and commitments undertaken by the United Kingdom. It also makes explicit the balancing exercise that must be carried out by reference to those circumstances and to the needs both to control the activity and to respect the freedom to carry on that activity. This means that the Secretary of State will have to identify the ways in which particular proposed controls are likely to impinge on the freedom to communicate in the ways that are specified in subsection (1), and the reasons for that interference. He or she will then have to decide whether that control is "necessary".

209
These procedures will require the Secretary of State to consider the proportionality of the proposed controls, in order to be able to conclude that the degree of interference is no more than is necessary to meet the identified reasons.
This means that the Secretary of State could be challenged in the courts on one or more of the following bases: whether he or she had taken account of all the relevant facts and other circumstances and not considered irrelevant material; whether he or she had taken the proper steps to identify all the apparent interferences and the reasons for them; whether he or she had considered whether the degree of interference was justified by the reason for imposing the interference in the first place; and whether he or she had considered and balanced these reasons and the degree of control against the need to respect the freedom to carry out the identified activity.
The clause would enable the court to assess whether, in respect of any particular control, the Secretary of State had acted within the terms of the power and had reached a conclusion that was within the range of conclusions that it would be open to a person in those circumstances to reach while acting not unreasonably. The courts would thus be able to restrain arbitrary or unreasonable use of the power, or use of the power for collateral purposes.
I am confident, therefore, that this new clause provides real protection against the possibility of the powers in the Bill being abused in the future. At the same time it does so without creating loopholes that could be exploited by the unscrupulous. I am grateful for the assistance of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, in drawing up this clause. I shall, therefore, be inviting the House to support Amendments Nos. 10B and 10C. I understand, too, that, in light of the agreement we have reached, the noble Baroness does not consider it necessary to insist on the other amendments to the Bill introduced on Report by her amendments and for that reason I shall be inviting the House not to insist on its Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 10 to which the Commons have disagreed, and shall move that the House agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13A to Lords Amendment No 13.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for three things. First, I thank him for having introduced this amendment in lieu of the Commons rejection of this House's Amendment No. 10 and for the explanation he has given us. Secondly, but even more importantly, I thank him for the fact that at last, after debate in your Lordships' House and difficult negotiations between the noble Lord and myself behind the scenes, he has persuaded the Government to recognise the genuine concerns of the academic
210
world and to agree to this considerable modification of their proposals which, in their original form, would have severely impinged on academic freedom.
Lastly, I am grateful to the Minister for having implemented his promise to provide me with an advance copy of the statement he has made about the legal implications of the new clause.
On Report, I introduced an amendment designed to protect and preserve academic freedom. At that time it was strongly opposed by the Government but was passed by a substantial majority: 150 votes to 108. That was because of the unswerving support of the Liberal Democrat Peers, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, for which I am extremely grateful, and the work of many Cross-Bench Peers.
Despite that overwhelming indication of cross-party support, the Government's huge majority in another place was used to steamroller the carefully drafted amendment out of existence. Today we are discussing an amendment in lieu of the Commons amendment. I am sure the Minister will agree with me that the amendment did not have an easy birth. The first draft presented by the Government contained a provision that academic freedom would not be interfered with unless,
"The Secretary of State…is satisfied that it is necessary to do so".
Obviously that was unacceptable. At 9.30 last Wednesday evening the Minister personally handed me the draft of a revised amendment which off the cuff I believed would have been acceptable. However, by late the next morning I heard that there was a new draft. I do not intend to trouble noble Lords with a blow-by-blow account of what then ensued but during the next six hours in the course of hectic negotiations, a flurry of telephone calls, faxes and e-mails no fewer than four more drafts were submitted by the department. They were rejected by me because they contained one essential flaw. They left the degree of regulation to the subjective judgment, the mere opinion, of the Secretary of State rather than the objective judgment that the Minister and I agreed would be the criterion. What the Secretary of State thinks is not objective. If the Secretary of State thinks that the earth is flat, it would not make the earth flat.
The final draft of the amendment now makes clear that the criterion for any regulation is an objective judgment. It has been approved by me, therefore, on behalf of the Conservative Opposition. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, may state, I believe with some pleasure, that noble Lords on those Benches accept the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord May—he is at present on holiday—has been supportive of the arguments I have put forward to secure the amendment which is before the House today. In its present form, the amendment is accepted by Universities UK, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and the Association of University Teachers. The noble Baroness has worked hard on the issue behind the scenes.
As I agreed from the outset with the Minister, my acceptance of a compromise was conditional on his making it clear on the record that the objective

211
decisions of the Secretary of State to impose a control order under the new clause are subject to judicial review on the merits. That he has done.
Finally, apart from the support that I have received from noble Lords which I have already acknowledged, I should like to place on record my appreciation of the exceptional advice, assistance, encouragement and support that I have received from the noble Lord, Lord May, the distinguished president of the Royal Society, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, Universities UK which represents university vice-chancellors, the Association of University Teachers, the Foundation for Information Policy Research, Dr Ross Anderson of Cambridge University, who is a specialist in electronic encryption, a solicitor, Mr Nicholas Bohm, a member of the Electronic Law Committee of the Law Society—those two gentlemen are involved with the Foundation for Information Policy Research—and another solicitor who insists on anonymity.
As I have just said, I am glad that in the end the Government and their advisers saw reason and accepted that the protection of academic freedom is essential if the United Kingdom is to remain a leading world-class centre for academic teaching and research. On that basis, we are pleased to support the Government's Motion for this amendment in lieu.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to welcome the new amendment. This has been a long haul. Many people have been involved in lengthy negotiations. I am delighted, as the Minister mentioned, that we have recognition in the amendment that academic research involves more than just research for publication. A great deal of research does not see the light of day. If the research is a scientific process that is so because one tests ideas. Sometimes they test right and sometimes they test wrong. One cannot do anything about that.
I very much welcome the fact that the amendment writes on the face of the Bill the need to consider the proportionality of any proposed control and the requirement that the Secretary of State should make explicit—when he considers it necessary to impose any such control—his reasons for doing so. Finally, I welcome the fact that his decision can be subject to judicial review and may be challenged in the courts. All these are excellent moves. I am delighted to see them in the amendment.
I pay tribute to those who have spent so much time working on this matter. I refer, in particular, to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, from Universities UK, and my Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Roper. While I was busy with the Education Bill he carried on negotiations on the Bill for me. I thank also the many people who, as the noble Baroness has mentioned, have worked behind the scenes on the amendment. I refer to people such as Ross Anderson, Nicholas Bohm, Chris Felton at Universities UK and, last but not least—I suspect that this was the gentlemen who wished not to be named, but I think it is worth naming him—the noble
212
Baroness's husband. I know that he has had a great deal—he is present in the House—to do with the matter. I thank him warmly. So on behalf of these Benches, I just say that, yes, we welcome this new amendment and we shall be supporting it.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I register an interest as chief executive of Universities UK. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury for tabling the amendment which, as all noble Lords have said, comes after huge efforts right across the Chamber. I am enormously grateful for all the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, in order to bring forward the amendment. It is all the more admirable because she had health problems during the period. I am delighted to say that she has now recovered to her feisty self, as she has just demonstrated.
The work of the noble Baroness, along with the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Roper, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, the noble Lords, Lord May and Lord Oxburgh, and many others, has been vital in achieving what this House does best, which is reaching a workable solution. The amendment resolves what at first seemed an unbridgeable gap between the voices heard in this Chamber.
I am glad to say that the amendment does what I hoped for when I spoke on this issue in Committee. It provides a real level of protection for the academic community, for the teaching and research work carried out in our universities. Universities UK has been working on this subject since 1998. Universities UK's president, Professor Roderick Floud, argued for it when he appeared in front of the quadripartite committee in another place over a year ago. It is a matter on which we and our colleagues in the Association of University Teachers have been united.
Equally important, it does not do anything to weaken the export control regime which the Government seek to put in place. We at Universities UK listened to what my noble friend said in that respect. I am happy that our respective objectives have been met. The progress made since this House last considered these amendments is significant. I was very much of the view then that what my noble friend offered did not go anywhere near the guarantee for the academic community. As many of us said, the level of protection seemed to be unacceptably low. My noble friend disagreed. But by the same token, I know that my noble friend had considerable concerns about the amendment that we supported and which the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Sharp, tabled on Report.
Since then, I have had several fruitful meetings with my noble friend. We, together with others, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, now have an amendment which includes, most importantly for us, an objective test of whether any proposed controls are necessary, rather than one which depends on the Secretary of State satisfying him or herself that that is the case. That is the crucial concession, although one won with a few grey hairs—certainly at Universities UK—as negotiations reached fever pitch last week.

213
I therefore have no problem in lending my support to the amendment. I look forward to contributing to the consultation on the secondary legislation which will expand on this provision in the coming months.
Lord Moser: My Lords, it goes without saying that I was not privy to the behind the scenes discussions that have been taking place. Can the Minister clarify the last two lines of subsection (1) of the proposed new clause 10B? Can he explain what circumstances could possibly justify the Secretary of State prohibiting the communication of information that is generally available to the public; in other words, information that is already in the public domain?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I add my thanks to the husband of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I believe that he has always had an ambition to be a parliamentary draftsman. On this occasion I hope that he feels he came as near to that as is possible without actually having the title.
The noble Lord, Lord Moser, asked in what circumstances the Secretary of State could ever consider interfering where the communication of information is generally available to the public? It is difficult to envisage what those circumstances might be. But there might be circumstances where the information was generally known but could not be got hold of by a particular country or a particular company which might make use of it to ill effect on other people.
It is difficult to envisage these circumstances. But, as we have just seen in the previous debate, situations occur where unexpected actions are required by the Secretary of State. One does not want to have a situation where primary legislation has to be introduced to deal with that.
The House has done much to improve the Bill. We have, in response to concerns raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, and others, made much clearer the respective roles of the schedule and guidance to be issued under the Bill. We put our continuing commitment to the issue of sustainable development beyond doubt by amending the Bill and putting a reference to sustainability on the face of the Bill.
Finally, I invite the House today to agree a new clause which will protect against the risk that the powers in the Bill might be used in future to undermine academic freedoms.
I believe that valuable changes have been made in this House. Inevitably the Bill does not meet everyone's aspirations in full. But I think that all sides of the House will agree that this is a worthwhile Bill which provides a sound basis for a modern and effective export control regime. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, said at Second Reading that for the first time in some 50 years we will have constitutional and democratic respectability. He said that the Bill was thoroughly to be welcomed. I hope that, with the amendments which have been made, the House feels the same and will agree with him. I invite
214
the House not to insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
4 Page 2, line 9, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d) H L Bill 96 53/12
4A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
Because it is necessary to retain the power under Clause 2 to control the transfer of technology in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2)(c) and (d).
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: 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. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 4A.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 3, page 2 line 34, at beginning insert "Subject to the provisions of section (Academic Freedom),"
6A The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason—
Because Lords Amendment No. 16 makes more appropriate provision.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 6A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 6A—.(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
10 After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"Academic freedom

(1) Unless any form of restriction is permitted under or by virtue of any other Act, or is required by any international treaty obligation of the United Kingdom or a Directive of the Council of the European Community, an order made under section 2 or 3 of this Act may not impose any control on—

(a) any information already in the public domain anywhere in the world (whether or not it is the subject of any patent, copyright, or other form or protection for intellectual property);

(b) the placing of any information in the public domain by publication orally or in writing or electronically (including for the purposes of a patent, copyright or other form of protection of intellectual property); or

(c) the transfer of any information orally or in writing or electronically in the ordinary course of academic teaching or research unless the person placing or transferring the data knows or ought to have known—

215

(i) that such information is or may be intended for use in connection with the development, production, handling, operation, maintenance storage, detection, identification or dissemination of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or the development, production, maintenance or storage of missiles or other unmanned vehicles or other devices capable of delivering such weapons, or

(ii) that such information is military technology.

(2) Nothing in this section affects

(a) the powers of the Comptroller-General under section 22 of the Patents Act 1977 (c. 37) (secrecy directions) or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof, or

(b) any obligation imposed by any other enactment or at common law relating to the secrecy of official information.

(3) Nothing in subsection (1) restricts the application of transfer or technical assistance controls to the transfer of any information to a person who, or a place which, is outside the European Community by a person who knows or ought to know that the information in question is or may be intended for use in connection with the development, production, handling, operation, maintenance, storage, detection, identification or dissemination of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or the development, production, maintenance or storage of missiles or other devices capable of delivering such weapons.

(4) Where any directly applicable Community provision imposes any controls on the transfer of technology or on participation in the provision of technical assistance, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to exercise such powers as he or she may have under that provision to grant such individual, global or general licences as may reasonably be required to secure that the activities excluded from control by subsection (1) may be carried out under one or more of such licences."

The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason—
10A Because Lords Amendment No. 16 makes more appropriate provision.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville rose to move, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 10A, but do agree the following amendments in lieu thereof—
10B After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
"Protection of certain freedoms

(1) The Secretary of State may not make a control order which has the effect of prohibiting or regulating any of the following activities—

(a) the communication of information in the ordinary course of scientific research,

(b) the making of information generally available to the public, or

(c) the communication of information that is generally available to the public,

unless the interference by the order in the freedom to carry on the activity in question is necessary (and no more than is necessary).

(2) The question whether any such interference is necessary shall be determined by the Secretary of State by reference to the circumstances prevailing at the time the order is made and having considered the reasons for seeking to control the activity in question and the need to respect the freedom to carry on that activity;"

10C Leave out new Clause (restrictions on publishing information or communicating published information)
The noble Lord said My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 10A and do agree with Amendments Nos. 10B and 10C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
13 Leave out Clause 5 and insert the following new clause—
"General restriction on control powers

(1) Subject to section (Academic freedom) and section (Exceptions from the general restriction), the power to impose export controls, transfer controls, technical assistance controls or trade controls may only be exercised where authorised by this section.

(2) Controls of any kind may be imposed for the purpose of giving effect to any Community provision or other international obligation of the United Kingdom.

(3) In subsection (2) "international obligation" includes an obligation relating to a joint action or common position adopted, or a decision taken, by the Council under Title V of the Treaty on European Union (provisions on a common foreign and security policy).

(4) Export controls may be imposed in relation to any description of goods within one or more of the categories specified in the Schedule for such controls.

(5) Transfer controls may be imposed in relation to any description of technology within one or more of the categories specified in the Schedule for such controls.

(6) Technical assistance controls may be imposed in relation to any description of technical assistance within one or more of the categories specified in the Schedule for such controls.

(7) Trade controls may be imposed in relation to any description of goods within one or more of the categories specified in the Schedule for such controls."

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
13A Line 3, leave out "section (Academic freedom) and"
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13A to Lords Amendment No. 13. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 13.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
17 Before Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
"Guidance about the exercise of functions under control orders

(1) This section applies to licensing powers and other functions conferred by a control order on any person in connection with controls imposed under this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State may give guidance about any matter relating to the exercise of any licensing power or other function to which this section applies.

217

(3) But the Secretary of State must give guidance about the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers to which this section applies.

(4) Where—

(a) the description of thing being controlled is within one or more of the categories mentioned in the Schedule; or

(b) the activity being controlled could have one or more of the possible consequences that are of a kind mentioned in the Table in paragraph 3 of the Schedule, the guidance required by subsection (3) must state that regard shall be had, when exercising such powers, to—

(i) issues relating to sustainable development; and

(ii) issues relating to any possible consequences of the activity being controlled that are of a kind mentioned in the Table in paragraph 3 of the Schedule: but this subsection does not restrict the matters which may be addressed in guidance.

(5) Any person exercising a licensing power or other function to which this section applies shall have to any guidance which relates to that power or other function.

(6) A copy of any guidance shall he laid before Parliament and published in such manner as the Secretary of State may think fit.

(7) In this section "guidance" means guidance stating that it is given under this section.

(8) The consolidated criteria relating to export licensing decisions announced to Parliament by the Secretary of State on 26th October 2000 shall (until withdrawn or varied under this section) be treated as guidance which—

(a) is given and published under this section; and

(b) fulfils the duty imposed by subsection (3) in respect of any export controls and transfer controls which may be imposed in relation to goods or technology of a description falling within paragraph 1 or 2 of the Schedule."

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
17A Line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 and insert, "The guidance required b subsection (3) must include guidance about the consideration (if any) to be given,"
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17A to Lords Amendment No. 17. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.17A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 17.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Lord Joffe Lord Joffe moved, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 17A, Amendment No. 17B:
Line 2, leave out from "must" to end and insert "state that consideration shall be given, so far as relevant,".
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, but I take the opportunity to deal with some of the Minister's responses. The amendment accepts that the Government need discretion in making decisions on the export of arms. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford pointed out, the question is: how much discretion do the Government need? I do not believe that the degree of discretion which the words "if any" give is justified.
I welcome the Minister's assurance, but while I would accept without hesitation any personal commitment that the Minister gives, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out the Government have not always abided by their commitment. I remind the Minister that as regards their manifesto commitment to ban the traffic in arms wherever that may take place, the Government have most clearly not honoured it.
I do not accept the dangers of conflict which the European Union pose and which the Minister so vividly described. I do not believe that there is a conflict. Matrix Chambers has confirmed that there is no conflict. I remind the Minister and the House of the preamble to the European code which states clearly that these are minimum standards.
It is sad that the Government, having delivered this excellent Bill, should be so steadfast in their refusal to consider a most obvious amendment which poses no dangers at all and which is consistent with the Government's approach. There is a feeling among the NGO consortium, the NGO generally, and among government supporters, that by failing to accept this amendment and pursuing the Government's weasel words "if any", they discredit what is really an excellent and admirable Bill. With that in mind I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 142.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Alderdice, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

McNally, L.

Ampthill, L.

Maddock, B.

Barker, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Chester, Bp.

Monson, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Naseby, L.

Craigavon, V.

Newby, L.

Croham, L.

Northbourne, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Northover, B.

Dearing, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Dholakia, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Eames, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Erroll, E.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Falkland, V.

Razzall, L.

Fearn, L.

Redesdale, L. [Teller]

Goodhart, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Greaves, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rogan, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Roper, L.

Hooson, L.

Russell, E.

Hylton, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Sandberg, L.

Joffe, L. [Teller]

Sandwich, E.

Kilclooney, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Laird, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Ludford, B.

Slim, V.

219

Smith of Clifton, L.

Walmsley, B.

Stern, B.

Walpole, L.

Strange, B.

Warnock, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Wigoder, L.

Tope, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Haskel, L.

Ahmed, L.

Haskins, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hayman, B.

Amos, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Andrews, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Barnett, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Islwyn, L.

Bhatia, L.

Jones, L.

Billingham, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Layard, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bragg, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Bramall, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brennan, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Bridges, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brookman, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Marsh, L.

Burlison, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Christopher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mitchell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Crawley, B.

Moser, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Orme, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Ouseley, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Parekh, L.

Desai, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dixon, L.

Pendry, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Eatwell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Elder, L.

Puttnam, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Radice, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rooker, L.

Filkin, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Fitt, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Serota, B.

Gale, B.

Sheldon, L.

Gavron, L.

Simon, V.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Golding, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Goudie, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Greenway, L.

Tenby, V.

Gregson, L.

Thornton, B.

Grenfell, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Grocott, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harrison, L.

Uddin, B.

220

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Wilkins, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Amendment No. 17A agreed to.
Bill returned to the Commons with amendments.

Education Bill
4.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill
  AMENDMENTS AND MANUSCRIPT AMENDMENTS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The Commons Amendments are printed as HL Bill 104]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  12 Leave out Clause 10
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendment, to the words so restored to the Bill—
  12A Page 7, line 16, leave out from, second "company" to end of line 17 and insert "registered under the Companies Act 1985 (c.6) as a company limited hr shares or a company limited by guarantee"
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12A, to the words so restored to the Bill. In moving the Motion, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 13 and Commons Amendments Nos. 13A to 13C.
  In opening this new stage of consideration of amendments to the Bill, I begin by saying that the Government have carefully considered the views expressed in your Lordships' House throughout the Bill's progress. I hope that that is evident from the careful and substantial changes that have been made in another place.
  First, I shall make the positive case for allowing schools the freedom to join companies. The argument is simple and one in which another place sees considerable merit. It is that this is another way of giving schools more freedom, more opportunities for partnership and more room to share good practice.
  In the course of our debates, we have established that individual schools, under their general powers in Schedule 10 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, can already form companies to facilitate their running. The change that the Bill introduces, therefore, is simply to allow groups of schools to join

  221
  together to form companies for their mutual benefit and for the benefit of other schools. So, in permitting groups of schools to band together to form companies, we are not introducing something entirely new. We are simply extending and clarifying the purposes for which schools can form companies and their ability to join with other bodies in membership of a company.
  It is difficult to understand how there could be any objection to that in principle. I would understand noble Lords' concern if we were forcing schools to form companies, but we have been absolutely clear that we will do nothing of the sort. Indeed, the clause does not provide a power for us to do so. It provides an enabling power, not a requirement. Only those schools that foresee a benefit will make use of that power.
  Schools will have that freedom to form companies in two broad areas of activity: first, to purchase services and facilities jointly; and, secondly, to provide services and facilities to other schools. Schools participating in purchasing companies will benefit from economies of scale. Schools participating in service delivery companies will benefit from the opportunity to share best practice and from being able to give wider experience to their staff—of the kind that may help with staff retention. Of course, those schools in receipt of services will also benefit.
  Noble Lords have said that there are other ways in which both sets of activities could be carried on. I do not dispute that. That is also true in the private and voluntary sectors. Activities can be carried out in many structures other than companies. The point—the core of the argument—is that often, the company structure is the most convenient. That applies in the private, voluntary and charitable sectors, and in this case. If schools would find it the best way of building certain forms of partnership, we should not stand in their way.
  I shall set out clearly the reasons why schools may find it to be the most convenient structure. First, it allows a group to have a single legal identity. That can be important for many purposes, not least for entering into contracts and for sharing risk. Secondly, it allows for liability to be limited. That is an important consideration for people who are conducting many activities. In return for limited liability status, companies must, as noble Lords are aware, comply with a clear regulatory structure and provide greater transparency than unincorporated associations, particularly with regard to their accounts. Thirdly, of course, the company is a well understood and trusted model, precisely because it is so widespread in our society. That can provide great advantages for those transacting with the company and, hence, for those forming the company.
  I want it to be clear that there is nothing mysterious about the formation or conduct of a company. There is nothing mysterious about the model of limited liability. Nor is there any mystery about why people often choose to use that model.
  Having set that case out, I turn to the objections that were raised during the debate. In doing so, I shall reiterate a few general points. First, there will be
  222
  nothing that a school company can do that a private sector company cannot already do. A private sector company cannot take over responsibility for the conduct of a school or somehow assume ownership of its land and buildings or take over responsibility for deciding who works at the school. Similarly, a school company will not be able to do those things. Likewise, a school company will be able to sell curriculum materials to other schools, as private sector companies already do.
  Secondly, there is nothing in the creation of a limited liability company that would increase the liability for the public sector—quite the opposite. The limitation of liability is one of the main advantages for schools of forming a company to carry out an activity, rather than carrying it out as an unincorporated association. Thirdly, there is nothing about the process of a school forming a company that in any way undermines the rules governing the protection of public funds. Schools may not transfer assets to any other body or person without receiving proper consideration. That includes a school company.
  I turn to some of the detailed points made during the passage of the Bill. I believe that they were answered by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, but I will attempt to summarise those answers again. The issue on which, perhaps, we spent most time was liabilities. A particular area of concern was the liability that might fall on a local education authority. I hope that I can clarify that point in a way that noble Lords will find reassuring. The simple fact is that there is no change of substance from the current position. The LEA is ultimately liable for any purchasing decision made by a school. That will remain the case, whether schools make purchasing decisions singly or jointly through a purchasing company. The LEA will not become liable for the actions of service delivery companies.
  The local education authority is already ultimately responsible for liabilities incurred by schools when purchasing goods and services. That will remain the case, whether or not a company acts as an intermediary. The LEA will not be liable for the debts of service delivery companies. Those companies will not, in the course of their normal operations, spend the schools' budget shares. Indeed, they will charge for their services and will be spending money earned from fees. If a service delivery company cannot pay its debts, it will follow the same course as any private limited company in a similar position. In those circumstances, the point about limitation of liability becomes central. If a school company fails, the liability of the company member is, in the case of a company limited by shares, limited to the unpaid amount on the shares—if any—or to the nominal amount of the guarantee, in the case of a company limited by guarantee.
  During our debate, there seemed to be a sense that there was something surprising about that. There is nothing in any way unusual about it, as many noble Lords will be aware. That is the position for every limited company trading at present. That is the point of limited liability status.

  223
  Noble Lords will know that, to minimise the likelihood of a company's getting into difficulty, we said that the LEA would have a role as supervising authority for the companies. Noble Lords asked how the LEA would know for sure whether intervention was needed. I now offer your Lordships' House a further safeguard. We have decided that, under the regulations, companies will provide an interim financial report to the supervising authority, as well as annual audited accounts. That will be required in the first year of operation and, should there be a need, in subsequent years. I hope that your Lordships' House will agree that that additional safeguard provides further assurance.
  We are allowing companies to make profits and distribute them to their members because we want to encourage the most useful and most enterprising membership of companies. If we say "No" to profits, good potential members might be driven away. The profits will be shared, and school members of companies will receive their due amount.
  I return to the point that a company that has a school as a member will not be able to do any more than a company that does not have a school as a member. It is normal practice for a private sector company to sell materials to schools. The clause will allow a school company to do the same. A good school will have lots of expertise in it. As noble Lords are aware, many of our best schools contain wonderful teachers who have, for example, worked together to develop and refine course materials. A school could form a company with a local printer to market such materials to other schools. If the materials were better than those already available on the market, the company would, no doubt, be rightly successful. In that scenario, the school would gain because it would share in the profit. Other schools would gain because they would be able to purchase excellent materials. There would be no loss to the public sector.
  The school would take its share of the profit. It would be required to use the money for the purposes of the school. That is not in question. The printer, if it were a joint venture, would also he entitled to a share, having carried the risk of publishing the materials. That is appropriate. The crucial point is that the only difference between that scenario and the present position is not that the printer can profit but that the school can get its share. At present, any private sector business can profit in that way. The only body that cannot is the school. The clauses will put that right.
  School companies with a membership of educational institutions, but with no private sector members, will distribute their profits for the use of the educational institutions concerned. No individual or institution could run off with the profits, any more than any individual could abscond with the school's budget share. If companies have private sector members, all members will take a share of the profits commensurate with their involvement. We expect that the educational institutions will take a leading role in such companies, with the private sector members contributing their expertise as necessary.
  224
  I believe that I have addressed the central objections, so I shall turn to the Government's amendments, Amendments Nos. 12A and 13A to 13C. We presented amendments relating to school companies to the House on 3rd July; I put them forward again today, with some words of explanation.
  Amendment 12A stipulates that school companies will be limited by shares or by guarantee under the Companies Act 1985. Currently, the Bill states that regulations may provide for school companies to be limited by guarantee. When we decided to offer a choice of type of limited company, we thought to deal with it in regulations. Following the debate in the House, we have agreed that it makes matters clearer to say in primary legislation that schools will have the choice.
  Amendments Nos. 13A and 13B tighten up the wording of the Bill and are therefore purely technical. Amendment No. 13C places in the Bill a provision that only those specified in regulations may join companies. We thought that it would give greater protection against making mistakes if that provision were in the Bill. We intend to state in regulations that the following persons may join school companies: governing bodies, local authorities, independent schools, private companies, further and higher education institutions and individuals not excluded by the regulations. Individuals who will not be able to join companies will be those not currently permitted to be school governors or to teach.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12A to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
  5 p.m.
  12B Lord Kingsland 12B Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to Amendment No. 12A to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 12".
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we oppose the reinsertion of Clauses 10 and 11. The noble Baroness referred to the opportunities that the clauses would give for enhanced freedom and partnership for schools; but the text of those clauses is so far-reaching, ill-thought-out and imprecise that it is impossible to discern the intended scope of the legislation.
  Clause 10(1) states that the
  "governing body of a maintained school may form, or participate in forming, companies".
  Those companies are to be formed under ordinary private company law, either as companies limited by guarantee or as companies limited by shares. There are three purposes for those companies. First, they will, under subsection (1)(a),
  "provide services or facilities for any schools".
  The definition in subsection (8) states that,
  "'facilities' includes the provision of…premises, goods, materials, plant or apparatus".
  A company that is established either uniquely by the governing body of a maintained school or together with another party within the framework of the company can be set up to provide those facilities to any school, whether that other school is a maintained or private school.
  Secondly, such a company can provide education services to any other school, whether it is a maintained or private school. Those services will doubtless be provided by schoolteachers. Clause 10(1)(b) refers to companies being formed,
  "to exercise relevant local education functions".
  I assume that a maintained school which sets up a company on its own, or together with others—either other maintained schools or other private parties—can supply to other schools classroom teaching and all other educational activities in addition to providing administrative or ancillary services. One can foresee one school setting up a company to take over the entire activities of another school, including educational functions and facilities.
  Thirdly, subsection (1)(c) provides that such companies may,
  "make, or facilitate the making of, arrangements under which facilities or services are provided for any schools by other persons".
  Therefore, such a company can acquire land or buildings to provide facilities for the functions set out in subsection (1)(a) and (b).
  Clause 10(2) states:
  "The governing body of a maintained school may…invest in the company".
  In other words, it can take its own budgetary resources raised by taxpayers and transfer them to one of those schools performing the functions laid down in subsection (1).
  There was an interesting exchange on 15th July in another place between the honourable Members Mr Willis and Mr Miliband. Mr Willis asked Mr Miliband whether he was saying that a school could use its budget share, or part of it, to set up a company, and that if it failed the LEA would be subject to liabilities under the new arrangements. Mr Miliband replied, "Yes", and said that that was why there was a safeguard that LEAs would have to approve the setting up of the companies.
  It is clear that the venture capital for those companies will be provided by the taxpayer. What is more, how good is Mr Miliband's safeguard? As the noble Baroness said, Clause 11(1) provides that
  "the governing body of a maintained school may not exercise any power conferred by any of subsections (1) to (4) of section 10 except…with the consent of the local education authority".
  That suggests that the capital transfer will be made to the company only if the LEA gives permission. However, subsection (7) states that
  "Regulations may restrict the circumstances in which a local education authority may refuse to give any consent applied for under subsection (1)".
  When the Bill is enacted, the Government can pass regulations that will effectively strip away the controlling power of the local authority under Clause 11(1).
  Clause 10(5) states:
  "The governing body of a maintained school may provide staff to any company in relation to which they have exercised a power conferred by any of subsections (1) to (4)".
  That does not limit it to the staff currently employed by the maintained school. There is nothing to suggest that the maintained school, participating with other members of the company, cannot go to the market-place to hire staff to provide educational services to another school.
  It may be that the intention that I have extracted is the Government's real intention. Schools that are either financially powerful or educationally successful may attract capital into companies that will then provide a complete education package to other maintained schools. If that is the Government's intention, they ought to say so. That is certainly derivable from the text of the Bill.
  One of the most worrying consequences concerns the deployment of education resources. It is well known that there is a serious scarcity of able teachers. To the extent that the local authority, which is responsible for providing top-class education to schools, is delegating its powers to companies, and to the extent that those companies may move education resources into areas that are profitable rather than rational, current problems will be exacerbated, not alleviated.
  The wide scope of Clause 10 is likely to lead directly to a serious misallocation of education resources. If companies make profits that are enjoyed by private participants in the company, what is to stop them allocating such profits in ways that are not acceptable to the governing body?
  I could make further criticisms of those two clauses. There are complex matters about what happens if a company goes into liquidation. My honourable friend Mr Cash dealt ably with such matters in another place, so I shall not repeat them here. I hope that I have said enough to sketch out why we on these Benches continue to be seriously concerned by these clauses.
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to Amendment No. 12A to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 12"—(Lord Kingsland.)
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we support the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in his amendment. We have consistently opposed the inclusion of those clauses on schools companies. After our lengthy debates, we recognise that the companies have limited purposes. They enable schools jointly with other schools and/or persons and organisations to set up companies for the purchasing of school supplies and the provision of services. Secondly, a company can be

  227
  set up in order to sell goods or services to other schools. Without the legislation, schools will be unable to do that. Schools will be able to set up a company but only in order to provide services or to sell goods to their own schools, not to others. That is the main reason for the proposal to set up such companies.
  There are four main reasons why we on these Benches have consistently opposed the proposals. First, we see the act of a school setting up and running a company as a diversion from its main purpose. When heads, teachers and school governors are so pushed for time, the last thing they will want to do is to run companies. They do not need to have the worry and angst of doing so.
  The Minister assured us that as regards accountability the Government will keep a close watch on the companies. They will be asked to submit not only annual reports to the LEA—that is in addition to the reports they must submit to Companies House, auditors and so forth—but interim reports. That will increase the burden of running the companies. We strongly feel that the job of heads, teachers and governors is to run schools and not companies. We believe that they should "stick to the knitting".
  Our second reason for opposing the proposal is that we do not see the necessity for these companies. In the debate in the other place on 15th July, the Minister, Mr Miliband, stated:
  "These proposals are about encouraging co-operation between schools to help them to perform their roles effectively, serving their own pupils and other pupils in the locality… The hon. Gentleman [Mr Willis] asked whether that has not been done already".
  The Minister then said:
  "A certain amount of co-operation does already take place, but the power will provide clarity that the school's governing body can form a company to do more than it is able to do at the moment".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/02; col. 68.]
  However, I emphasise the fact that in purchasing goods and services and reaping economies of scale, schools have been co-operating with each other for many years. Local education authorities were set up to perform that function and in some cases, they still do. However, with the development of grant-maintained, foundation and voluntary-aided schools, often groups of schools band together to undertake those tasks.
  The question is whether they need the additional powers. If the main purpose of the proposal is to encourage co-operation between schools in order to help them perform their roles effectively, do they need powers to form companies? For the past 150 years, they have got on perfectly well without them and I cannot see that they need the new powers. We therefore believe that the powers are unnecessary and complicate life for schools.
  Thirdly, we oppose the proposal because we are concerned about what will happen if the company fails and losses are made. It is clear from statements made today by the Minister and by Ministers in the other place that purchasing companies would be spending member schools' delegated budgets and would therefore be deemed to be acting as agents of the LEA.
  228
  The LEA would then be liable for the company's debts in the event of company failure, in the same way as the LEA would be liable for an individual school's debt when the school was acting as the LEA's agent.
  I suggest that there is a difference. If the purpose of a company is to make a large profit for the school, it might be thought a good idea to print lots of T-shirts showing the town logo in the expectation of selling them to other schools and making a profit to put back into the school. But if, say, too many T-shirts were printed and the school was landed in debt, the LEA would be liable for that company debt.
  Forming a company may encourage schools to take more risks than they would if they were spending their own budgets. It is not necessary to form companies in order to make joint purchases. The formation might encourage schools or particular members of governing bodies to enter into ventures more risky than schools would otherwise entertain. That is worrying because ultimately the LEAs will pick up the tab.
  I recognise that the LEA does so if the debt is related to purchasing. If the debt is related to the provision of services, the company will, under the Companies Act, go into liquidation. Those who have invested money will lose their shares and the creditors will lose out. But there is another difficulty. If a school company has bad debts, that will leave a nasty taste—and do we want schools to be landed with such nasty tastes?
  Finally, we on these Benches have always suspected that there may be a subtext. We have debated the matter many times, having said that we distrust the companies and did not want to see their formation. We have asked why they are necessary and we have been told that they are not important but merely a minor detail in the Bill. If they are a minor detail, why are the Government so insistent that they remain?
  The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, explained what may happen. It may be that companies will be set up to run other schools. During the past few weeks Ministers have done a great deal to try to reassure us that there is no such subtext. One likes to believe one's own Ministers, but constantly events take place. Many noble Lords will have seen in last week's Observer a splendid article announcing:
  "Blairite blueprint to turn schools into companies".
  The first paragraph reads:
  "Top schools could be turned into companies and allowed to generate extra cash for pupils under radical plans for not-for-profit firms to run public services".
  I am sure that the Minister will say that that has nothing to do with Patricia Hewitt and the ideas she is floating around or with what is before us today.
  We had exactly the same debate on federations, but after the Secretary of State's recent Statement newspapers carried the headline, "Failing schools will be forced into federations". We had received assurances from the Minister that that would not be the case and were told that it was an unfortunate use of the word "federation". That may be right, but when I put that together with the other doubts we have

  229
  about the proposed companies, I ask: why have them? We want nothing to do with them and we therefore persist in opposing the two clauses in the Bill.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I too wish to refer to the article in the Observer and I hope that the noble Baroness who is to respond will be able to comment on it. We have reached an extraordinarily late stage in our deliberations on the Bill without hearing any mention whatever of the fact that at least four Cabinet Ministers have discussed the possibility that certain top schools could be turned into companies, allowing them to generate extra cash for pupils under the plans to introduce non profit-making firms to run public services. It is important to point out that the clauses under discussion do not concern not-for-profit companies. Is this another policy on its way or is it likely that regulations will bring forward such companies? It would be most helpful if the Minister could comment on this.
  In case anything is said to the contrary, noble Lords on these Benches have always supported commercial freedom for schools. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, outlined the considerable freedoms already enjoyed by schools as regards working together, corporate purchasing and developing software materials so that other schools can benefit from them. I am not against those efforts and nor do I believe that the noble Baroness and her colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches oppose them.
  However, where is the legal advice required for contracts to be drawn up to establish school companies to come from? Where will the company secretaries come from? Where would they get accountancy advice—or even accountants? Schools do not have such expertise; it will have to be bought in. If school funds have to be used to pay for such services, then schools have a right to know now how the funding is to work.
  When the Minister commented on the amendments, she said that the clauses advocate a very well known and trusted model of a company. I know of no company that has to seek the equivalent of local education authority approval to be set up in the first place. I know of no company that has the equivalent of a local education authority as a supervisory body with powers of intervention. Similarly, I know of no company that has the equivalent of a Secretary of State also with powers of intervention. In addition to those layers involved in so-called "free-standing" companies, they would be subject to the full panoply of supervision and regulation under company law.
  At no stage of our deliberations have we been given explanations of what would happen to head teachers, teachers and governors who move around between different schools. These are peripatetic groups of people. If an incoming head teacher, teacher or governor does not wish to pick up the mantle of being a member of a company, how would that situation be dealt with? It is important to put the details on the record.
  230
  On 13th December 2001 in Standing Committee G, my honourable friend in another place, Chris Grayling, asked:
  "While the Minister is clarifying these points, will he tell us the degree to which the provision of the companies involves the delivery of educational services?"
  He went on to say,
  "could a governing body sub-contract out the entire management and educational management of its school to a more successful school?"—[Official Report— - Commons Standing Committee G, 13/12/01; col. 157.]
  The Minister at the time, Stephen Timms, replied at cols. 157 and 158:
  "The scenario is possible—subsection (1)(a) makes this clear—because we are considering services provided to schools by other schools".
  And yet on 15th July 2002, when the House of Commons considered the Lords amendments to the Bill, the Schools Minister, David Miliband, said that,
  "these companies would not be able to take over the running of a school".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/702; col. 67.]
  I am going to ask the Minister to tell me today which of those statements is correct. Can schools be run by other schools, or can they not?
  I have the utmost respect for the Minister. She has been diligent, courteous and responsive at every stage of the Bill. But how are we to take the word of this Minister as opposed to the word of Stephen Timms, as opposed to the word of David Miliband? All are highly respected Ministers of the Crown, but they are all saying something different. It is important to be dear about the Government's intentions.
  I turn to what was said at the beginning of our discussion: this is a dog's breakfast set of proposals. They are ill thought through. Key questions have not been answered and the interests of schools, teachers and our governing bodies—whether or not this is a voluntary activity—have not been considered. Schools should be free to use their resources to run their institutions. They should not be seduced into running companies—the Government use tempting language to describe their policy—that could go wrong. If that were to happen, at this stage we are in no position to appreciate what kind of impact that could have on the education of our children.
  Lord Northbourne: My Lords, can the noble Baroness put me right on a question of fact? The nature of a company limited by guarantee is that in effect it has little or no equity. That substantially increases the risks for any creditors. Normally the problem is addressed by the company limited by guarantee being a charity. It is then supervised by the Charity Commissioners and an annual report has to be produced. Similarly, any substantial borrowings must be approved by the commissioners. Can the noble Baroness say whether the companies, if they are to be limited by guarantee, will be supervised by the Charity Commissioners?
  Lord Dearing: My Lords, I had no intention of speaking to the amendments because I could not see what was at issue. But having listened to the debate, I

  231
  am beginning to understand that there is an issue here; namely, that of doubt about the Government's intentions. It is important for the Minister to clarify the Government's intentions.
  As someone who has been a school governor more than once, given that this is to be a voluntary power, I would guess that only relatively few governing bodies would wish to take advantage of it. Perhaps there will be a few occasions when there is a point to them, which I shall illustrate. A former schoolteacher called me the other day to say that she had been engaged in developing an educational CD-ROM for general sale to schools. Unfortunately, she did not have the capital resources to develop the idea and a considerable sum would be needed to produce a series of suitable CD-ROMs.
  I can imagine that a cluster of schools grouped together in a federation, combining their very considerable IT resources, might think that they too could develop certain high quality learning materials. However, once again they would have neither the capital resources nor the marketing skills to develop them into products that could be made available successfully to a group of schools. I can see the advantage to such a group of schools of forming a company in order to exploit their intellectual capital in partnership with a private sector organisation. Recent experience has demonstrated a possible need for that kind of activity.
  I turn to the point made with regard to the LEA being the "fall guy". My limited understanding of the position would suggest that, so far as concerns purchasing consortia, there is no change from the present position where the LEA would pick up the pieces. However, for the provision of services, the LEA would not be exposed provided that it was a limited liability company. I should be most grateful if the Minister could clarify that point for me.
  I attach considerable importance to the safeguard of the LEA having, "the power to deny". Perhaps I may say that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made a good point when he asked for clarification of Clause 11(7). However, the central issue to consider here is the purpose of the clauses. If they are those as described by the Minister, then I cannot see that they have the implications that we have supposed.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. With regard to his comments to the effect that the LEA might be the fall guy, would he accept from me that if the LEA forms part of the consortium, then of course the LEA must take its share of the responsibility. If, however, the school forms part of the consortium, then the school would be on its own.
  Lord Dearing: Precisely.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have had a debate with new voices, which is good. It has given me an opportunity to listen to the noble Lord,
  232
  Lord Kingsland, and to raise my own voice in the debate, having left much of the preceding work to my noble friend Lord McIntosh. Perhaps I may address some of the serious points made by the noble Lord. In so doing, perhaps I may turn back a little in order to describe where the proposition comes from.
  It is important to understand that the Government do not seek to do anything that would force anyone to set up a company. It concerns enabling schools to achieve things for themselves. One of the most important roles of any government is to think ahead and to exercise their duties responsibly. Furthermore, our schools must understand that they too need to think ahead about their role in the 21st century as they seek to educate our children to the best of their abilities.
  They need to do something more. Noble Lords have agreed on many occasions that the expertise and experience which exists within our schools should be released for the benefit of the wider community and especially for other schools. This proposal—small though the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, says it is in the context of this large Bill—is an important step on the way to doing that. We allow private sector companies to sell to schools; this is about allowing schools to come together among themselves, or to come together with other partners, in a way that limits their liability and enables them to do that. That is the backdrop to our discussions and it is important to see the issue in that context. There is no secret hidden agenda. It is about enabling schools to do that.
  The picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was not one I recognise. In Clause 20(1) we are quite clear that the conduct of a maintained school should be under the direction of the school's governing body. Nothing in Clauses 10 or 11 changes that. It would not be possible for any company to assume responsibility for running a school. A school company cannot do more than any other company.
  I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is keen to have clarity on the record. I shall quote from a written reply to the honourable gentleman. Graham Brady, who asked whether the relevant part of the Bill allows governing bodies to form a company to manage or operate a school. The reply was given by my honourable friend, Mr Miliband, the Minister of State for School Standards. He stated:
  "As a matter of law, the conduct of a maintained school must be under the direction of a school's governing body. That duty is re-enacted in clause 20 of the current Education Bill… It would not therefore be possible for a company or any other body to 'take over the running of the school', because the governing body cannot contract out the duty to conduct the school".
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. How does the noble Baroness square that remark with the provisions of Clause 10(1), which states:
  "The governing body of a maintained school may form, or participate in forming, companies…to provide services…for any schools"?

  233
  How is the noble Baroness's remark consistent with what is of the face of the Bill?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have discussed this all the way through the Bill. This is not about the running of the school. As the noble Lord is aware, a school is run by a governing body, which may decide to buy in services. We have discussed on many occasions in your Lordships' House the kinds of services that might be brought in—for example, ICT services. A school might bring in a company working on ICT for developing software programmes or maintaining hardware programmes. But those are services. The running of the school is different.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is a discourtesy that my honourable friend in another place, Graham Brady—who is standing at the Bar of the House—has not received the answer that the Minister has read out to the House.
  When asked,
  "could a governing body subcontract out the entire management and educational management of its school to a more successful school?",
  the Government Minister, Mr Timms, said:
  "The scenario is possible—subsection (1)(a) makes this clear—because we are considering services provided to schools by other schools".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee G, 13/12/01; cols. 157–158.]
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I repeat that we are describing services, not other schools. I am afraid that I did not know Mr Graham Brady; I do now. I smiled at him, not knowing who he was. The reply has been given today to the honourable gentleman. I apologise if it is the first time he has heard it. I agree with the noble Baroness that it would have been better if he had received it earlier. I shall finish the answer in any event. I am sure that noble Lords wish to hear it and I hope that it will allay the noble Baroness's concerns.
  I am describing the difference between the running of a school and the provision of services. Nothing in the Bill gives governing bodies greater powers to enter into contracts. By virtue of Schedule 10 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, governing bodies already have the power to enter into contracts, which may include elements of the operational management of the school. Clause 10(1)(a) gives groups of schools the power to form companies to deliver services to other schools. Thus Clause 10(1)(a) empowers a governing body to contract with a school company on the same basis as other bodies. However, the conduct of the school must remain under the direction of the governing body. I hope that that explanation addresses the issue.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The noble Baroness said that nothing allows the governing body
  234
  to sub-contract the conduct of the school, but could it sub-contract the running of the school to a services company?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it could not contract the running of the school, which is the responsibility of the governing body. I am searching for an analogy which will make it clear to noble Lords. The governing body runs the school. In many cases, the governing body already contracts with other bodies that it wishes to bring in to provide services such as school meals, lunch-time supervision, cleaning services, ICT services and so on. It may decide to contract with other bodies but, ultimately, in law, it is responsible for the running of the school.
  I have dealt with that point as adequately as I can.
  Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Does that explanation mean that the governing body could contract with another organisation to deliver the teaching in the school?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the governing body could not bring in wholesale teaching. But, as the noble Baroness is aware, there are occasions when governing bodies have relationships with companies which provide supply teachers when teachers are off sick. That is a quite normal process, as noble Lords are aware. That may also be true in the context of some specialisms—I again use ICT as an example—where a governing body may contract to bring in that expertise.
  I have dealt with the point as well as I can and I hope that I will be forgiven if I move on to address some of the other points made by noble Lords.
  We have made it clear that the education authority is responsible for purchasing company debt only. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Lord. Lord Dearing. There is no scope for public sector money to be siphoned off and the education authority would not be required to provide venture capital under any circumstances.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred to diversions from the main purposes. Her comments will stick to the knitting. It is very important that we recognise that there is nothing in the Bill to require schools to do this if they feel that it is not in their best interests. I could not agree more with the noble Baroness that we should recognise that the primary purpose of our schools is, of course, to educate our children. But our schools belong to a community—a community of schools and a wider community. As I have said, we want to release the kind of expertise that would be of use in other circumstances.
  The noble Baroness referred, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to the Observer story on companies. I shall not make the obvious gags about not believing newspaper headlines—some noble Lords will understand only too well what it is like to be on the receiving end of those—but I want to make it absolutely clear that the story has no implications whatever for allowing schools to set up companies.

  235
  Our proposals will not allow schools to contract-out the responsibility for the conduct of a school to a company of any kind. We have said that before and I am happy to repeat it again.
  The article referred to today's announcement of the Government launch of a social enterprise strategy. A Bank of England review of finance for social enterprises and a new social enterprise accreditation scheme are only two of the initiatives outlined today. Reference to super schools does not capture accurately what we are discussing and what the article is about. Schools will be able to form companies voluntarily. This is not about the responsibility for the running of schools.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked about profits. The governing body will be able to protect its own interests in how the company distributes its profits because, as a member of the company, it will have a veto on the constitution of the company. It will, of course, agree with its fellow members of the company on how profits will be distributed according to the contribution of the members, whether it be in expertise or in capital.
  The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, raised a point about companies led by guarantee. It is correct that these are not equity rich companies. The risk to creditors and purchasing companies is not high, as schools are spending delegated budgets, and the local education authority is liable for the companies' debts in those circumstances. The risk to creditors and service delivery companies is the same as when dealing with private limited liability companies. Companies led by guarantee are not usually charitable, but in some circumstances that could be the case were it felt to be appropriate.
  I reiterate that we are talking about another part of the road to freedom that schools wish to have in terms of developing their expertise. I believe that our schools make sensible decisions. They work hard to make sure that they educate their students well, and they have the kind of expertise that I would wish to see available across the broader spectrum.
  Perhaps I may give an example which I hope will be relevant as your Lordships debate in the future the modern foreign languages strategy that the Government are seeking to develop. Noble Lords have frequently pointed out the need to consider making a range of modern foreign languages available, particularly for primary school children, and that it is not simply a matter of teaching one language: in debate, 11 or 12 languages were spoken of as being important for primary school children to learn.
  Let us suppose that a group of schools decide to come together to develop some teaching aids to support our primary school children in learning languages. One might, for example, have a particular expertise in Mandarin, another in Urdu. They may decide that the best way to support the language teaching is by producing a CD-ROM—a common
  236
  method. They may decide that they need to talk to a software producer in order to obtain the right kind of material. In considering how best to come together, they may want to consider the option of forming a company. They can be allowed to come together and to develop the material; the CD-ROM software designer can be part of that. They can be allowed to develop something of benefit to their own school but to many other schools as well.
  In conclusion, I recognise that noble Lords have strong views on this subject. I understand the desire to make sure that the Government produce proposals that meet with your Lordships' approval. In the course of the many hours of debate on this subject in both Houses, we have done our best to answer all the individual questions that noble Lords have put. We are asking the House simply to agree to allow schools an option. I do not anticipate that many would want to take it up, but a few might wish to come together and would find this provision a useful vehicle. On that basis, I commend the Commons amendment to the House.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her concluding remarks. I can be brief. What the noble Baroness thinks Clause 10(1) does and what it does are two entirely different things. Perhaps I may repeat the words of the clause:
  "The governing body of a maintained school may form…companies…(a) to provide services or facilities for any schools…(b) to exercise relevant local education authority functions".
  It is plain on the face of the Bill that the services that can be provided—"relevant local education authority functions"—are teaching services; and there is to limit on the scale on which this can be done. In those circumstances, the legislation will clearly not fulfil the Government's objectives. I think it only right that the opinion of the House should be tested.
  5.45 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12B) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 172; Not-Contents, 168.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Brigstocke, B.

  Addington, L.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Alderdice, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Burnham, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Butterworth, L.

  Arran, E.

  Byford, B.

  Astor, V.

  Caithness, E.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Barker, B.

  Carrington, L.

  Biffen, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

  Boardman, L.

  Cox, B.

  Bowness, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Crickhowell, L.

  237

  Cumberlege, B.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Denham, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Dholakia, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Elles, B.

  Naseby, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Newby, L.

  Elton, L.

  Noakes, B.

  Falkland, V.

  Northover, B.

  Fearn, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Feldman, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Ferrers, E.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Flather, B.

  Onslow, E.

  Fookes, B.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Fowler, L.

  Parkinson, L.

  Freeman, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Perry of Southwark, B.

  Geddes, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Platt of Writtle, B.

  Goodhart, L.

  Plumb, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Pym, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Greaves, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Redesdale, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Rees, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Haslam, L.

  Renton, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Henley, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Roper, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Russell, E.

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Russell-Johnston, L.

  Hooper, B.

  St John of Fawsley, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Selkirk of Douglas, L.

  James of Holland Park, B.

  Sharman, L.

  Jellicoe, E.

  Sharp of Guildford, B. [Teller]

  Jopling, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Kilclooney, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  King of Bridgwater, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Laing of Dunphail, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Laird, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Lang of Monkton, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Lucas, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Ludford, B.

  Tope, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Vivian, L.

  MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Watson of Richmond, L.

  McNally, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Wilcox, B.

  Mancroft, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Marlesford, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Wolfson, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Alli, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Amos, B.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  238

  Barnett, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Bhatia, L.

  Jones, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Judd, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Blood, B.

  Laming, L.

  Boothroyd, B.

  Layard, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Brennan, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Brett, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Brookman, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

  Carter, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Chan, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Mishcon, L.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Morris of Aberavon, L.

  Croham, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Darcy de Knayth, B.

  Moser, L.

  David, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Orme, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Ouseley, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Dealing, L.

  Parekh, L.

  Desai, L.

  Patel, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Pendry, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Peston, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Eatwell, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Elder, L.

  Portsmouth, Bp.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Radice, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Falkender, B.

  Rea, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Rees-Mogg, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Filkin, L.

  Richard, L.

  Fitt, L.

  Rix, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Rochester, Bp.

  Gale, B.

  Rogan, L.

  Gavron, L.

  Rooker, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Golding, B.

  Serota, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Sheldon, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Simon, V.

  Goudie, B.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Slim, V.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Gregson, L.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Strabolgi, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Strange, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Harrison, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Haskins, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Hayman, B.

  Thornton, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Warnock, B.

  239

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L, (Lord Privy Seal)

  Weatherill, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Winston, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  5.57 p.m.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  13 Clause 11, leave out Clause 11
  The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but propose the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
  13A Page 7, line 40, leave out "the requirements set out in" and insert "any applicable requirements of regulations under"
  13B Page 7, line 42, leave out "has ceased to satisfy those" and insert "fails to satisfy any such"
  13C Page 7, line 43, leave out from beginning to "requirements" on page 8, line 3 and insert—
  "(3) Regulations—

  (a) shall provide that, except in such cases as may be prescribed, the company must be prohibited by its constitution from admitting to its membership any person who is not of a prescribed description, and

  (b) may impose"

  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13A to 13C and the words so restored to the Bill. I have already spoken to these amendments.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13A to 13C and the words so restored to the Bill.—[Baroness Ashton of Upholland.]
  [Amendment No. 13D, as an amendment to the Motion, not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  14 Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
  "Control of regulation

  (1) In relation to the conduct of education in schools and nursery schools, the Secretary of State and local education authorities shall have a duty to limit new regulation and to control the amount of material they send to governing bodies and head teachers.

  (2) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report to Parliament, setting out any progress he has made in the preceding year in seeking to control or reduce the volume of regulations, circulars and codes of practice that he or his predecessors have published, and reporting any representations he has received from governing bodies, head teachers or teachers' representative bodies about the burden that regulations impose.

  (3) Each set of regulations, circular or code of practice issued by the Secretary of State shall include a statement by him of the time he expects it will take for governing bodies or head teachers of schools, or nursery schools, as appropriate, to read, consider and implement the regulation, circular or code of practice concerned.

  240

  (4) In making his estimate under subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall impose no additional burden on schools or nursery schools to provide him or local authorities with information."

  The Commons disagree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof—
  14A Page 23, line 44, at end insert the following new Clause—
  "Annual report on circulars etc. sent to schools.

  (1) The Secretary of State shall in respect of each academic year—

  (a) prepare a report listing—

  (i) documents sent by him during the year to all governingbodies of maintained schools in England or to all headteachers of such schools.

  (ii) documents (not falling within sub-paragraph (i)) sent by him during the year to all governing bodies of maintained schools in England of a particular kind or to all head teachers of such schools of a particular kind, and

  (b) lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament.

  (2) The National Assembly for Wales shall in respect of each academic year prepare and publish a report listing—

  (a) documents sent by the Assembly during the year to all governing bodies of maintained schools in Wales or to all head teachers of such schools,

  (b) documents (not falling within paragraph (a)) sent by the Assembly during the year to all governing bodies of maintained schools in Wales of a particular kind or to all head teachers of such schools of a particular kind.

  (3) The documents referred to in subsections (1) and (2) do not include any document sent by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales—

  (a) otherwise than in the exercise of functions relating to education, or

  (b) at the request of the person to whom it is sent.

  (4) In this section "academic year" means a period beginning with 1st August and ending with the next 31st July."

  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A in lieu thereof.
  In moving this Motion, I wish to begin by saying that we all share the desire to ensure that teachers, head teachers and governing bodies do not need to carry out unnecessary tasks. No one could disagree that we need to do all we can to enable teachers to focus on their core tasks. So it is not that intention which we are debating; we are discussing the means of giving effect to that intention. I also wish to say that the original Lords Amendment No. 14 is not the way to do that. Trying to legislate in the way proposed in that amendment is not only unlikely to be successful: more importantly, it carries a serious risk of being counter-productive. I should like at the outset to make two points that I believe are very important.
  First, there cannot be an assumption that all new regulation is inherently bad. As a result of perfectly sensible pressure from the Opposition, we will be making new regulations in a number of new areas. If we had in place a duty of the sort proposed in the original Amendment No. 14, it would put our ability to do that in jeopardy. I know that that is not the intention, but it is the effect. I also make it clear that

  241
  this is not a problem about the drafting of the amendment; it is a fundamental problem with the approach.
  Secondly, much of the material that is sent to schools is intended to be helpful, and is recognised as such. If we send material connected with the national literacy and numeracy strategies, for example, it will help teachers, saving them time and boosting achievement. That, of course, is a perfectly sound investment. So I agree absolutely that it is good to cut out unnecessary and unhelpful material. Again, however, that is not the effect of Amendment No. 14. Its effect would be to cut back material that may be highly beneficial to schools and to children.
  These arc fundamental points, but perhaps even more fundamental is the concern that, rather than reducing the level of prescription that schools face, the duty proposed might in fact increase the level of prescription. The reason is simple. Through this Bill we have set out to deregulate. We have been absolutely clear about saying that we believe that education legislation is over-prescriptive and that the level of regulation is too great. And in a very consistent way, we have set out in this Bill to begin to change that. The way we have done it is this. We have taken a piece of over-prescriptive primary legislation and repealed it, but taken a power to make secondary legislation. We have made clear that the regulations we will make will be significantly less prescriptive than the primary legislation that has gone before. But the crucial point is that if we cannot make regulations, we cannot deregulate.
  The implementation of this Bill will require the making of significant numbers of regulations. The repeal of detailed primary legislation will be brought in at the same time as the new regulations. If we cannot make the regulations, we shall be unable to commence the repeals, and the chance to reduce burdens on schools will be lost.
  So, the approach set out in Amendment No. 14 would mean that we would be unable to implement the deregulatory agenda that I hope we all wish to see, freeing schools from unnecessary prescription. In addition, there is a risk that the amendment would mean that schools would not receive useful information that would help them in their daily work, but also potentially that they would be uninformed about key aspects of their work.
  Consider the biggest documents we have sent to primary schools in the last academic year: the single largest document at 224 pages was the special educational needs toolkit; the second largest at 210 pages was the special educational needs code of practice; the third largest at 200 pages was the schemes of work for citizenship, helping schools to introduce that new subject to the curriculum; the next at 158 pages was the Early Literacy Support Programme—an optional but widely welcomed measure to help children having difficulties with literacy at key stage 1; the next at 115 pages was the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document 2001; the next, at 74 pages, the "Schools—achieving success" White Paper; and then
  242
  72 pages on springboard 6—lessons for use in booster classes. The latter is also an optional but widely welcomed measure which is useful for those children struggling to reach level four at key stage 2—the level that we believe is necessary for children to access the secondary curriculum. I could go on but those seven documents comprise almost 60 per cent of the pages we sent to primary schools last year.
  I am not sure that any noble Lord could say which of those documents might be considered unnecessary for schools to see, particularly not the two largest, the special educational needs toolkit and the special educational needs code of practice which together comprise almost a quarter of the pages sent by central government to primary schools; not, I imagine given the lengthy debates about the importance of citizenship we have had during the course of this Bill, the schemes of work for that subject; and not, I expect, the teaching materials relating to literacy and numeracy that have received such a warm welcome in our schools. I hope that no noble Lord would argue that we should keep teachers in the dark about their pay and conditions. That leaves the White Paper. I can imagine the outrage that would be expressed, quite rightly, if the Government gave teachers no opportunity to take part in the consultation on our plans for the next few years.
  I understand that the approach of Amendment No. 14 may be well intentioned, but it would be counter-productive. It would be counter-productive because, first, there would be a danger of an adverse impact, because the Government would be prevented from acting quickly to address important issues. Secondly, there could be an adverse impact on schools not receiving important information which would help them to do their job more effectively or implement legal requirements, such as those relating to special educational needs. Thirdly, there would be a serious risk that the amendment would stand in the way of the very serious attempt to deregulate which we have begun in this Bill, because deregulation requires us to issue new, less prescriptive regulations. We cannot have a situation in which any of those things happen.
  The Government's approach in Amendment No. 14A seeks to avoid all of those difficulties but also to reinforce their efforts to reduce burdens on schools. As noble Lords will be aware, this amendment received careful consideration in another place and creates a duty for the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the number of documents that the department sends to schools. We have achieved a great deal in the past three years. There have been about one-third fewer documents sent out this school year compared to 1999–2000. Amendment No. 14A will be a transparent means of demonstrating that we mean what we say in reducing burdens on schools.
  We also recognise the point made in another place that, while the department's communications are valuable, they are not always of universal interest. We shall look further at better ways of targeting our communications even more directly to the intended audience, and of signposting our documents clearly.

  243
  As I have said in previous debate, the Secretary of State is engaged in a wider look at the issue of teacher workload and burdens and will respond on these matters formally in the autumn. An annual report to Parliament will add to our efforts in this area by providing even greater transparency in regard to the department's communications with schools.
  I shall return in a moment to the other amendments standing in my name.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
  6 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A in lieu thereof, leave out from "No. 14" to end and insert ", do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A in lieu thereof but do propose the following amendment in lieu of the Commons amendment—
  14B Page 23, line 44, at end insert the following new Clause—
  "Control of regulation (No. 2)

  (1) In relation to the conduct of education in schools and nursery schools, the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales and local authorities shall have a duty to limit new regulation and to control the amount of material they send to governing bodies and head teachers.

  (2) In pursuance of the duty in subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall in respect of each academic year—

  (a) prepare a report listing—

  (i) documents sent by him during the year to all governing bodies of maintained schools in England or to all head teachers of such schools,

  (ii) documents (not falling within sub-paragraph (i)) sent by him during the year to all governing bodies of maintained schools in England of a particular kind or to all head teachers of such schools of a particular kind, and

  (b) lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament, and include within it comparative statistics in respect of each of the two preceding academic years on documents falling within this subsection sent out by him.

  (3) In pursuit of the duty in subsection (1) the National Assembly for Wales shall in respect of each academic year prepare and publish a report listing—

  (a) documents sent by the Assembly during the year to all governing bodies of maintained schools in Wales or to all head teachers of such schools,

  (b) documents (not falling within paragraph (a)) sent by the Assembly during the year to all governing bodies of maintained schools in Wales of a particular kind or to all head teachers of such schools of a particular kind.

  (4) The documents referred to in subsections (2) and (3) do not include any document sent by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales at the request of the person to whom it is sent.

  (5) Each document issued by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall list within it previous relevant documents issued by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales and shall state clearly those documents which are superseded by the current document.

  244

  (6) Each document issued by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall state clearly the persons for whom the advice and guidance is intended.

  (7) The purpose of this section is to ensure that the volume of direction and guidance given by the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales shall not interfere unduly with the professional judgement of teachers, nor impose on head teachers and governing bodies unreasonable burdens of compliance, and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to this purpose in the preparation of documents to which this section applies.

  (8) In this section "academic year" means a period beginning with 1st August and ending with the next 31st July.""

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the one issue on the lips of governors, head teachers, teachers and parents is that the volume of regulations, guidance, guidelines and extraneous material that is sent to schools by the DfES is a serious concern. The most frequent reason given by most teachers leaving the profession is the same—too much bureaucracy, too much interference and too many government initiatives.
  I have been struck by the incredible efforts made by Ministers at the department over recent days to duck out of accepting a duty to limit regulation and the volume of paper sent daily to our schools. The government amendment does not go far enough. It is pathetic to invite teachers to accept that the Secretary of State will have regard to the desirability of providing information about good educational practice. I refer to the desirability—not the duty—to limit regulation.
  The National Union of Teachers has produced a good paper with some interesting comments. It speaks for teachers in our schools. At Third Reading the Minister said that my amendment was,
  "lacking in that it does not address the issue of the quality of information issued. I know from my own experience of being both responsible for issuing information and being on the receiving end as a chair of governors until last year that it is the quality equally as much as the quantity—indeed, more so—of the communication or regulation that is of paramount importance".—[Official Report, 3/07/02; col. 261.]
  I should say that I prefer the phrase "chairman of governors" to "chair of governors".
  I agree with the Minister's comments about the quality of communications. However, we all agree that too much information is sent to schools, whether it is well intentioned and has good substance or does not have such good substance.
  Many teachers do not feel in control of their work. They regard not being in control as a real cause of distress. That is brought about by the pace and manner of change that occurs. Much of that change is ill thought through, such as the companies measures that we have discussed today. Teachers are given insufficient support to meet those changes. They resent having to engage in tasks which do not support learning.
  The NUT study of teachers' workloads quoted a teacher as saying that despite the plethora of new announcements, initiatives and requirements launched annually, in her entire career she had never seen a notice or an announcement requesting her to stop doing something rather than do something.
  I am aware that the Government are full of good intentions to remove burdens on teachers. However, a full-blooded commitment—as my amendment provides—would impress teachers rather more than having regard to the desirability of reducing burdens on them. The greatest thing that the House could do today would be to accept the amendments and to tell teachers, as the Bill completes its passage through both Houses, that the Secretary of State accepts with grace a duty to limit regulations and to control the amount of material that is sent to schools.
  I believe that the Liberal Democrats will support the Government, while requiring them to have regard to the desirability of reducing the burdens on schools. As Conservatives, we support head teachers, teachers and governors in wanting a positive duty on the Secretary of State to reduce paperwork—not simply to have regard to the desirability of doing so. Fine words and good intentions are not good enough. I beg to move.
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A in lieu thereof, leave out from "No. 14" to end and insert ", do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A in lieu thereof but do propose Amendment No. 14B in lieu of the Commons amendment.[Baroness Blatch.]
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 14B, Amendment No. 14BA:
  14BA Leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  "(1) In considering whether to issue any guidance or other circular to the governing bodies or head teachers of maintained schools in the exercise of functions relating to education, the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales shall have regard to—

  (a) the desirability of providing information about good educational practice, while recognising the professional expertise of teachers,

  (b) the benefits that are expected to result from the issue of the guidance or other circular, and

  (c) the desirability of avoiding—

  (i) the sending of excessive material to governing bodies or head teachers, and

  (ii) the imposition of excessive administrative burdens on governing bodies or head teachers."

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 14BA as an amendment to Amendment No. 14B, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 14BB to 14BF—which are in the spirit of that which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, seeks to achieve.
  Earlier, I outlined some of the difficulties with an approach that seeks to place limits on the Government's ability to regulate. I pointed out that the Government's approach has been to repeal detailed provisions in primary legislation by making less detailed provisions in secondary legislation. I am advised by parliamentary counsel that it is
  246
  unacceptable as a matter of law to have a duty in primary legislation that restricts the ability to make secondary legislation and am bound to accept that advice. Nonetheless, I recognise the importance of taking proper account of workload factors and have made my position clear throughout the progress of the Bill.
  I am sure that all noble Lords agree that we must not be placed in a position in which documents of the sort that I described cannot be sent to schools—and I am certain that is not the noble Baroness's intention: material such as the special needs toolkit; schemes of work for national curriculum subjects; numeracy and key stage 3 strategies; and major policy documents—many of which seek the views of teachers. It must remain possible for the Department to send to schools material that helps them to discharge their duties to pupils. It should remain possible for the department to continue to provide advice in relation to important national priorities. If anyone should be consulted on the Government's policies for schools, teachers must be consulted.
  Government Amendment No. 14BA achieves that objective while placing on the face of the Bill the importance of avoiding making excessive demands. It places a duty on the Secretary of State in this area for the first time and recognises that the Secretary of State is well placed to share information and to provide advice and good practice. It ensures that the Secretary of State must take account not only of the benefits of issuing guidance and other documents but also of the desirability of avoiding excessive burdens.
  Amendment No. 14BA accepts that it is helpful to state clearly for whom the advice and guidance is intended and which other documents are superseded—which has been the department's practice for some time. The new subsection (1) replaces the existing subsection (1) and Amendment No. 14BF deletes subsection (8)—which, as drafted, does not work legally but does point to two important issues, which are the professionalism of teachers and the importance of avoiding unreasonable burdens. Those two points are picked up in new subsection (1), so subsection (7) can be deleted.
  Government Amendments Nos. 14BB to 14BE ensure that Amendment No. 14BA catches only material sent by the Secretary of State for Education; that the scope of subsections (5) and (6) are clearly the same as that of the remainder of the clause; and that the drafting is legally watertight. The advantages of making the changes in Government Amendments 14BA to 14BF are clear. They ensure that due account is taken of the costs and benefits of producing documents; that the amendment is not counter-productive; and that the Secretary of State seeks to avoid excessive burdens. The amendments ensure that useful material that we all agree should be sent to schools can be sent. I beg to move.
  Moved, as a manuscript amendment to Amendment No. 14B, Amendment No. 14BA.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, it may help your Lordships to be aware that my noble friend Lady Sharp will not be moving Amendments Nos. 14C to 14E.
  At an earlier stage, we agreed vehemently with the spirit of an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, because it is important to have an effective clause to reduce the burden of regulation on teachers. However, we did not support that amendment because we felt that it would have created more paperwork than it saved. Although the amendment's spirit was absolutely right, it was flawed.
  The Government's response in another place, in the form of Amendment No. 14A, is not adequate because it makes no real commitment to reducing the burdens of regulation and paperwork on teachers. There is great merit in Amendment No. 14B and we are most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for considering our concerns about her first draft, inserting proposed subsections (5) and (6), and removing a reference to the number of pages that we felt was superficial.
  We want the Bill to incorporate wording that places the Secretary of State under an obligation to reduce the volume of paperwork that goes to schools. Government Amendments Nos. 14BA to 14BF place the Secretary of State under an obligation to pay regard to providing the information that teachers need without overburdening them with paperwork. Your Lordships know how long it takes even to open our post in the mornings.
  Teacher workload is one of the most important factors in discouraging people from entering the teaching profession, failing to attract high-quality recruits from universities and failing to retain high-quality teachers in the system. We want teachers to teach—to spend their time doing the work in the classroom for which their professional training has prepared them.
  We welcome the wording in the government amendment that recognises the expertise of teachers. It is important not to send material to teachers that patronises them by presenting information that they ought to know anyway. We thank the Government for responding to our concerns over the past 24 hours by devising a set of satisfactory amendments. We are most grateful also to the NUT for providing us with a great deal of help and guidance. We shall support the Government amendments to Amendment No. 14B but will watch and listen. If we find that those measures are not effective in reducing the burden of paperwork on schools and teachers, we will continue to press the Government. We want to make sure that teachers can teach. At this stage, we feel that the government amendments are satisfactory and will achieve that end.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am fascinated by what the noble Baroness said; it is almost diametrically opposed to what Don Foster said in another place about the amendments. He welcomed the more positive request to the Government.
  248
  I shall tell the House what "have regard" means in law. It simply means that the Government must think about the desirability or benefit, but they can then discard. The only challenge to that is procedural and does not involve the merits of the decision. The Government are entirely free to take the decision. They can have all sorts of wonderful thoughts about taking the burdens off teachers but they can continue to send down legislation so long as they can prove en passant that they thought about it.
  I shall give an example of what will happen to schools. We have just considered clauses about companies, which will no doubt be considered in another place. We have the support of the Liberal Democrats on those clauses. The Minister said that she expected very few schools to take advantage of the opportunity to set up a company. However, every school in the land will receive regulations, guidance and guidelines about setting up companies; they will have to have that information just in case they are one of the very few schools that may consider doing so. However tiny the school and however preoccupied it is, it will receive all of that information.
  The noble Baroness said—if she is convinced by this argument, I wonder about the Ministers in the department—that the advice of parliamentary counsel is that the Government could not, in legal terms, live with the requirement or duty to limit legislation. First, the Government do not have to pass regulations. They can merge some regulations and make more sense of them. In fact, they can decide not to send down the regulations at all; they can take a different view. The record books are littered with occasions on which governments have not followed through with regulations because they were overtaken, because the government took a different view or because there were representations from teachers who said that the provisions were no longer relevant. It is possible in law to limit regulations. If the Minister is prepared to accept that, I am surprised that they do not assert themselves more positively in the department.
  Lord Dearing: My Lords, I welcome the Government's response at Third Reading in this place and in the other House. I recall that at Third Reading, when commenting on an amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, said,
  "I wish to make clear that the Government wholeheartedly support the spirit of the amendment".—[Official Report, 3/7/02; col. 259.]
  That is an important statement and I said at the time that I thought that perhaps the greatest contribution that the Government could make to lifting the standards of education in schools was to contain the excess of paper flowing into schools. As a practical administrator, what matters above all is the intent of the Government. We have had evidence—I refer to the figures given by the Minister—that the Government have been reducing the flow of paper. However, some of the paper—a large element of it—is advisory and supportive rather than mandatory and interfering. I welcome that, too.

  249
  I recognise and share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I read her words carefully. I was not sure that they were not open to quite wide interpretation. The words "control" and "limit" are not very specific.
  I come back to my original point that this arrangement depends on the intention of the Government. I welcome the Government's response to the debate because, in advancing the amendments, they showed their awareness that, in addition to what has been said in the House, they needed an affirmation in the Bill about the intention in this regard. In subsection (1) of the new clause, they have provided a spur to their intent against which they can be held accountable.
  I have two questions for the Minister. In the annual statement, which I believe will still come forward, does the word "document" include "regulations"? Although new subsection (1) does not refer to regulations, for reasons that I now understand, it is relevant to know the extent to which the Government have been using their regulatory power. My second small clarification arises from the debate in the other place. Does "document" include electronic mail, so that there will be a comprehensive rather than a limited statement? Subject to that, I support the Government's proposals.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, if I may, I shall respond immediately to the two questions of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. We do not generally send regulations to schools but if they are included in a circular, the noble Lord was absolutely right to suggest that they would be included. He also asked about electronic communications. As yet, we do not generally e-mail schools. If we start to do so, we will of course include that in any annual report.
  I am absolutely convinced, although it may not feel like that at times, that we are all of the same mind in sharing the fundamental aim of seeking to improve the communications that go to schools and not to place unnecessary burdens on them. Earlier, I described the progress that we have made in so doing. I hope that noble Lords accept our good intentions, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said.
  I also hope that noble Lords recognise that the issue of workload in schools cannot be solved by primary legislation alone. Amendments Nos. 14BA to 14BF are a balanced response to the issue of what can sensibly be achieved in this area through primary legislation.
  I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who pushed and prodded us to the point that we have reached. We all believe that the most important thing is that schools get the right information at the right time and that it is easy for schools to use it.
  To reiterate, a degree of regulation is necessary to ensure that essential safeguards are in place. However, we are committed through the Bill to using the regulation-making powers in the Bill to reduce prescription and burdens on schools by repealing existing prescriptive primary legislation. We are
  250
  committed to ensuring that regulations are fit for their purpose, of good quality and are sensibly targeted. I accept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, that many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in particular, will be vigilant in watching to ensure that we achieve that.
  I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I take the words of parliamentary counsel very seriously but that I have never been accused of being under-assertive, if that is the right phrase, in the department. My colleagues may rib me considerably about that later!
  Our amendments are a good way forward and they build on what is in place. I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, seeks to do. I want to capture the spirit of her amendment but to avoid the possible negative impact. The amendments will ensure that the Secretary of State will take account of the need to avoid excessive burdens and of the professionalism of teachers. Noble Lords will watch carefully over us to ensure that that is precisely what we do.
  6.29 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 208; Not-Contents, 127.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Addington, L.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Alderdice, L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Darcy de Knayth, B.

  Alli, L.

  David, B.

  Amos, B.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Dearing, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Desai, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Bach, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Barker, B.

  Donoughue, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Elder, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Boothroyd, B.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Falkender, B.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Bragg, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Brennan, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Brett, L.

  Fearn, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Fitt, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Gale, B.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Carter, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Golding, B.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  251

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Perry of Walton, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Peston, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Greaves, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Prashar, B.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Puttnam, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Radice, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Rea, L.

  Haskins, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Richard, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Richardson of Calow, B.

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Rooker, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Roper, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Russell, E.

  Hoyle, L.

  Russell-Johnston, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Hunt of Chesterton, L.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Jones, L.

  Serota, B.

  Judd, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Sharman, L.

  Layard, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Sheldon, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Simon, V.

  Listowel, E.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Ludford, B.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Temple-Morris, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Maclennan of Rogart, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  McNally.L.

  Thornton, B.

  Maddock, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Tope, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Turnberg, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Mitchell, L.

  Warnock, B.

  Morgan, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Morris of Aberavon, L.

  Watson of Richmond, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Moser, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Wigoder, L.

  Northover, B.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Orme, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Ouseley, L.

  Parekh, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Winston, L.

  Pendry, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Biffen, L.

  Arran, E.

  Blackwell, L.

  Astor, V.

  Blaker, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Blatch, B.

  252

  Boardman, L.

  Laing of Dunphail, L.

  Bowness, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Lang of Monkton, L.

  Brigstocke, B.

  Lindsay, E.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Byford, B.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  MacGregor of Pulham Market L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Cox, B.

  Monson, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Denham, L.

  Naseby, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Noakes, B.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Elles, B.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Elton, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Erroll, E.

  Palmer, L.

  Feldman, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Ferrers, E.

  Parkinson, L.

  Flather, B.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Perry of Southwark, B.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Fowler, L.

  Platt of Writtle, B.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Freeman, L.

  Rees, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Renton, L.

  Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Rogan, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  St John of Fawsley, L.

  Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Hanham, B.

  Sharples, B.

  Harris of High Cross, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Henley, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Tebbit, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  James of Holland Park, B.

  Tugendhat, L.

  Jellicoe, E.

  Vivian, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Kilclooney, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  King of Bridgwater, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Kingsland, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Wolfson, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
  6.40 p.m.

  AMENDMENTS TO LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 14B
  14BB In subsection (4), after "Wales" insert—

  "(a) otherwise than in the exercise of functions, relating to education, or

  (b)"

  14BC in subsection (5), after first "Wales" insert "and falling within subsection (2)(a)(i) or (ii) or (3)(a) or (b)"
  14BD In subsection (6), after "Wales" insert "and falling within subsection (2)(a)(i) or (ii)or (3)(a) or (b)"
  14BE In subsection (6), leave out "the advice" and insert "any advice"
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 14BB to 14BE, as amendments to Amendment No. 14B.
  Moved, That Amendments Nos. 14BB to 14BE, as amendments to Amendment No. 14B, be agreed to.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is true to say that head teachers and governors up and down the country will not forgive us in this House for failing to support their heartfelt cry to ask the Secretary of State to accept a duty to reduce bureaucratic burdens on schools. Nevertheless, something on the face of the Bill is better than nothing at all. Therefore, we will not oppose these amendments, nor will we oppose the substantive amendments. However, as the noble Baroness has predicted, we shall be watching and waiting.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  AMENDMENT TO LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 14B
  14BF Leave out subsection (7)
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14BF, as an amendment to Amendment No. 14B.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 14BF, as an amendment to Amendment No. 14B, be agreed to.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  On Question, Amendment No. 14B, as amended, agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  23 Clause 32, page 19, line 7, leave out subsection (2)
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
  23A Page 19, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  "(2)The purpose of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for discussion of the manner in which the school has been, and is to be, conducted, and of any other matters relating to the school raised by parents of registered pupils.
  (3) Regulations may make provision as to circumstances in which a governing body are to be exempt from the obligation imposed by subsection (1)."
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 23 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23A in lieu thereof.
  We have reflected carefully on the points made at Committee stage about annual parents' meetings. This government amendment ensures that parents will retain the opportunity to hold the governing body to account, but it enables us to relieve schools of this duty where this would genuinely be burdensome and
  254
  unnecessary, and it restricts the regulation-making power to exemptions from holding meetings, thereby deregulating the process of annual parents' meetings.
  It is important for parents to have the opportunity to discuss school issues with the governing body, and we are safeguarding that right. But, for certain schools, holding an annual parents' meeting presents particular practical difficulties. For example, at present special schools established in hospitals, or maintained schools where at least 50 per cent of the pupils are boarders, do not have to hold annual parents' meetings if the governing body of the school concerned does not believe that it would be practicable to do so.
  The amendment provides schools with necessary flexibility because, for understandable reasons, many such schools would find it extremely difficult to make appropriate arrangements for annual parents' meetings. We do not believe that they should be required to do so in future because they are not required to do so at present. Noble Lords always take a particular interest in special educational needs, and I am sure that the House will want to maintain the current flexibilities available to special schools in hospitals.
  The amendment defines the broad purpose of the annual parents' meeting on the face of the Bill to ensure that parents can raise issues in relation to the school at the meeting. We have listened carefully to the case put by noble Lords for deregulating the process of the annual meetings and we agree with the thrust of the argument put forward most forcefully by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We agree that governing bodies are perfectly capable of deciding how best to run such meetings. Therefore, we have limited the regulation-making power to exemptions from the requirement to hold an annual meeting, leaving, as was sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the detailed arrangements and process to governing bodies.
  The power to make regulations to exempt schools from holding annual parents' meetings in prescribed circumstances enables us to keep this matter under review and to add exemptions if appropriate in order to avoid unnecessary burdens on schools and governing bodies. I hope that your Lordship's House will agree that the amendment strikes the right balance between securing accountability, reducing burdens and removing detailed prescription. I hope that the House will accept the amendment passed in the other place in lieu of that passed in Committee.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 23 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. However, it proves my earlier point that, despite the fact that the noble Baroness has received parliamentary counsel, it is possible to reduce regulation. I did so through my amendment. The Government did not have to pass this regulation and

  255
  they did not have to impose it. If the Bill had been left in its previous state, unnecessary regulation would have been imposed on schools. Therefore, I simply say that parliamentary counsel is not always right. It may be a wise counsel but not in absolutely every case.
  I have one question for the noble Baroness. Can I have an absolute assurance that, under Pepper v. Hart conditions, on the face of the Bill the regulations will be absolutely exclusive to one issue only—that is, the exemption from the obligation imposed by subsection (1) to hold an annual meeting of the school?
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, from these Benches I welcome the amendment. I believe that it provides a very sensible solution. I thoroughly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and commend her resolute action in saying that the regulations are totally unnecessary. Head teachers, parents and governors know perfectly well how to hold meetings; they do not have to be told how to do so. These are an excellent example of the type of regulations that can be disposed of.
  I believe that it is useful to set out the purpose of the meeting on the face of the Bill. As the Minister pointed out, there may be occasions when schools wish to claim exemption from holding a meeting. But, on the whole, the fact that an annual meeting should be held by school governors is a good form of public accountability. Therefore, from these Benches we shall support the amendment.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the assurance that she requires that the regulations will concern exemptions. Another example that I gave to your Lordships concerned schools which had recently undergone an Ofsted inspection and had held a meeting of all the parents to discuss that. Such a school may, indeed, wish to be exempted and that is another good example. I hope that noble Lords will feel that we have responded well to the concerns raised and that the House will now agree that we have achieved a workable solution.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  27 Leave out Clause 41.
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
  27B> Clause 41, page 27, leave out lines 25 to 29 and insert—
  "(3) The purpose of a schools forum is to advise the relevant authority on such matters relating to the authority's schools budget as may be prescribed by regulations under section 45A(3) or by regulations under this subsection.
  (3A) Regulations under section 45A(3) or under subsection (3) may include provision requiring a relevant authority to have regard to advice given by their schools forum, or requiring a relevant authority to consult their schools forum in relation to prescribed matters or before taking prescribed decisions.".
  27C Page 27, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 28.
  The Commons have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
  27A Page 25, line 29, leave out from "determined" to end of line 31.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27B and 27C to the words so restored to the Bill and to consequential Amendment No. 27A.
  As I have made clear in your Lordships' House in the course of our deliberations, we believe that collaboration between schools and education authorities is an integral part of the new funding system. We want that partnership to be as effective as possible across the country.
  The debates that we have had during the Bill's passage through both Houses have not changed the Government's view that forums have an important role to play under the new regime. We have always said that we know that effective consultation arrangements are in place on funding matters in some local education authorities. But that is by no means the case in every authority. It is only right that schools have the opportunity to articulate views on financial matters that affect them in partnership with their local education authority.
  Perhaps I may remind the House of the context for the introduction of schools forums. In the previous two clauses of the Bill, we make arrangements for a new system in which there is a separate schools budget. That, in turn, is subject to the Secretary of State's reserved power. In that context, we want schools collectively to have a stronger voice on how the schools budget is constructed and allocated. Instead of national controls on delegation, we want schools to give a view on, for example, the correct balance between central spend on special needs and delegation to schools. This is a way ahead which promotes local responses to local circumstances. I hope that all parts of the House would welcome that.
  As I have previously stated in your Lordships' House, we have had strong backing for the creation of forums from bodies such as the National Association of Head Teachers, the Secondary Heads Association, the National Governors Council and other schools organisations. A letter we received from the Secondary Heads Association states that,
  "the overwhelming majority of our Council believes that the Schools Forum proposal should go ahead and we very much hope it does not get lost in the parliamentary process".
  The Foundation and Aided Schools National Association has written in the following terms:
  "We do see these as a very significant step towards bringing informed professional judgments to bear on local LEA funding…we have tried to get across…how strongly we feel on this".
  Debates on schools forums, both in this House and in another place, have been about two main issues: the way forums are to be constituted; and their functions. As a result of this and the consultation exercise, we have decided to make changes to our thinking about secondary legislation. Our aim is to ensure that

  257
  authorities are not required to change arrangements of this sort that work well. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made that point in Committee to good effect.
  When we considered the Bill at Third Reading, I outlined the much greater flexibility we propose as to the way in which forums may be established and run. It may be useful to remind the House of those because they give much greater discretion to authorities. Forums would have to include both head teachers and governors but the balance would be at the education authority's discretion and the election method determined locally. We would raise the minimum size to 15 members but there would be no maximum. There would have to be regard to proportionality between primary and secondary phases but no elaborate formula imposed nationally. We would reduce the maximum percentage of non-schools members to 20 per cent and these could now include, if desired, elected members of the LEA. The LSC would have only observer status and the forum requirement would be relaxed a little. Most provisions relating to costs would be settled locally. These are significant changes which introduce much greater flexibility and will enable many local education authorities to turn existing local groups into statutory forums.
  We have also listened to what has been said about functions of the schools forums. As I said at Third Reading, there was a substantial measure of agreement in the consultation responses that the advisory functions we had in mind for the forum are on the right lines. This confirmed our belief that the forums will become a valuable resource for education authorities. The consultation exercise also showed considerable support for a limited decision-taking function. But we recognise that many have expressed a fear, not least those from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that that function would be expanded over time. That was never our intention. But nor was the decision-making function ever the main point of school forums which are intended primarily to strengthen local partnerships. So we have considered this matter further and in consequence have brought forward the set of amendments approved in another place which arc now before the House.
  Those amendments restrict the role of the forums so that advice and consultation will be the limit of their function. The forum's advisory role is planned to be much the same as before: the funding formula for schools, service contracts, specific issues such as the balance of special educational needs spending, and arrangements for education otherwise. But there will be no power to take financial decisions. It never was our intention that the forum tells the local education authority how much to spend on schools or even on each expenditure item. But these amendments mean that forums will have no decision-making role. The forum will be a body for partnership and a resource for forward-looking education authorities. It is also a mechanism which will help schools to take a collegiate view of priorities and see each other and the local education authority as parts of a greater whole.
  258
  In our recent document, Investment for Reform, we emphasise the need for schools to learn from each other and not try to work in isolation. We believe that school forums will help to make that a reality. They are to be welcomed.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27B and 27C to the words so restored to the Bill and to consequential Amendment No. 27A.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27B and 27C to the words so restored to the Bill and to consequential Amendment No. 27A, at end insert "together with the following amendment to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons' disagreement to Amendment No. 27—
  27D Page 27, line 17, after "shall" insert
  ", if they so decide or if they are so requested in writing by the governing bodies of at least 5 per cent of the maintained schools in their area,"".
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I support school forums in the form they have come back to us from the Commons. I agree with the Minister's remarks about the Government's current intentions as regard regulations. However, I want to go further.
  There is much good work and practice in local education authorities and their communities of schools. I think in particular of a body created in Dorset by the Liberal Democrats called the Budget Advisory Group for Schools. It has proved an enormous success and a great help to that county in making difficult decisions about how money should be allocated between schools.
  The success of that structure results from one simple fact: the schools feel that they own it. They have been responsible for designing how it works. 'They have been responsible for designing its constitution and who should be on it. They have control over its business. They are the only voting members of that structure.
  I do not understand why we should seek to replace that structure by something from a centralised diktat. The noble Baroness gives me some comfort on that. But why should something that is working well and has the overwhelming support of local schools be overturned by central diktat?
  These issues depend on local enthusiasm, local ownership and local decisions made to suit local circumstances. It is not appropriate that a central diktat can override all local wishes and impose something designed by Whitehall without reference to local conditions. I beg to move.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 27D, as an amendment to the Motion, be agreed to.—(Lord Lucas.)
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I support my noble friend. The only argument for having these uniform

  259
  bodies, rather than accepting flexibility for schools and local education authorities to decide on the form of local consultation, is to have greater central government control. Policy notes, regulations and guidance documents are already being written in the department and will soon be winging their way to all 24,000-plus schools. That is superfluous. I rest my case and support my noble friend.
  Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, we on these Benches are minded to support government Amendments Nos. 27A, 27B and 27C. We are grateful to the Government for listening and responding to our objections to schools forums at earlier stages of the Bill.
  Our concerns were never about consultation. Consultation is always a good thing. We are in favour of it. However, accountability is through the ballot box. These organisations were unelected and were to be given the power to deploy LEAs' budgets even if an LEA had good reasons for wanting to do something else. We believed that it was never necessary to take a sledgehammer to those few LEAs which did not consult adequately.
  In the new amendment, subsection (3) contains the most significant change. It makes the organisations advisory. That is good. But we have some questions about subsection (3A). I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position. Subsection (3A) requires the authority to have regard to advice. What does that mean? Who decides if it has not had regard to advice? What happens if it does not?
  Unfortunately, we are not minded to support Amendment No. 27D. We are afraid that the very LEAs which would choose not have an advisory school forum may be the very ones which need to improve their consultation. As to getting 5 per cent of governing bodies to agree and forcing the LEA to accept a schools forum, we are all aware of how difficult it could be to get a campaign of that nature going. If local authorities are not consulting adequately, it is good that they should follow a pattern which involves schools, and consult better.
  On that basis, we shall be supporting the Government's amendment, but not that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
  7 p.m.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in winding up this brief debate, I begin by dealing with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I am pleased that he is happy that the main clause should be restored to the Bill. As the noble Lord has said, the effect of his amendment would be to make the establishment of schools forums discretionary for an education authority, unless 5 per cent of school governing bodies request one.
  Our concern—and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, put this extremely well—is to make sure that local authorities have the benefit of appropriate mechanisms. It is precisely those authorities that
  260
  would not set up some kind of consultative mechanism that we seek to address. But we have moved—and I have explained the changes we have made directly as a result of consultation, but also in response to comments by, in particular, the noble Baroness Lady Blatch in Committee—to try to make sure that the way in which education authorities currently consult will fit well into this with the minimum of change. That is the nub of what I want to get across.
  The noble Lord's amendment proposes that there should be a 5 per cent mandate for a schools forum to be established. My main objection is that that would introduce an unnecessary additional hoop. We know that many schools support school forums. We have had a great deal of correspondence about this—some of which I have read to your Lordships. So I believe that it is inconceivable that 5 per cent would not be found in every education authority to do so. The education authority, unfortunately, will have been put to a huge amount of trouble in organising the plebiscite—if I may call it that—when it could have been engaged in constituting the forum itself.
  I appreciate the spirit in which the noble Lord has put forward his amendment, but I genuinely believe that it is unnecessary. We have made the various changes. We have given a greater degree of local flexibility and discretion. It reflects the consultation exercise. We believe that schools will be pleased with this. We do not see any need for a prior referendum to establish schools forums. It would be unnecessary. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raised a question about advice. Advice is taken account of, but if the authority has a good reason to do something different, it can. It is a phrase used throughout education legislation and is well understood. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she confirm that there will be regulations and guidance following this proposal?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I believe that I have made it clear that we will want to make sure that we have regulation. Of course, we always ensure that where schools benefit from the guidance, the guidance is available to them. Again, we need to be cautious about assuming that all guidance to schools is unnecessary. Very often it is of great importance.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, has misrepresented the amendment to some extent. First, the local education authority has an absolute right without consulting anyone to set up a schools forum. It does not require anyone else's permission under the amendment. It is merely if the local education authority decides not to and 5 per cent of schools ask them to that they must. So no difficulty is imposed on local education authorities.

  261
  I am delighted that the noble Baroness agrees that there is an overwhelming desire out there and that therefore there will be no difficulty in getting the 5 per cent of schools to agree, should the local education authority oppose the setting up of the schools forum. In the amendment—and I think that the noble Baroness has indicated that this amendment would work in that way—I am simply trying to make sure that existing arrangements supported by an overwhelming 95 per cent or more of the schools in the area can be allowed to continue. However, the Bill, as it now stands, with the amendments that have returned from the Commons, would put us in a position where some of these arrangements would be threatened, where some agreements reached locally will be overturned by central diktat and for no more reason than the convenience of legislation and central control.
  It puzzles me sometimes; I thought the Liberal Democrats believed in local government, local decision making and local variation. They certainly seem to with most of their policies. But, given the opportunity to vote in this House, they vote for central control every time. Under those circumstances, I do not see that it is sensible to waste the time of the House in calling a Division, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, if he wishes to assert that we vote for central control every time, perhaps he will be present for the rest of today to see whether he remains of that opinion.
  Amendment No. 27D, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 27, as amended, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Bill returned to the Commons with amendments and reasons.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
7.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Turner of Camden) in the Chair.]
Clause 124 [Assisting unlawful immigration, &c.]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 238ZGA:
Page 65, line 16, after "act" insert "for financial gain"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 238ZGA, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 238ZGK and 238ZGP. I begin by explaining that Clause 124 replaces the provisions of Section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 concerning offences relating to
262
assisting unlawful entry. But in Amendment No. 238ZGA's formulation we have the missing ingredient that the offence is committed for gain.
Existing Section 25 of the 1971 Act refers to entry into the United Kingdom while this clause concerns those who facilitate a breach of immigration laws, meaning a breach of any law which has effect in a member state controlling entry into the state, transit across the state or being present in a member stale. So it also extends our extraterritorial jurisdiction to cover breaches of immigration law in every state in the European Union, which of course we are required to do in order to comply with Article 27 of the Schengen convention.
Article 27 of the Schengen convention provides:
"The Contracting Parties undertake to impose appropriate penalties on any person who, for purposes of gain, assists or tries to assist an alien to enter or reside within the territory of one of the Contractual Parties contrary to the laws of that Contracting Party on the entry and residence of aliens".
Thus it is clear, I hope, that we are only obliged to act against those persons doing those things for gain, as was in the case of the previous Section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971. We think that the words "for gain" are essential to restore the position as it was in the 1971 Act. We hope that the Minister will agree to that proposition.
On Amendment 238ZGK we are concerned that the suggested penalty of 14 years' imprisonment fails to take into account the difference in substance and effect between the offence of facilitation and the far more serious crimes of trafficking for sexual and other forms of exploitation. The maximum term of imprisonment on conviction of an offence under this provision is set at 14 years. We are concerned that that is far too high for the nature of the offence. It is to be compared with the trafficking offences where that same maximum penalty has been imposed. We believe that the penalties for facilitation should reflect the fact that no harm to a person is incurred by the act of facilitation. We agree that there is a difference in kind between people operating in organised gangs on a large scale and someone helping an individual to evade controls as a one-off exercise. We do not see that reflected in the existing provisions of the Bill. I believe that two years would be a more appropriate penalty for this offence: it corresponds with offences of a similar nature which are already on the statute book. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: The last time we were discussing this Bill, very late in the evening, I asked the Minister if he could tell us of any legal route by which a lawful asylum seeker, who was nevertheless an illegal immigrant, could enter this country in order to claim asylum. I have not yet heard an answer to that question. Whether I hear one before the conclusion of this debate will materially influence the case and the position I ultimately take.
This clause seems to be treating asylum seekers in much the same way as in the 17th century they treated ships coming from countries where they had the plague; as something so dangerous that it was not safe even to allow one of them near our shore. The right to

263
claim asylum is a lawful right enshrined in international law and confirmed by treaty to which this country is a party. I hope that it is clear to all Members of the Committee that a legal asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant may be, and very often are, one and the same person. What I want to know is how is a person who is a lawful asylum seeker, but who is nevertheless an illegal immigrant, to gain entry to this country where he can make his claim for asylum in safety?
I appreciate that this amendment is designed against traffickers. I have no wish to defend them. In particular, I have no wish to defend traffickers who traffic in women for purposes of prostitution or who traffic in children for the same purpose, and of whom there are too many. When we reach those clauses in the Bill I will support in principle what the Government are trying to do, although try to make one or two changes in it.
What appears to me to be an attempt to keep asylum seekers away from our shores absolutely and completely causes me very deep dismay. Even where one deals with traffickers in asylum seekers—as I remarked when we were discussing carriers' liability—if there is a big enough demand for something the market will satisfy it, legally or illegally. The Minister ought to bear that in mind. The best way of putting illegal traffickers out of business is to allow a legal route of entry.
If anything like this clause had been in force in the 1930s, I believe that my parents and most of their friends would have ended up serving 14-year sentences in prison because almost all of them knew quite well somebody who was Jewish and an academic scholar in one of the countries where the Nazis came to power. Almost all of them had done unlawful things to help these people to enter this country, many of whom have now become among its most distinguished citizens.
I remember attending a degree ceremony at the University of London where one of the honorary degrees was given to the person who had organised the reception network for these academics. Two honorary degrees were given to people she had helped to enter this country and two more were given to people who were the children of those whom she had helped to enter.
To serve a 14-year prison sentence for doing that seems to me to be rather perverse. If one had been in Kosovo in 1999 and had encountered an Albanian and the Serbs had burned down the house next door and expected them to come back the next night, I wonder how many of us would not have been prepared to give help. I appreciate that one cannot combine the privileges of being a legislator and announcing a willingness to break the law. I bear that in mind constantly. However, although not from a religious point of view, I respect the principle that there is a point where a law actually commands one to sin where it is extremely difficult to obey it. Were this law to be on the statute book I could imagine circumstances in
264
which I would find the task of obeying it gave me very great difficulty. As a legislator that is the point at which I must stop.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I support the first amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. If it were accepted it would enable resources to be concentrated on the pursuit, prosecution and dealing severely with traffickers. It would also leave out of the equation people who, for some reason or other, have made a breach of immigration rules or laws by inadvertence.
As regards the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I believe it is necessary in defence of not only non-governmental organisations, but also of asylum seekers. We then come to Amendment No. 238ZGK. I agree thoroughly with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the maximum penalty stated on the face of the Bill is far too high.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I speak to Amendment No. 238ZGC in this group which stands in my name. I welcome the support given to that amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
Amendment No. 238ZGC seeks to probe the scope of the offence to be created by the new Section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, as substituted by Clause 124. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has already made clear, in new Section 25A the Government seek to reproduce existing provisions in Section 25 of the 1971 Act relating to facilitating the entry of asylum seekers for gain to the United Kingdom. A person has a defence under subsection (3) of the new Section 25A if he is acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services.
My amendment seeks to probe the issue of whether or not non-profit making organisations which assist asylum seekers might be caught by the provisions of the offence in new Section 25. But while a defence is available in respect of the offence contained in new Section 25A, which relates only to the United Kingdom, have the Government considered whether non-profit organisations which assist asylum seekers might fall foul of the provisions of the immigration laws of other member states of the EU? If so, would they then be caught under the new offence which extends to the laws of those states, and would they not have a defence under the new Section 25?
Finally, I refer to Amendment No. 238ZGK, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as regards the reduction of the penalty from 14 years to two years. I found his explanation interesting as regards the provenance of that particular amendment in that he seeks to have a difference in definition between facilitation and trafficking. I certainly see some troublesome issues in trying to define when someone is facilitating rather than trafficking. I invite the Minister to give the Committee an explanation of whether or not there would be problems or whether the Government would be able to define it and therefore take the matter on board. When I first looked at the

265
amendment I felt that my support would be with the Government for wanting to mark that a serious offence was created by this part of the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I find it somewhat ironic that I sat here until one o'clock in the morning the other day with a view to proposing this amendment which stands in my name and yet I missed the beginning of the Committee's deliberations on this particular amendment now. What concerns me about new Section 25 is the maximum sentence of 14 years, or an unlimited fine, that it imposes. The level of sentencing implies something serious. The Committee should appreciate that when there is a maximum sentence of such a degree, that has an effect upon sentences all through the calendar.
Previously, the offence of harbouring an illegal immigrant carried a maximum sentence of six months, but upping the tariff to this extent, making the maximum 14 years, suggests that the offence is aimed at trafficking in people, which would explain why it carries the same maximum as that in new Section 25A, which covers the offence of helping asylum seekers to enter the United Kingdom. But in proposed new Section 25A, the offence contains the vital words that the offence is to be committed,
"knowingly and for gain".
That is why we tabled Amendment No. 238ZGA, which would import into new Section 25 the concept of financial gain.
As an alternative approach, in Amendment No. 238ZGP we attempt to clarify the meaning of the words "for gain" in new Section 25A(1)(a). Again, the maximum sentence of 14 years indicates a serious criminal offence, aimed at the "snakehead", as they describe them in Hong Kong, who smuggles people into the country. One way or the other, the maximum sentence imposed in the new section is excessive.
Lord Filkin: I regret that at the start of our sixth day in Committee on the Bill, I am unable to accept the amendment. Let me explain why.
Turning to Amendment No. 238ZGA, the Government do not accept that assisting someone to break the law should not be an offence unless done for financial gain. Let me give the Committee an illustration from reports in the newspapers last week. A woman arrived in Italy with her boyfriend in her suitcase, claiming that she was transporting a pile of ornamental bricks. I assume that that comes under seeking to break the immigration rules for love rather than for financial gain. Nevertheless, it is an offence.
Turning to Amendment No. 238ZGC, I am aware that it replicates a provision in new Section 25A. The provision is necessary in that section, but we are not persuaded that it is necessary here. We accept that people who work for organisations of the kind described may be involved in assisting the arrival of
266
asylum seekers in the United Kingdom, and that it is appropriate to make special provision for them for that offence. However, we do not believe that their work requires them to assist persons to breach immigration laws, so we do not think that a special defence is necessary or desirable.
For example, while those organisations may assist asylum seekers to arrive in the UK, we do not accept that they need to resort to smuggling them through immigration control once they arrive. Neither do we accept that there is any need to bring them through other member states in breach of the laws of those countries. Similarly, if a person who has entered illegally claims asylum and is given temporary admission, they are then not remaining here illegally and it is therefore not an offence under new Section 25 to assist or facilitate that.
However, if someone enters illegally or overstays, does not claim asylum and receives assistance that facilitates their remaining illegally, there is no reason why someone acting on behalf of an organisation of the kind specified should necessarily be immune from prosecution, as would be the case under the amendment. As drafted, the amendment would apply to anyone employed by an organisation of the kind described, whether or not the immigration offender whom they assisted was an asylum seeker. We see no good reason why we should want to provide an exemption in such circumstances.
I turn to Amendment No. 238ZGK. The amendment proposes to reduce the maximum level of the penalty to two years. As the Committee will know, the maximum penalty for the present offence is 10 years' imprisonment, so the amendment would reduce it to substantially less than the seven years that the House recognised as insufficient only three years ago.
We estimate that about three-quarters of recorded illegal entrants receive assistance from organised criminal gangs. It is a multi-million—indeed, multi-billion—pound industry, and a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment would be utterly inadequate. When we debate later amendments, we shall discuss whether it should be possible to try some immigration offences summarily. As the Committee may anticipate, we will affirm the importance of retaining that provision. That is because a wide spectrum of offences will be covered under immigration law, some of which one may view as criminal but relatively venal, as opposed to repeated multiple traffickers. Allowing trial under summary procedure would, of course, involve only a two-year maximum sentence, and therefore appropriately preserve the options of prosecuting authorities.
Turning to Amendment No. 238ZGP, the parliamentary draftsman opted for the phrase "for gain". But in neither case is the gain limited to financial gain, as would be the case under the amendment. The current drafting would catch someone whose recompense is not hard cash, but some sort of benefit in kind.

267
I turn to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the insertion of the words "for gain" in the Immigration Act 1971. I will check, but my understanding is that Section 25 covers,
"Any person knowingly concerned in making or carrying out arrangements".
We do not think that the words "for gain" appear in that section, but we will check, rather than have a possibly erroneous debate
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, repeated his challenge: is it possible to have a legal route for entry to the United Kingdom and to make an asylum claim? An illegal entrant has, by definition, entered illegally and committed an offence. That is self-evident. But a lawful asylum seeker may claim entry in safety at a point of arrival. At that point, he will not yet have entered until he passes through control. Therefore, the strict answer is that a person who has arrived in this country, wants to claim asylum and, at the point where he meets with the immigration officer, claims asylum is not at that point in breach of immigration laws.
The noble Earl also invited a debate about whether, if legal routes of entry were wider and easier, we would see an end to asylum claims that are used by some—not all—who are economic migrants. I wish that I believed that that was entirely true; unfortunately, I do not. The number of people who may want to come to the United Kingdom—for work or other reasons—is so large that, even if we considerably increase the managed migration route, I still believe that there would be such people. But I agree with the thrust of his argument that it is important to develop managed migration, which is why we have doubled the number of work permits issued during the past two years and may well go substantially further.
I would also stress that it is important that, when countries have got a grip on the confusion between asylum claimants and work migrants, it may be possible to expand resettlement as a process that many of us believe would deal with justice with people who have need for asylum but cannot reach the United Kingdom or other countries.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I think that I have already addressed why we think that the words "for gain" are appropriate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about non-profit organisations. I have sought to explain why I think that it is possible to leave them free to carry out the work that they perform, which in the broad measure of cases is good, right and necessary, and not to incriminate themselves. She asked a tough question about whether they should be exempt from European Union laws. We will be obliged—we support this—to incorporate as part of the Schengen agreement, or the parts of Schengen with which we agree, to support other EU countries on their migration and asylum and immigration routes. We think that it is right and proper that we should do so. Therefore, they must act within those laws.
268
Can I distinguish between "facilitating" and "trafficking"? Perhaps not off the cuff. My impromptu response is that "trafficking" has the connotation of being substantial and extensive. I shall, however, reflect on that matter and come back to the House on it when there is more time. I shall write accordingly.
I suggest that, for the reasons that I have given, it might be appropriate to withdraw the amendments.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for his answer about the lawful asylum seeker. It was a good and fair answer, and I accept it. Does the Minister think that the rest of the Bill is in line with the answer that he gave? For example, will the clauses apply to people who assist illegal immigrants who nevertheless make a claim for asylum and, even more, to people who make a claim for asylum that is ultimately successful?
The same question might be asked about carriers' liability. Like the sun, that provision is meant to shine both on the just and the unjust. How can the Minister avoid penalising those who enter intending to claim asylum, do so lawfully and are successful?
Lord Filkin: I am reluctant to go further than the answer that I gave, using a specific example of how it was possible for someone to come into the country and make an asylum claim without being in breach of immigration law. In essence, the noble Earl's question touches on the challenge that faces most western European countries and many others.
The noble Earl has himself asked how we can find ways of giving a fair hearing and a refuge to people who claim asylum while so many people—for reasons that are understandable but which we cannot accept—seek entry to the country to work and use asylum as their route for doing so. All governments face a major problem in dealing with the convergence of those two streams. I will reflect on the noble Earl's point; if I can give a further answer over the summer, I will be pleased to do so.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I was delighted to hear the Minister say that he recognised the difference between facilitating and trafficking. Trafficking is essentially exploitative; facilitating is a different concept. It is not right that there should be the same maximum sentence in both situations.
I was interested in the example that the Minister gave of the lady who carried her boyfriend in a suitcase. It took me back to a case that I did in Hong Kong, in which a bank manager was carried out of a hotel in a suitcase. Unfortunately, he was not alive at the time, and it had rather more serious consequences for him. The jury did not believe that a person could be put in a suitcase, until a detective demonstrated in court that it was possible to get into "Exhibit 1" without too many problems.
The Minister should reflect on the matter of the maximum sentence and come back with more firmly stated views.
Lord Avebury: I agree with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. I can see no reason why the

269
penalties should have been so drastically increased since the last time that we considered them and amended what is now Section 25, as amended, of the 1971 Act. In that section, the penalties are not 14 years, and the offences are much the same as those set out in this Bill.
I might have misled the Committee slightly. I was referring to all the offences provided for under Section 25, and I should have distinguished between, on the one hand, facilitation with a view to securing the entry into the United Kingdom of somebody whom the offender knows to be an asylum claimant and, on the other, all the other offences in Section 25 of the 1971 Act. Facilitating the entry of an applicant for asylum is an offence only if it is done for gain. All the other offences of facilitation are equally penalised, whether they are for gain or not. That is why we made the distinction. It was a useful distinction, and we should perpetuate it in this Bill.
As suggested by the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Russell about the situation in the 1930s, we must make a moral choice—even if it is not set out in the Bill—between somebody who helps an asylum claimant to enter the United Kingdom and somebody such as the lady—mentioned by the Minister—who wanted to get her boyfriend in, disguised as a pile of bricks. Some might think that she ought to have got some marks for the ingenuity of that solution. I would have no objection to a slightly higher sentence in cases in which somebody facilitates entry neither for gain nor for asylum purposes. However, my noble friend referred to cases from the 1930s, such as we or our parents will remember, of helping asylum applicants to escape from Nazi Germany. There are more recent examples, too. There are all the people who escaped from Pinochet's Chile; we facilitated their entry. We facilitated the entry of people from South Africa. Donald Woods, a good friend of mine, escaped from South Africa and sought asylum in this country. In future, someone who helps someone like Donald Woods to escape and enter this country will, under the Bill, be guilty of an absolute offence, regardless of the merits of the asylum claim. We have got that wrong.
I shall withdraw the amendment now, but we will have to return to the matter on Report, if I can persuade my colleagues that we should do so. I agree that we have not made a good job of making the necessary distinction in this amendment, but we will make a second attempt to make a proper distinction between persons facilitating the entry of asylum applicants and persons facilitating the entry of immigrants for any other purpose. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the House resume consideration of the Bill not before 8.36 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Women of World War Two
7.36 p.m.
Baroness Boothroyd Baroness Boothroyd rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in recognising the contribution made by women during the Second World War, they support the proposal for a national memorial to the Women of World War Two.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish to test the strength of the Government's support for a national memorial to the women of World War II, a permanent memorial to be sited in the Whitehall area commemorating the diverse and important contribution made by women—servicewomen and civilians—during the war.
The clarion call of wartime Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, was,
"Let the women come forward".
Women heeded that call and came forward in thousands. Some 64,000 served in the Armed Forces; 55,000 women provided critical air defence with the gunners; and thousands were in the Land Army, ensuring that there was food to keep our forces and families reasonably fed. Others flew unarmed aircraft, as replacements for our Air Force. Women worked behind enemy lines, organising resistance groups and placing themselves in great peril. Many spent hours painstakingly breaking enemy codes at Bletchley Park. There were thousands in munitions factories, fire brigades and hospitals. Thousands worked as ambulance drivers and air raid wardens or cared for evacuees. A huge social change took place in our country.
During my research, it became apparent to me that more than 7 million women enlisted for military and non-military auxiliary occupations in the defence of the country. Two of the women in uniform were Edna Storr from Selby and Mildred Veal from York. Mildred joined the Army in 1941 and became a gunner in charge of a radar station in Plymouth. Later, she fought against the destructive power of the V1 and V2 rockets in London. Edna volunteered before her 18th birthday and was soon an anti-aircraft gunner. She recalls being called upon to do guard duty, armed not with a rifle but with a flashlight and determination.
Almost 50 years after the war those women, and many of their colleagues, met at a reunion and recalled the memorials that they had seen and visited in Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United States honouring the women of those nations who had contributed to the war effort. As a result of those reunions, a charity known simply as a Memorial to the Women of World War II was born.
Subsequently I was privileged to become the charity's patron. Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal and Dame Vera Lynn are vice patrons, as are Hugh Bayley and John Grogan, the Members for the constituencies of York and Selby respectively. I pay tribute to the considerable role played by retired Major David Robertson, chairman of trustees, who

271
works on the daily business of co-ordinating the charity and the campaign from Imphal barracks at Fulford in York.
In the past four years the trustees have raised £150,000 from organisations and individuals. Of course many of those donations come from pensioners themselves. A similar sum is now required to make a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund successful, and I am minded to ask the Government for a special grant to be made available. Would it not be the Government's wish to be associated with this splendid project, too, and to help to complete it speedily? The Minister will agree that none of us is getting any younger and time is of the essence.
With regard to the site for the monument, surely there is no more appropriate place to acknowledge the contribution to peace and freedom made by millions of women in the war effort than the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square. It would provide a permanent monument for that vacant plinth, which would command widespread support.
I understand that under the Greater London Authority Act responsibility for the care, management and use of Trafalgar Square lies with the Mayor of London and the GLA. However—it is a big however—the square remains Crown land and the Secretary of State has continuing involvement in decisions about what will occupy the vacant plinth by virtue of her responsibility to give final approval under the Public Statues Act 1854, which has not been extinguished by the Greater London Authority Act. Therefore, the Government have some responsibility. Would it not be sensible for the charity trustees, the GLA and the Government to co-operate in bringing this project to fruition? I am sure that by working together, we could do business.
I turn to the monument itself. A panel of sculptors, all of whom are members of the Royal Academy of Arts led by Professor Philip King, selected artwork from more than 32 submissions and a maquette has been made. Understandably, in assessing a work of art, there will always be those who regard the design as not being sufficient to adequately convey the complexity and significance of the roles and experiences of the women that it is intended to commemorate. But that is the nature of art.
Conversely, the artwork received an accolade from no less than English Heritage. The inspector of historic buildings wrote:
"I welcome the figuration and classical nature of the proposed memorial and the material used, which strikes me as being entirely appropriate to this location in one of the capital's great processional routes".
The location referred to is Whitehall where it was originally hoped the siting might be. The trustees are anxious to be flexible. They wish to please as many interested parties as possible and they will reflect on the design. Indeed, there is a good deal of pressure and much to be said for including in the design a tribute to the late Queen Mother for the high profile stand that she took during the war years and the inspirational
272
figurehead that she became as women across the country were mobilised for both civilian and military work.
Many of the women involved in that conflict are obviously no longer with us. Many more are nearing their four score years. They want to take their families—their grandchildren and great-grandchildren—to see a national memorial that acknowledges their special efforts in the fight for freedom and liberty. They are rightly proud of their achievements and we are proud of them. As a nation we want to say thank you for all you did. Let us do it soon. I look forward to a positive and helpful reply from the Minister.
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue this evening. I say immediately that although I have no particular views about its siting, I am strongly in favour of some kind of national memorial to the women of the Second World War. Their courage, tenacity and commitment contributed in large measure to the success of the Allies in 1945. Their contribution was further extremely significant in building the society that eventually emerged in our nation after the war, with its commitment to a welfare state, equality of opportunity and to the position which women largely, although perhaps not yet as completely as some of us might wish, enjoy in our current society.
The noble Baroness focused on the role played by women in the armed services and in civilian work during the war. I shall concentrate on an even more unsung role—that of the housewife, which is not a word that we hear much nowadays.
During the war, women like my mother and grandmother were the pivots around which the war effort turned. They kept house for families which grew and shrank, as ours did with evacuees, men coming on leave at short notice and leaving again at even shorter notice. They kept spirits up and stomachs full in the most difficult of circumstances. They did so at a time of stringent rationing when most food had to be queued for, when staple commodities were in very short supply and when the domestic duties that most of them had learned earlier had to be entirely revisited because of rationing.
What lessons we could learn now about recycling, economy and innovation. How did they make parsnips taste like bananas? How did they make a night dress out of parachute silk? How does one draw a straight line up the back of one's leg with a pencil so that it looks as though one is wearing stockings? Above all, how did they give their family a tasty meal when they had no meat, no fish and only the tiniest piece of cheese? What a tribute it is to those women that our nation was better fed and healthier than before the war; and certainly there were fewer problems caused by eating fatty and convenience food than there are nowadays.

273
Nor should we forget that many of those women had just emerged from coping with a severe economic depression when their men were out of work and money was extremely tight. They might have been forgiven for feeling bitter and hard done by but they did not. They buckled down and got on with it for the duration, putting on hold their own ambitions and wishes, while remaining cheerful through all the queues, bombs and blackouts. As a small child in a push chair, the laughter and cheeriness of the women in the queues are strong memories for me, as are the women who always led the community singing in our air raid shelter, encouraging us children to sing loudly to drown out the sound of the bombs.
Many, indeed most, of those woman spent large parts of the war apart from the husbands on whom they had been accustomed to lean in peace time. They did not know when, or if they would see their men again, and it is perhaps hard in these days of easy and instant communication to comprehend what it must have been like to be without news of a loved one for literally years on end, or to attempt to keep children who had no memories of an absent father engaged in a relationship. I used to ask my mother how she bore it and she always used to say, "Remember we were not going through it alone. Everyone was in the same boat".
That feeling of being in the same boat was fostered by women who developed friendships and supportive networks that lasted long after the war was over. Inevitably the long separations of war took their toll on relationships. For some, like my parents, their bonds grew stronger and deeper in adversity. For some, that did not happen and this generation of women was perhaps the first to know the distress of divorce and of having to make a life for themselves and their children. Even where relationships survived, the pain of adjustment to the return of the men was often acute and there are many people of my generation who feel that their relationship with a father who had been absent for five years never truly recovered from that separation. So the effect of the war cast a long shadow and the women we are discussing here tonight had to cope with its effects long after 1945. They deserve a lasting memorial.
I want to say a special word about the women of the Channel Islands. It is often forgotten that my home, Guernsey, and the other Channel Islands were the only part of the United Kingdom to be occupied in the Second World War. Many of the women who lived there knew what it was like, in the face of the approaching enemy and with the sound of the guns in France ringing in their ears, to do what my mother did. With her small baby on one arm, a case of baby clothes on the other, and with only the clothes she stood up in, she turned the key in the lock of her house not knowing whether she would ever see it again and set off alone—for my father was already in the Army—to make what she could of a life in what Channel Islanders call "The Other Side".
Other women, like my paternal grandmother, stayed in the islands throughout the occupation. They endured all the hardships of enemy occupation, which
274
included starvation, curfews and a total absence of news about their scattered families. No wonder that Liberation Day on 9th May, the day on which, as Churchill put it,
"Our dear Channel Islands have been relieved",
is still celebrated on the islands with great joy.
For those and all the other women who played such an incomparable role during the dark days of the war and the days which followed, I support the noble Baroness's call for a memorial.
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I salute the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, for her imagination in bringing this matter to our attention. By the same token, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever on his courage in being the only male speaker representing, as he does, some 500 or so silent Lords. Shame on them!
The subject of the debate is long overdue. Let us not forget the considerable work women did in the First World War, as well as the second. Then again, women have always taken the place of their menfolk in time of war. If your Lordships look around, in the Royal Gallery of this House one can easily identify two women nurses on board "HMS Victory" in the mural of the Battle of Trafalgar, while opposite another nurse is visible in the painting of the Battle of Waterloo. In every field, women took on men's jobs and did them jolly well.
It is impossible not to duplicate some of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. I thoroughly agree with her that one thinks of the magnificence of the uniformed services, but I remember my friends who worked in factories. There were brave women who were parachuted into enemy territories—some to be captured and tortured and then to perish. I think of the Land Army and of women pilots who delivered fighter planes from the factories to the airfields. I think of many others too numerous to mention.
A few years ago, I visited St Dunstan's, that magnificent home for blind ex-servicemen, now sadly underused owing to its contract. To my surprise, I was introduced to several blind elderly women. They had been blinded by accident in the munitions factories in which they had worked. There are not so many noble Baronesses in this place whose memories go back, like mine, to the last world war. I and my noble friend Lady Sharples are the only speakers here today who are old enough to have worked throughout the war. We may have endured air raids, had food rationing and no nylon stockings, but we all worked as hard as we could for all those long and agonising years. I believe that among all the statues that rightly exist to our male heroes, some form of national memorial to women might be appropriate.
7.54 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lady Boothroyd for introducing the debate. I fear that I shall speak personally. First, I

275
would like, as their president, to pay tribute to all my dear ladies of the War Widows' Association who lost their husbands during the war; to their courage—after which their magazine is named—and to their grit and determination to carry on. And carry on they did with brave smiling faces, looking after children, as nurses, as members of the women's Armed Forces and the Land Army, like my noble friend Lady Trumpington, as secret agents, air raid wardens and all the other myriad things which women did and indeed do. It is not so much the hand which rocks the cradle ruling the world but keeping the world going on its course. So to them I pay tribute.
We won the war because everyone was involved, men and women, and indeed children. We all did our but. At school, I knitted orange helmets for sailors, khaki socks for soldiers—though I was sorry for those who had to wear them as the heels were all bobbly—and melted lead labels off the laundry baskets to make model Spitfires for the Royal Air Force benevolent organisation.
At home, I helped my mother pick spaghnum moss for bandages, pack parcels for prisoners of war, dig the flower beds for potatoes, feed the hens and milk the cows on the lawn and look after the endless stream of Commonwealth and allied service men and women who spent their leave with us. Unlike my grandmother, who turned her house into a convalescent hospital, our house was too inconvenient and we did not have enough water. Every week, we would bicycle up to a kind neighbour who would let us have baths. We used the same water of course but there was a rotation—some weeks, one was lucky. I also collected pigswill from the aerodrome in the wagonette and ran errands for my father's platoon of Home Guard on my bicycle. Mr Hitler was not kidding us.
But I would like to pay a special tribute to my three gallant aunts who lived in Lambeth. By day, the eldest ran a girl's club for what we would now call "deprived girls". The youngest was a draftsman in the Admiralty, drawing charts of ships and planes. By night, they were air raid wardens. Their house was bombed and they lost everything but the goldfish, which they found alive and well in the pond in their garden, and managed to evacuate to the country. One night, their air raid post received a direct hit. Nineteen of them were buried all night, up to their knees in water. They kept up their spirits by praying, making jokes and singing hymns, of which my aunts knew a great many. When they were dug out in the morning, only five of the 19 were still alive, including my two aunts.
My middle aunt, Victoria, named after her godmother, the Queen, was an engineer in the Merchant Navy, the only one then in the world, so far as I know. From 1922 she made four voyages to Australia, one to China, one to Africa and four to India. In 1940 she helped rescue the troops from Dunkirk. Later, on the "Har Zion", she sailed through mines into the Mediterranean, rescuing the British Expeditionary Force and the British Consul from Marseilles, and brought back a cargo of rice from the Middle East.
276
In 1941, sailing from Fowey in Cornwall with a cargo of china clay to Norfolk, Virginia, her ship, the "Bonita", was bombed in the Atlantic. Although there were bursts in the engine room, steam and oil escaping everywhere, Aunt Victoria, knowing it would be a death trap if the ship went down, sent out all the crew and insisted on running the engines herself with sufficient revs so that the captain was able to jink and so avoid each salvo of bombs. Hot oil streamed down her face and steam burst and hissed everywhere. The Mate and several members of the crew observed her through the engine room skylight and reported back what she had done. She arrived a heroine in Norfolk, Virginia. A canteen was subscribed in her honour, called the Victoria Drummond Canteen, which served tea and sandwiches at Lambeth North to all those bombed out during the war. She also received the Lloyd's Medal for Bravery at Sea and the MBE.
Later in the war she sailed in convoy across the Atlantic from Halifax, one of the few ships to survive; and around the world in the "Perseus" to America, Australia and South Africa, returning to more bombs in Gibraltar. She sailed up to Murmansk in the "Elsie Beth", and landed troops in Normandy on D-day. At the end of the war she was anchored off Kiel in a ship carrying high explosives. "Be careful with your celebrations", she said. "We don't want to be the biggest firework of all".
For me, Aunt Victoria epitomised what we owe to so many women in the war. She never swore, drank, smoked or raised her voice. Even when she must have been very frightened, she never showed it. She was always calm, brave and resolute. To her, and to millions like her, we all owe a great debt. It would be splendid if, as my noble friend has suggested, we could have a memorial to them all in Trafalgar Square.
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, for initiating the debate this evening. As my noble friend Lady Trumpington pointed out, there are not many women in the House old enough to have served during the war. I was of an age to do so. I can speak only from personal experience.
In 1941 I enlisted in the Women's Auxiliary Air Force, when I was just 18 years old. I do not recall that any of those who joined at the same time were other than volunteers. Certainly there were no conscripts in my group. It was a considerable cultural shock to sleep on a hard straw mattress in a hut with 27 others out in Gloucestershire. We were then sent on marches on Morecambe front in extremely cold weather in February.
Having decided to be a driver, I was fortunate enough to obtain at that early age a heavy goods vehicle licence—as I was able to tell noble Lords not long ago—after learning to drive a "Queen Mary". Some noble Lords may not know that that was an articulated lorry used for pulling aircraft wings. The girls, as they were then, came from every background. As we were all in the same situation, they made life

277
very interesting and were great company. However, I did learn a great number of swear words which had never been uttered at home. Nowadays I am afraid that I can be heard saying them occasionally when on the golf course.
Having reached the exalted rank of leading aircraftswoman, which equated to a lance corporal, and passing the various car servicing tests required, one could then he posted. I spent three years in Reading, driving a wonderful man who had won the Distinguished Service Order in the First World War. I refused promotion to a corporal, because at that rank I would have had to sit behind a desk, which did not appeal to me.
During my last 18 months of service to 1946 I was in London, driving among others a wonderful air commodore who had lost his leg during the last month of the First World War. He was awarded the last Victoria Cross of the Great War. Wedgie-Benn's father, Lord Stansgate, was one of my bosses. I do regret not having been able to serve abroad, but having had TB at the age of 15, I was not allowed to do so. That was a pity because it would have done me good.
It is possible to sketch only briefly what happened over those five years. I was lucky to survive the V1 bombs which passed right over our house in Sussex and frightened us every weekend. Indeed, I recall that a boyfriend came to sleep in the same room as my mother and myself because we were so scared. I do not know what lie could have done to save us. It was a frightening time. I recall also the threat of the V2s towards the end of the war, when I was in London. My only brother and remaining uncle were killed.
My contribution was very insignificant compared with so many during the war years. Mention has been made of all the different women who took part in war work—nearly all of them volunteers. Later there were conscripts, but I believe that they worked willingly.
In the Golden Jubilee year of Her Majesty's reign, what could be a better time to support the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, in her appeal for a national memorial to the women of World War Two? However, as my noble friend Lady Trumpington pointed out, perhaps we should also recognise those women—a far rarer breed—who served in the Great War. They too did a wonderful job. A number of people have approached me in this House to tell me of their mothers and grandmothers who served in that war.
Being a Member of this House is a great honour. It gives us an opportunity to raise issues of this kind and, it is hoped, to achieve a result. That will depend a great deal on the Government. I leave it to others to decide on the best site for such an important monument, but personally I do not feel that Trafalgar Square is entirely appropriate because it is terribly noisy. Perhaps when it has been pedestrianised, the situation will improve. As I have said, I shall leave it to others to decide on the site. However, I hope that there will be such a memorial.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I hope that I shall be allowed to speak briefly in the gap; I cannot resist saying a few words. I wish to salute two kinds of women: the members of my own corps, the Women's Transport Service/FANY in which some, like Odette Hallowes, GC, served bravely and sometimes died in enemy-occupied Europe; while others supported them by working in England, Africa, Italy, later in France and in the Far East as wireless operators, codists and so forth. Those women were an important element of the support for those in the front line. They served long and arduously and with very little recognition.
The second group I wish to commemorate I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley; people like my grandmother and my great aunt. They kept everything going as if nothing were happening; they were undaunted by queues, undaunted by bombs, and if they needed to go somewhere and had to walk, they would walk. They never complained, but remained immensely cheerful. I think that they put everyone else to shame. All those women, each one of them, supported their families who, in turn, probably took them pretty much for granted. I certainly took my family for granted; I expected miracles and I got them. I want to remember them, as I am sure we all do.
The FANYs are particularly dear to me because they, too, served in the First World War. They ran field kitchens, drove ambulances and generally ran the war. Indeed, I think that a great many women ran the last war as well—quietly and unobtrusively, but also most successfully. They all served, and we should remember them.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I shall detain the House for only a moment to express my warmest support for what has been said by all the speakers in the debate, beginning with the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. I wish to echo the hope already expressed by my noble friend Lady Trumpington and others that any memorial or monument that might result would also acknowledge those who served in the First World War.
I should declare an interest of a kind. My mother belonged to the Women's Army Corps, something thought to be rather fast in those days, but which was very far from fun. All those women did valuable work, but not work that was recognised by entitlement to a war service medal. I hope that that might be taken into account.
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am glad to support the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. We should be grateful to her. It is particularly right that we should have a memorial to all the women who contributed to the Second World War. Nowhere save in the Soviet Union were women more effectively mobilised in support of the war effort than in the United Kingdom. Indeed, several speakers have cited examples of their own

279
experiences, which has been wonderful to hear. I was four years old when the war began, so I do not think that my experiences are of as much interest.
Not only do we need to remember and honour them, we need to tell the young people of today what they did. I do not believe that young people today have any idea of what happened during the Second World War. For example, I learnt that at full strength there was nearly one woman in uniform for every 10 men in uniform. I bet not many people realise that.
In almost no cases did women take up arms, but they ferried aircraft; they drove; they were secretaries, telephonists and nurses. A whole range of support services were provided by women in very large numbers. They provided them not only in this country and Europe but across the world, in the Far East, Africa and so on.
The numbers employed in munitions factories have been mentioned already, but there were also 1 million volunteers in the WVS, who also carried out fantastic work. They were the people who, for example, organised the movement of children out of towns and into the countryside because of the Blitz. It is almost impossible to think of any activity in which women did not play a part.
Five hundred thousand women were recruited into the Civil Service and local government as white collar workers. One of them was my mother. She was 30 in 1939 and she took her expertise as a management consultant into the total chaos which war had caused in the clerical services of the Civil Service, and sorted them out in short order. I found a lovely little poem but I shall not recite it to your Lordships because I might stumble over the words while doing so. She was obviously quite a fearsome person in her own way.
I think of the way in which women of all classes and kinds, women who had led sheltered and private lives, found the strength to go out and do something different. My aunt, my stepfather's sister, had lived an extremely sheltered life as the only single member of her family living at home with her parents. But she could drive. So she became a Red Cross driver and drove in London throughout the Blitz. She then went to Belsen with the Red Cross and lived there for two years while the camp was dismantled. She saw all that horror. One can imagine what it would be like after living all your life in a rather grand flat in London, with every comfort, and suddenly being plunged into all that horror, disaster, difficulty and heartbreak. You just have to get going and do what you can do. She then came back and resumed living a lifestyle similar to the one she had lived before. To meet her—she is now 95—no one would know that she had had such an element in her life.
We need to celebrate these women. My only doubt concerns the monument. I do not wish to be controversial—the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, knows 150 times more about this subject than I because she has been so involved in it—but, because of the enormous variety of women's achievements we are trying to celebrate, one might think of a slightly
280
different way of doing so. If I was given the choice, I would favour the site halfway up Whitehall where there are those monumental statues of male generals and a space that has been left by the rather sad removal of Raleigh, one of my great heroes, to the remote parts of the capital city.
We may be able to use the sculpture to which the noble Baroness referred, but a frieze might be more suitable than a statue because, at ground level, it would give a more vivid picture of the many women who served their country in such varied ways during the Second World War.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on introducing this important debate. She is right to draw the House's attention to the enormous contribution which women made to our victory in the Second World War. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Trumpington for her kind words. It is a great privilege for me to be the only man among such a distinguished group of speakers. As a father of five daughters, I always appreciate a woman's point of view.
We on these Benches fully support the proposal for a national memorial. We recognise the contribution made by 7 million women during the Second World War. Without these women victory could not have been achieved. I pay tribute to all those involved with the charity Memorial to the Women of World War II, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, is such an illustrious patron. I pay tribute particularly to the role of Major Robertson, who has driven on the project so enthusiastically from York.
The war was a time of huge social change. Women were serving their country in roles that had traditionally been the preserve of men. Over 640,000 women served in the Armed Forces. My noble friend Lady Sharples has told the House of her distinguished career in the Women's Auxiliary Air Force. Thousands more served in the Land Army, like my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who was, after all, Lloyd George's land girl—
Baroness Trumpington: And the only one, my Lords.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the noble Baroness also helped in the vital work of breaking German codes at Bletchley Park. There were also those who helped to organise resistance groups and passed valuable information back to this country. Thousands more worked in factories, were nurses, ARP wardens, WVS volunteers and ambulance drivers, and my noble friend Lady Park mentioned the FANYs.
We should not forget the contribution made by housewives, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley said. They stayed at home to care for families while everyone else was away. Many, sadly, became widows. Here I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, for the wonderful work she does as president of the War Widows Association.

281
The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, is right to point out the sterling work carried out by the brave women of the occupied Channel Islands and the hardships they endured. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that we should try to educate this generation as to what happened in the Second World War.
On a personal level, I am right behind the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. I know that my own late mother, who was proud of her war service with the Red Cross in the east end during the worst of the Blitz, would certainly have approved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, pointed out that the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square is currently the charity's preferred location. If that is not possible, there is a site outside the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall where the statue, in miniature, of Sir Walter Raleigh once stood. I seem to remember that both my noble friend Lady Trumpington and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, quite rightly had something to do with the removal of that statue. I understand that there is an oil tank underneath that site, but I would hope that with modern engineering technology a way might be found to solve that problem inexpensively, even for a bronze and granite statue.
As a young woman, the Queen was active in the war effort. I look forward to the day when she unveils a memorial, with, I hope, thousands of women veterans marching past. We on these Benches wish this campaign every success and hope that this debate will clear the way for some speedy progress.
8.29 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd of Sandwell, for initiating this debate on an important and worthwhile project. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I do wonder where all our male colleagues are. But it is excellent to see that there are at least some good, strong women making the case for this project.
I know that, as patron of the Memorial to the Women of World War II charity, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, has worked tirelessly, along with John Grogan MP and Hugh Bayley MP to try to get a memorial erected in Whitehall. As always, she has spoken passionately and eloquently about it today.
There is a great deal of support in both Houses for a memorial commemorating the contribution of women during the Second World War. That has been clearly demonstrated by the support for three Early Day Motions on this subject, one of which received over 280 signatures, and the Adjournment debate on the memorial in October 1999 secured by John Grogan.
We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to these women for their contribution to the winning of the war. As has been pointed out, we won the war partly because everyone worked hard and sacrificed an enormous amount to make sure that that happened. This is fully recognised by the Government and we welcome the proposal to have a lasting memorial to the
282
thousands of women who served in the armed services both at home and overseas and to those women who contributed to the war effort at home, in the Women's Land Army, in the fire brigades, in the hospitals and in the factories.
I strongly agree with my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, in relation the tremendous contribution made by housewives, who had to make do on very little—often on practically nothing—often bringing up their children alone, without the support of their husbands or of other male members of their families who were serving in the Armed Forces away from home, often many thousands of miles away.
Those speakers who are old enough to have worked throughout the war told us a little about their own experiences, which I found fascinating. I found the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharples and Lady Trumpington, extraordinarily interesting. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, was far too modest about her own contribution, which was obviously of enormous importance.
Some of us are not old enough to have worked during the war. I am possibly the youngest Member to contribute to the debate, and I am about to be 60—no, the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, is considerably younger. I was born in 1942. Many of us have spoken about the contributions of our mothers. My mother, having worked as an actress and model in Paris, came home and joined the auxiliary fire service as a driver. Indeed, she met my father early in the war, who was a commander in the London Fire Brigade. So I should not have existed were it not for the fact that women played such an important part in the civilian defence of this country.
I was interested also in what the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, had to say about the contribution of children. I do not know whether she still has any of the objects that she spent so much time knitting. If so, perhaps she might make a small presentation to the Imperial War Museum. The Imperial War Museum of the North is being opened by the Duke of Edinburgh tomorrow. I am sure that the museum might be interested to receive anything that the noble Baroness still has.
A memorial would be a fitting recognition and a reminder to future generations of the contribution of women during the war, and it might also make people reflect on how women's role in society was changed forever by their efforts. That is an important point and must not be forgotten. There is absolutely no doubt that women of today owe an enormous amount to those women who went out and worked in all kinds of tough and difficult conditions during the war. This needs to be fully recognised.
I strongly agree with the remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that young people today need to understand the role of women in the Second World War—not only those in uniform but those in all the other areas referred to, including the Civil Service and local government, where many did immensely important jobs. As the noble Lord, Lord Astor of

283
Hever, said, this was a time of huge social change. One of the most important social changes that took place was a much greater acceptance of the role that women could play outside the home.
The charity must be congratulated on raising more than £140,000 towards the cost of the project, which it is to use as match-funding in a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund. That is an impressive figure considering that many of the members of the charity are pensioners.
This has been a long road for the Memorial charity from its first bid in 1997 to place the statue on the vacant plinth in Trafalgar Square, to consideration of the Raleigh Green site, and now to the site in Whitehall for which it is seeking planning approval. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, that I believe that that is now the preferred site for the memorial. I congratulate members of the charity on their perseverance in the face of a number of obstacles to find a site in Whitehall. I wish the charity well in its current application to Westminster City Council for planning permission. It is vital that planning permission is provided before there can be any agreement about the application that it wishes to make to the Heritage Lottery Fund. Whether any memorial that is eventually built should commemorate those who fought in the First World War, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and others have suggested, is entirely up to the charity.
I must explain briefly my department's role in respect of any proposed new memorials. It is a limited one. Under the Public Statues (Metropolis) Act 1854, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport must give formal approval for any new statue in the Metropolitan Police District of London. Her approval is given on the basis of planning permission being granted by the local planning authority. Because of this role, it is not possible for Ministers to become involved in memorial projects.
The noble Baroness asked also about the issuing of a special grant by government. She will not be altogether surprised to hear that, unfortunately, my department has no budget for funding memorials. Memorials have always been funded by fund-raising and by public donations rather than by direct funding from the taxpayer. I am sure that the noble Baroness will find that disappointing, but I am afraid that it is the position.
The noble Baroness asked who has responsibility as regards the vacant plinth in Trafalgar Square. It is indeed the Mayor who has the responsibility under the provisions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
This has been an extremely interesting debate on a subject that I think is very close to the hearts of many people. Greater, permanent and more visible recognition of the role of women during World War II is in my view long overdue. The Government look
284
forward to the completion of a fitting memorial and wish the Memorial to the Women of World War II charity every success in achieving this very soon.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.36 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.31 to 8.36 p.m.]

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 124.
[Amendments Nos. 238ZGB and 238ZGC not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 238ZGD:
Page 65, line 24, leave out "a member State" and insert "the United Kingdom"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 238ZGD, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 238ZGE to 238ZGH.
It is possible to be tried in this country for a limited number of serious offences that have been committed abroad—murder, piracy, genocide and other offences of that type of seriousness come to mind. However, those are criminal offences against the law of this country and are so defined and determined; extra-territorial jurisdiction is given by the law of this country. I do not know of any law that makes it a criminal offence in this country to contravene the law of another country. I may be wrong about that; there may be some regulatory offence that I have never heard of. However, so far as I know, this is the first time that there has been an attempt to make into a criminal offence the contravention of a law elsewhere.
I am also familiar with extradition proceedings when a foreign government request the return of an alleged offender. In such proceedings it is common that certificates of the law of the foreign country are provided, usually by an acknowledged expert in that law. However, extradition proceedings are in respect of trials and offences that are ultimately dealt with by the requesting country, and they are always subject to the principle of "specialty", which means that the conduct complained of must also be a criminal offence in this country.
In subsection (3) of proposed new Section 25 in Amendment No. 124, we meet for the first time in my experience—I await enlightenment—the certification procedure whereby a European Union government—not a court but a government—can certify what the law is in their country, and the proposal that that should be a conclusive determination without any possibility of the party concerned in the proceedings being heard or making any representations or whatever.
This new offence also introduces elements that are not a breach of immigration law in this country. Transit across the state, for example, may be—I do not

285
know, but it may be—an offence in other European Union countries; it certainly is not an offence in this country.
Under these new provisions a person may be sentenced to up to 14 years—that is a hefty sentencing power—if, for example, he commits an act which is not a breach of the law of the United Kingdom. Under subsection (4) he may even commit that act outside the United Kingdom in circumstances where, objectively, he might have reasonable cause to believe that it amounted to a breach of the immigration law of a European Union state. Even if he believed that he might be committing a breach of immigration law of a foreign country, he still commits the offence even though his belief was wrong and he was mistaken.
As I have already said, the breach may be established conclusively by the certificate of that state and by a procedure which is unchallengeable both in the courts of that country or in the courts of the United Kingdom. The Government propose to take a huge step to introduce a criminal offence of breaking the law of another country. We on these Benches do not think that that is justified for a moment. It is for that reason that in the amendments to which I speak—Amendments Nos. 238GD to 238GH—we propose that instead of referring to a member state, the Bill should refer to the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 238ZGJ which is included in the group of amendments we are discussing. I can be brief due to the excellent introduction to the group of amendments given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
I should like to take one of his points further with regard to the issuing of certificates by foreign governments. Will they contain the foreign governments' opinion of the effect of their law or that of their countries' courts? What statement will they make? As the Committee will be aware, sometimes in this country the two do not always coincide. I cannot believe that the situation is different in every other member state of the European Union. What guarantees will be offered by foreign governments that their interpretation of their domestic law is correct and has been upheld by their own courts?
I turn to the other amendments in the group. I repeat the concerns expressed by my honourable friend Mr Malins in another place at column 342 of the report of the Standing Committee. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether there are any existing criminal offences under the law of the United Kingdom which make it an offence under our law to breach the law of another state in that state?
Lord Hylton: I believe that the onus is entirely on the Government to justify this clause and the way in which it enlarges and vastly widens the existing British law by including assisting unlawful immigration in other EU member states.
I am not a lawyer and am never likely to be qualified as one. However, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association is extremely concerned about the clause.
286
Its members assumed—it appears wrongly—that British courts would obtain a certificate from foreign courts. However, that is not what it says on the face of the Bill. It refers to a foreign government and not a foreign court.
The members of the association that I have just named are concerned about the practical effects in this country which might amount to the equivalent of a trial in absentia. They consider that the provision is unnecessarily widely drawn and could affect British citizens or residents who unknowingly and unwittingly offend against the immigration rules and laws of other countries. I look forward to hearing the Government's reply. The Minister mentioned something or other about Schengen in the debate on a previous group of amendments. This is a serious matter and deserves to be taken seriously.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: In 1996 the Home Office carried out a review of extraterritorial legislation. It set down a series of principles which it said that it would adhere to in any proposed extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the future. One of those principles was that the offence had to be an offence both under the laws of the country overseas where it was claimed to have been committed and also under the laws of the United Kingdom. As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has just explained, the provision we are discussing breaches that for the first time in our law.
Does that mean that the Government have abandoned the principles set out in the review which were retained by the Labour government after they came into office? That affected the Bill which I introduced to extend our domestic jurisdiction to persons alleged to have committed offences under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, the then Minister at the Home Office—he is now the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House—gave as one of the reasons that the Government could not accept my Bill that it contravened the principles of the Home Office's review of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Can we be told where we stand now? Have the Government totally abandoned the principles set out in that review or have they just discarded one of them for the purposes of their convenience?
Lord Filkin: The context of these amendments and of this clause is essentially the issue that I believe that the Committee recognises; namely, that illegal entry, or the facilitation of it, is an international crime. Certain individuals and organisations conspire to extract money from people who wish to move to other countries and to cross large distances covertly in order to do so. Those people seek through a variety of means to facilitate the entry of others into countries either to undertake work there illegally or to make a claim for asylum or other benefits when they get there.
European Union countries have considered this issue—which most member states see as a significant problem which can at times impede the proper response to genuine asylum claims—and have

287
recognised that none of us acting by ourselves can effectively address the problem. We have had many discussions and questions on that issue. We recognise that what Italy or Greece does can easily affect us in this country and, perhaps to a lesser extent, vice versa. Therefore, it is recognised as being in the interests of most member states that there is increased co-operation not simply with regard to potential resettlement programmes but also with regard to how we work together to try to control illegal trafficking and illegal entry. For that reason member states have agreed through Article 27 of the Schengen agreement—which is one of the articles that the United Kingdom signed up to—that we need to work together and, as part of that, to recognise the importance of supporting one another's legislation that attempts to control this serious scope of criminality. The United Kingdom has done so and the House has already approved and paved the way by agreeing to Article 27 of Schengen, which is the relevant power or issue that the clause in part addresses.
The extension of the present offence of facilitation to cover facilitation of an offence against the laws of entry and residence of any member state will allow the UK to meet its obligations under Article 27—a measure that the House has approved—to the benefit of United Kingdom citizens.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said that the measure is extremely novel and almost unique. It is certainly unusual but is required to comply with Schengen and is certainly not without precedent. Section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 makes it an offence to breach the taxation laws of other member states. That is another example of where it is in our interests to have the support of other nations for breaches of our laws and in return, to support those nations' efforts to prosecute or prevent breaches of their laws.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is right that courts in the United Kingdom cannot be expected to be intimately familiar with the immigration laws of all other member states, which is why new subsection (3) provides for the government of the member state to certify a matter of the law and for the certificate to be conclusive in proceedings before courts in the United Kingdom. In practice, a certificate would be issued stating the law, then the United Kingdom courts would seek to inspect, to try to establish whether there was a significant breach of law on the evidence and that a penalty should be levied.
It is unnecessary to specify that the United Kingdom will not be issuing certificates to be used in UK court proceedings because that is already implicit in the provision. There are two reasons. First, it is inherently a matter for our courts to determine the law in the UK. Although Parliament has the power to restrict their power, it would require clear wording to do so. Secondly, the language would be inappropriate if it were intended to include a certificate issued by the UK Government. If the UK were included in the subsection, the usual wording would have been in
288
terms of the Crown or the Secretary of State. We do not believe that the power could be misused in the way anticipated by the amendment and it is unnecessary.
It is essentially in the interests of this country and its citizens that there is much better international co-operation to prevent immigration crime, so the amendments are not desirable.
The Countess of Mar: Before the noble Lord sits down, I am puzzled about how this is going to work. I remind the Committee of my interest as a member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. In many cases that come before the tribunal, there are reports of so-called agents bringing people to this country. Those agents never set foot here but dump people at the lorry that will provide their final transport into this country. At airports, agents never enter immigration control but remain in the transit areas, then leave. How will we catch agents for transiting people across different member states or entering member states? Can the noble Lord explain how that will work?
Lord Filkin: That is more a question about police and detection co-operation, rather than about the legislation. Considerable work is going on between member states and with the Commission to examine improving intelligence co-operation, sharing intelligence about immigration crimes and supporting one another in the detection of such crimes. However, I will read the noble Countess's remarks and if I can provide her with further details, I shall be pleased to do so in writing.
Lord Hylton: Intelligence co-operation can always, at any time, be improved. That does not require legislation to achieve.
Lord Filkin: I am in danger of repeating myself. Article 27, which the House has already supported, sees benefit in co-operation between member states in identifying breaches of laws on illegal migration and bringing those responsible to justice. I would have thought that was blatantly obvious, given that, to the best of our knowledge, three quarters of the people who effect illegal entry do so by paying money to international traffickers. This is a multi-million pound business. EU member states must be able to act effectively rather than think that they can do so in isolation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Co-operation, yes. Working together, yes. Article 27 of the Schengen agreement, which the House has approved, yes. That does not mean that it is any business or function of the courts of this country to enforce the laws of European countries. The only illustration that the Minister gave in relation to a precedent was Section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which I shall study with care before the next stage. I find it surprising, and totally new to me, that it is a criminal offence in this country not to pay tax in France or Germany. If that is the case, I can only assume that not paying tax in this country or any other is not an extraditable offence. It

289
has been thought as a matter of policy that extradition ought not to extend to the revenue-collecting powers of any other state. Therefore, requests for people to return to another jurisdiction because they have not paid taxes there have never been made.
This is an extremely important principle. The Government appear to be trying not only to introduce an entirely new concept but to marry systems of law that differ in all sorts of ways. The way this country defines a crime is not the way that European citizens define it in their countries.
We on these Benches do not go along with some of the sentiments about European matters that are normally expressed from the corner opposite or from the second row of the Conservative Benches. We are all good Europeans on these Benches. But introducing the offence of committing an offence in another state is something that we oppose and to which we will return. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments 238ZGE to 238ZGK not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 238ZGL:
Page 66, leave out lines 10 to 12.
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I will speak also to Amendment No. 238ZGM.
In the proposed new Section 25 of the 1971 Act, the Government wish to enlarge the existing offence of facilitating breaches of UK immigration law to the facilitation of breaches of immigration law in any EU member state. I was intrigued to hear the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, express the Liberal Democrats' angst over being good Europeans and finding difficulty with this part of the Bill. I look forward to seeing what votes the Liberal Democrats call. We know that they seem to starve themselves of votes at this stage and have to bring everything back on Report, making that an enormously long stage. It is sometimes quite useful to have a vote in Committee; it means that the House can deal with the Bill more briefly on Report.
In another place, concerns were expressed that the offence as drawn would mean that possibly complex provisions of the law of other European countries would fall to be considered by the magistrates' courts by lay Benches without any training in the interpretation of the relevant provisions, which are potentially highly complex in terms of language, legal tradition and interpretation. I am aware that equally complex matters, such as extradition, can already be dealt with only by specialist stipendary magistrates.
Since the Bill left another place, have the Government spoken to the Magistrates' Association with regard to training? Will training be given to lay magistrates in these matters? As an ex-magistrate myself, I am aware that in recent years the training offered to magistrates is of a very high quality and that training is compulsory—a far cry from when I joined
290
the Bench in 1985. We were the first group of people who faced compulsory training and it was by no means as comprehensive or expert as it is now.
Amendment No. 238ZGL would remove subsection (6)(b) of proposed new Section 25 of the 1971 Act. The effect of that would be to make the new offence of assisting unlawful immigration triable only on indictment in the Crown Court. I heard earlier this evening what the Minister said about the Government's approach to retaining summary trial in relation to such matters.
This is a probing amendment, on which I shall starve myself of a vote this evening. It is intended to explore the implications of the Minister's statement in another place. Ms Winterton appeared to suggest at col. 337 that the majority of trials for this offence would in any event not take place in the magistrates' courts. In that case, one could be forgiven for asking, "Why not make the offence indictable only?". That is especially pressing in view of the fact that the Government have decided—we heard this earlier this evening—to treat the offence as one of such seriousness that a new maximum penalty of 14 years will apply.
Amendment No. 238ZGM provides an alternative approach—I am adopting a pick-and-mix approach to offer the Government every opportunity to agree to one of the amendments—whereby trials for this type of offence would be required to take place only before judges and magistrates who had been trained in the application of the laws of other member states. In another place, the Minister told the Committee at col. 334 that she would look at the way in which judges and magistrates were trained in that regard. The right to try complicated matters such as murder and serious sexual offences are already limited to those judges who have been trained and approved for the purpose.
What discussions has the Home Office had with the Lord Chancellor's Department as to the courses which the Judicial Studies Board should run and whether judges would be specially approved to hear those cases?
I hope that the Government will tell the Committee that they have reflected, as they undertook to do in another place, on the way in which the new offence will be tried in the courts and on the way in which training will be given to those who will sit on the relevant Benches. I look forward to hearing the results of that reflection in the Minister's response. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have been chided by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for not seeking a vote on the previous amendment. But, as they say, "The party is over and it is time to call it a day". It may be that those who were here earlier are no longer with us.
On the noble Baroness's amendments, these provisions involve a considerable complication. The issues that can arise in relation to the offences which I have already outlined (that is, relating to breaching the offence of a foreign country and the examination of certificates which have not been approved by the courts of a particular country but which have been issued by a

291
government) are not suitable for—I say this with respect—the ordinary run-of-the-mill magistrates' court. Such matters require specialist attention, whether in the Crown Court or in specially trained magistrates' courts. Extradition proceedings are normally in this country confined to the Bow Street magistrates' court. One would expect to deal with cases of this nature along those lines. I support the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness.
Earl Russell: My noble friend has raised another question by implication which is rather interesting. He talked about certificates being issued by governments which have not been before the courts. Those governments, no doubt—like our Government—have policies. The question arises: are such certificates in danger of creating a government who act as judge and party in their own cause?
Lord Filkin: I again fear that I shall not agree to either amendment. I shall seek to explain why. Subsection (6)(a) of new Section 25 provides a maximum penalty of 14 years or an unlimited fine on conviction or indictment for an offence of assisting unlawful immigration to a member state. Subsection (6)(b) provides that the penalty on summary conviction should be a maximum of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum. Those maxima will also apply where a person has been convicted of an offence of helping an asylum seeker to enter the UK under new Section 25A or of assisting entry in breach of a deportation order under new Section 25B. The first amendment would delete paragraph (b), with the result that offences under those three sections would be triable only on indictment.
The Government made it clear in the White Paper that we would seek to increase the maximum penalty for offences of people smuggling to 14 years, and we still believe that that is the appropriate level for the most serious offences of that nature. However, as I said earlier in anticipation of this discussion, not all offences are equally serious and we would not wish to preclude the possibility of summary proceedings in appropriate cases. We believe that it will be efficient to do so.
Amendment No. 238ZGM would require judges and magistrates trying cases under new Section 25 to be trained in immigration law of all member states. We believe that that is over-elaborate and unnecessary. The Government do not expect judges and magistrates to be familiar with the immigration law of all other member states. New Section 25 does not require that of them. It provides for the government of the member state concerned to certify what the law is in that state and for the certificate to be conclusive as to the matters certified for the purposes of proceedings in the UK. I cannot pretend that that is a common arrangement but there is precedent in Section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. Section 71(1) makes it an offence to assist in or induce conduct outside the UK which involves the commission of a serious offence against
292
the taxation laws of another member state, as I said earlier. Section 71(5) provides for certificates issued by the governments of other member states to be admitted and used in proceedings for that offence.
A certificate would specifically be sought in every prosecution based on the particular facts of that case. So, for example, if someone in the UK was alleged to be running an organisation that smuggled Algerians into France hidden in the bottom of boats, the French Government would be asked what, if any, breach of their immigration laws would be committed by such a person. The French Government would issue a certificate specifying the provision of their law, which would be used in English proceedings. There would be no question of an English magistrate having to become familiar with the substance of French immigration law.
The function of the judge or magistrate will not be to decide whether or not X constitutes a breach of the immigration law of a member state. What first has to be considered is whether X happened—if someone had been convicted of that breach, that would be a fairly simple matter to decide—and, secondly, whether the person before the UK court had done something which facilitated X, which would be a matter of evidence. Consideration also has to be given to whether the accused knew or had reasonable cause to believe that his action would facilitate a breach of immigration law, and whether he knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the person in question was not a citizen of the UK.
For those reasons, we do not believe that there is a requirement for the judge or magistrate to be an expert on whether or not a particular action constitutes a breach of the law of another member state. They would be provided with the information about the laws of the other state on which to assess and judge the case. For that reason, it does not appear to us to be necessary to provide the training suggested.
As was indicated, more serious offences, whether simpler ones applying only to offences created in the United Kingdom or not, would usually be tried on indictment by a higher court. Therefore, one would not expect magistrates to be tested on some of the more complex cases. I cannot say categorically that all offences of the kind to which we are referring would automatically be tried on indictment, but I expect that many would be.
On the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about summary trial only, this offence will work in the same way as other triable either-way offences. For serious cases, the Crown Court will be the appropriate forum; for less serious cases, the magistrates' court.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether the Government will be judge and jury. We do not believe that that will be so. The Government would certify with the state concerned the terms of the law in that state. It will be for the courts to decide whether or not that offence occurred. Moreover, I should have thought that it would be open to the defence in that

293
situation, if it was thought appropriate, to challenge the fairness of a foreign government's statement as to its law.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: If I may respectfully interrupt the Minister's reply, the point is that this certificate is conclusive. What the government of a foreign country says cannot be challenged in the British courts. It is possible that they may make a complete mistake, or that their supreme court has already declared the law to be not what the government believe it to be and that they have not succeeded in their arguments before the court. If the government say that that is the law, the courts of this country have to accept it.
Lord Filkin: I hear the noble Lord's argument. He may be right. I should like to double check that point to ensure whether, as he says, in no circumstances would it be open to a defence to argue that the government had misdirected themselves in the circumstances that we are discussing.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his support on this amendment and to the Minister for his response.
I have some remaining concerns with regard to the difficulties that will be faced in this country if a court has to make a decision based on information given by the government of another country. First, as I understand it, the British courts will be required to understand the laws of evidence of other countries. It is not just a matter of certifying whether a particular activity might of itself constitute an offence. The Minister may wish to consider that point during the Summer Recess.
Secondly, when the Minister referred to the question of whether as a matter of evidence X had happened, it occurred to me that not only would a court need to understand the laws of evidence that may pertain in another country, but also, surely, whether a body of case law was involved in a similar case in another country so as to be able to understand why the certificate had been given in a particular way by the foreign country. The matter is not quite as cut and dried as the Minister has sought to persuade us. I shall read carefully his remarks in Hansard. However, I believe that we may have to return to the point at another stage, unless the Minister wishes to respond further today.
Lord Filkin: I shall not at this time of night or at this stage in the proceedings chance my arm on those further good questions. But before the noble Baroness sits down, in order to avoid delay or correspondence, I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is correct. The certificate is, indeed, conclusive. If there were a complete mistake, effectively the defence would need to say that the certificate was not truly a certificate at all. However, whether or not that is meaningful I know not and shall reflect on the matter.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 238ZGM not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 238ZGN:
Page 66, leave out lines 14 to 33.
The noble Lord said: The effect of Amendment No. 238ZGN would be to remove completely the offence of helping an asylum seeker to enter the United Kingdom under proposed new Section 25A. This is a probing amendment. We on these Benches do not see what new Section 25A adds to Section 25. The offence is described as "facilitating arrival" in the United Kingdom.
There is no legal way into Britain for a person seeking asylum. How is it not facilitating the commission of a breach of immigration law under Section 25 if a person facilitates the asylum seeker in arriving, or remaining, in Britain? Therefore, we do not believe that new Section 25A adds anything, and we seek the Minister's explanation. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I was very grateful to the Minister for the reply that he gave me before dinner concerning the lawful right to seek asylum. But I wonder exactly how the Minister squares that reply with proposed new Section 25A. I agree with my noble friend that it reduplicates what is in new Section 25, but why need it be an extra offence to assist someone to seek asylum?
So far as I know, seeking asylum is not an unlawful act. I am reminded of a case which I read about, I believe, in this morning's paper. The article discussed whether there could be a conspiracy to steal an object which, in fact, turned out not to exist. The issue that we are debating here is a little on that level. If it is not an offence to seek asylum, why should it be an offence to assist someone to seek asylum? It might just as well be made an offence to assist someone to learn to play cricket. Indeed, since my youngest son, at the age of nine, once broke my rib learning to bowl fast, I believe that there might be a bigger case for making it an offence to assist someone to learn to play cricket, although I assure your Lordships that I have absolutely no intention of doing that.
The proposed new section gives a very unfortunate impression. It gives the impression that the Government believe that something which they have recognised as a right is nevertheless an offensive act which needs to be discouraged by law. There is at least the potential for divergence between those two views. I do not see what the new section is doing in the Bill and I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's justification for it.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may mention another case to add to that of Donald Woods, to which I referred before dinner. This case concerns a friend of mine who was an asylum seeker from Sri Lanka. He went to the High Commission in Sri Lanka and our High

295
Commissioner—an extremely good man called Gladstone—facilitated his journey to Britain. He escorted him to Bandaranaike airport and put him on the plane.
As I understand it, under this proposed new clause, Mr Gladstone would have committed a criminal offence. Are we really trying to suggest to our representatives in foreign countries that, where they have the opportunity to assist genuine asylum seekers to come here, they should refrain from doing so? Are we trying to suggest that our High Commissioner was not acting in a way that would be applauded by everyone in the United Kingdom? I should add that he had a difficult time afterwards because, naturally, he was not particularly popular with the Sri Lankan Government for having done what he did. However, I believe that everyone in this country considered that he had performed an enormous service to the cause of freedom.
My friend, who obtained asylum in the United Kingdom, is an ornament for the legal profession and practises in the courts here. Therefore, I believe that it was to the public good that the High Commissioner acted in the way that he did. I hope that, in future, representatives of Her Majesty's Government abroad will not be prevented from following his shining example.
Lord Hylton: Following the noble Lord's remarks, there has been, and probably still is, a widespread practice of individuals claiming political asylum in embassies of other countries. It has certainly occurred in South America; and there was the famous case in Moscow of the Siberian seven. Have the Government really thought this matter through?
The Countess of Mar: As I understand it, the amendment is right. The provision specifies that an offence is committed if the action is "for gain". Was Mr Gladstone expecting the Sri Lankan gentleman to pay him in order that he facilitate the Sri Lankan gentleman's passage through the airport in Sri Lanka?
I have experience of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Asylum seekers are often asked whether they have applied to consulates, embassies or high commissions in the countries from which they seek asylum.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the noble Countess for giving way. Would not Mr Gladstone have been caught by the preceding clause? It does not use the words "for gain". We sought to insert those words without success.
Earl Russell: It does not solve the problem to point out the words "for gain". Many people do things for gain in the course of any lawful working economy. I cannot think of other cases—I shall be grateful to know whether the Minister can do so—where it is an offence to allow people for gain to take part in a perfectly lawful activity. It is not an offence to allow people for gain to go on a Ferris wheel. It is not an
296
offence to allow people for gain to go on a railway train—although when one hears some inquiry reports one wonders whether perhaps it should be.
If the activity is lawful, surely it is also lawful to undertake it for gain. Can the noble Countess offer me any examples to the contrary?
The Countess of Mar: No. I admit that the noble Earl has floored me. However, there are problems with regard to people who are facilitating, for gain, people coming into the country. Noble Lords will have heard me talk many times during Question Time of the wicked trade in human trafficking. I am concerned that it should be stopped. The only way we can do so is by having laws like this measure.
Lord Judd: The noble Earl raises an interesting point. However, perhaps he is not concentrating on the right point regarding the words "for gain". In a whole realm of human activity, people perform useful services for gain. However, doing something for gain may lead people into a despondent situation in which they will suffer acutely as a result of the encouragement given. Therefore, to suggest that the words "for gain" are acceptable in this context is unfortunate.
A whole realm of responsible organisations work with tremendous commitment in the voluntary sector in this country. They do not advise asylum seekers primarily for gain. No one suggests that their work should be curbed. There is an issue about the words "for gain". I suggest that the noble Earl really knows that there is.
Earl Russell: I do. I answered that point on the previous night of our proceedings when I think that the noble Lord was no longer in the Chamber.
We have here a tide flowing. We can no more stop it than could King Canute. The only way we can stop the action being done for gain—the noble Lord and I both deplore that—is to open a legal route for it to be done properly. I think that we are in agreement.
Lord Filkin: Under Section 24(1)(b) of the 1971 Act, it is an offence to be concerned in making or carrying out arrangements for securing the entry to the UK of an asylum claimant. This does not apply to anything done "otherwise than for gain" or in the course of employment by a bona fide organisation. In other words, while the offence covers people who seek to profit from facilitating the entry of asylum claimants, it does not apply to individuals and charities who are motivated by humanitarian concern rather than the prospect of gain.
The current wording was inserted by the 1999 Act. The original provision dates from the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. It was introduced following a decision of the House of Lords in the case of R v Naillie. In that case the court found that facilitating the arrival of an asylum seeker is not facilitating illegal entry. We want it to be an offence to do so, but only if done for profit. It is offensive if it is done for profit, hence new Section 25A.

297
We are not talking about cases of illegal entry. Once someone has entered the UK unlawfully in breach of the immigration laws, he is an illegal entrant, whether or not he subsequently claims asylum. The person who has knowingly assisted him has committed an offence whether or not he was acting for gain. However, someone who arrives at a port—as I indicated earlier to the noble Earl, Lord Russell—and immediately claims asylum without attempting to avoid the control or pass through illegally has not entered illegally and is not attempting to enter illegally. If new Section 25A is deleted, as Amendment No. 238ZGN seeks, anyone who assisted him would not be committing a criminal offence.
Where the person providing that assistance is not acting "for gain", but is simply motivated by humanitarian considerations, we accept that it would be inappropriate to criminalise his actions. However, we cannot accept that organised gangs should be free to import people into the UK with impunity. They would do so claiming they were merely seeking people to come here to claim asylum. It is obvious that is how they would act.
Removing the equivalent of the present offence of facilitating the arrival of an asylum seeker "for gain" would leave a massive gap in our ability to tackle organised illegal entry. It would allow the facilitator to claim he believed the people he assisted were intending to claim asylum when they arrived, which would be difficult to disprove, even if, in the event, they subsequently entered illegally. Alternatively, the people being assisted could be told to claim asylum as soon as they arrived. Either way, those involved—the traffickers, the organised gangs—would be able to charge what they liked in the knowledge that if caught they could not be prosecuted.
I am sure that those who profit from exploiting illegal migrants would be delighted by such a development, but I very much doubt that that was what noble Lords had in mind in tabling Amendment No. 238ZGN.
To recap—the offence is one of profiting from bringing asylum claimants to the United Kingdom. It is the making a profit that is the offence. Otherwise, all illegal facilitators would claim asylum, as I have indicated.
Lord Avebury: There is another ingredient to the offence apart from the profit. The person who commits it has to belong to an organisation. The noble Lord has not addressed his mind to the case where the person facilitating entry is an individual and does not belong to an organisation and is therefore not covered by subsection (3).
Lord Filkin: Off the cuff, in this specific question that we are debating it would be whether or not the people were acting for the purpose of gain as to whether they would criminalise themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, addressed the question of claiming asylum in an embassy. If a person walks into an embassy and seeks asylum, in those circumstances that would not be done for gain.
298
I shall not open up a debate again with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about whether the solution to the explosion of asylum claims and of illegal migration is simply to open up managed migration routes or to open up more legitimate means for asylum claimants. We shall differ on this issue. It is my view that we would see a massive increase in the number of asylum claimants coming to this country if we had facilitated routes of entry for people. It is a tragedy that that is the case, but in my opinion it is clearly the case.
We disagree, therefore, that we should not criminalise the offence of smuggling people into the United Kingdom. These are criminal gangs making substantial profits. If it is not an offence the traffickers would get off scot-free and continue to ply their trade with impunity. For those reasons, the Government believe that the clause, as it stands, is appropriate and that the amendment is inappropriate.
Earl Russell: I do not think that the Minister can wrap up this debate quite that easily, unless he can indicate that there is some way in which asylum seekers may come into this country legally without employing the services of those who do it for gain. Does the phrase "for gain" cover the ordinary carriers both for the trains and the airlines or is that entirely dealt with under carriers' liability? If there is no legal means what are they meant to do?
I hear the Minister's nightmare about what would happen if he accepted this amendment, but if that were seriously the case, when we consider the number of poor people in this world, surely the number of asylum seekers would be running into millions instead of being, as they are, no more than a cricket crowd.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Filkin: I would be cautious about responding in too much detail to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the assertion about the numbers of asylum seekers who would be coming to the United Kingdom in those circumstances. One can see that as being either half full or half empty—a lot or a few. From recollection we have about 1.5 per 10,000, which is about in the middle league. What is surprising is that how many who do come here have a disposition for the extreme west of Europe.
As the noble Earl said, there are very many poor people in this world who one would hope had a right to less poverty and more opportunity. It is obvious that many of those will try to better themselves by coming to this country. It would be good if in the real world we could open our doors and make that a reality, but it is not sensible social policy or politics to do so for a second, which is why we are where we are on this Bill. It is also why it is so challenging for this or any other government to seek to try to preserve our responsibilities to support asylum seekers while seeking to deter an ever-increasing volume of potential economic migrants.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I begin by looking at the title of the new Clause 25A, which is
"Helping asylum-seeker to enter United Kingdom".
I appreciate that that is not strictly a part of the Bill. I wish to reflect the words of my noble friend Lord Russell when he pointed out that it is not illegal to do something lawful even if it is done for gain. The title to the proposed new clause does not say "unlawfully" and it does not say "for gain". It is entirely misleading.
Having listened to the Minister's response, we agree with him that we cannot support the activity of organised gangs importing people into this country. That is Clause 25 and not 25A. When the Minister sought to define Clause 25A a little further he indicated that it was an offence punishable by 14 years imprisonment for someone to bring an asylum seeker to the United Kingdom without any attempt to avoid the immigration controls. The person who presents himself at the port and claims asylum is not doing anything illegal yet under this proposed new clause the person who facilitates his arrival there, if he accepts something—it does not have to be financial—commits a very serious criminal offence.
It seems to me that the noble Lord is falling into the trap, which I suggested might be the case, of confusing new Clause 25 with the proposed Clause 25A, which adds nothing to the previous clause. I did not find at all satisfactory the noble Lord's reply to the question put to him by my noble friend Lord Avebury about the position of an individual who assists an asylum seeker and does not charge for his services. We shall have to consider those matters; we shall have to read what the Minister said in Hansard; but I am certain that we shall return to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Judd: I have a great deal of sympathy with the endeavour behind the position of Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches, but, with some hesitation, I put it to them that they, too, need to do a little more work on amendments. Notwithstanding the strictures of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I suggest that there is a distinction between a person providing a service for gain in the manner that has been described—when the situation arises—and someone providing a service for gain that is in fact an enticement to custom: encouraging people to do something. There is a difference here that, in view of all the subsequent trauma that people may encounter, needs to be reflected by a little more finesse in the amendments.
Earl Russell: I should be happy to co-operate with the noble Lord in discussing such an amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 238ZGP not moved.]
Clause 124 agreed to.
Clause 125 agreed to.
Clause 126 [Traffic in prostitution]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 238ZGQ:
300
Page 70, line 2, after "if insert "he uses force, coercion, deception or abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability, or if"
The noble Lord said: Clause 126 defines the offence of trafficking in prostitution. Under subsections (1) to (3), the offender commits an offence if he exercises,
"control over prostitution by the passenger".
"Passenger" is the word used in the clause. The words "exercise control" are then further defined in subsection (4). It is that definition with which we take issue. To start with, the "passenger" becomes a prostitute in subsection (4). The words used to define exercising control—
"if for the purposes of gain he exercises control, direction or influence over the prostitute's movements"—
do not take the matter much further.
Our amendments reflect the definition of "trafficking" in the United Nations protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children. The words in our amendment largely reflect the concepts contained in that protocol. It is interesting to observe that the same definition is used in the European Union framework decision on combating trafficking. In Article 1 of that decision, the same expressions are used.
It is important in the area of trafficking for prostitution that like expressions are employed whenever the same concept is being dealt with. A similar form of words was used in a letter written by the Home Office on 1st May 2002 to Anti-Slavery International. At this time of night, I shall not quote from it, but it uses a similar definition.
The amendment also removes the need to prove that the trafficker has directly benefited for the purposes of gain. Consequently, the definitions in subsection (4) should be tidied up as we propose. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): I must tell the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 238ZGR.
Lord Judd: I support the arguments behind the amendment, and I hope that it will be in order for me also to speak briefly to Amendment No. 238ZGR.
In their letter to Anti-Slavery International of 1st May, to which reference has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the Government said that they were,
"keen to ensure that the same definition of trafficking is used domestically and internationally".
That is a fairly firm statement of intent. Our amendments are an attempt to bring the terminologies more closely together.
My amendment would also remove the phrase "for purposes of gain" from the clause. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, would meet the point in another way. The effect of both amendments would be that a trafficker could be prosecuted if the police could prove that he had coerced or deceived someone into prostitution, regardless of whether they could prove that the trafficker had benefited directly from doing so. Having

301
to show that the person who uses force or coercion has also materially benefited from doing so could, on occasion, be a significant obstacle to prosecution.
The definition proposed in the amendments more fully encompasses the methods used by traffickers to gain control over victims and exploit them. Along with the removal of the "for gain" aspect of the offence, it will better facilitate the effective prosecution of traffickers.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support Amendment No. 238ZGQ, to which I have added my name. I recognise that the creation of the offence is a stopgap measure introduced pending major reform to cover those being trafficked for purposes of sexual or labour exploitation. However, I put my name to the amendment because it seemed to me that the definition used in Clause 126 was not consistent with the definition used in United Nations or EU instruments. Can the Minister say whether the definitions are consistent and, if so, how? The briefing that we have received from Anti- Slavery International—for which I am grateful—suggests that they are not.
Lord Hylton: I support the intention of both amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggested, their effect would be to lower the burden of proof and thus facilitate the effective prosecution of traffickers. That is an important reason for making them.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We respect the spirit in which the amendments have been moved. They are a constructive element of our debate.
Clause 126 proposes that it he a criminal offence for someone to arrange or facilitate the arrival into, passage through or departure from the UK of an individual with the intention of controlling that individual in prostitution. Both amendments would introduce additional elements into the offence by adding the use of,
"force, coercion, or deception or abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability".
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, rightly said that the wording used was drawn from the UN protocol on trafficking. We understand that, but we do not think that it adds any substance to the offence. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Judd would, in addition, remove the element of gain from the new offence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, anticipated the point that I was going to make. The provisions in Clause 126 represent a stopgap. The noble Baroness is spot-on about that. They aim to focus on the worst forms of exploitation connected to trafficking in advance of the introduction of more comprehensive measures, when—to use the age-old formula—parliamentary time permits. We want to have comprehensive measures in place; they would deal with the problem much better.
302
The wording of Clause 126 is taken from the existing formulation,
"exercises control, direction or influence over the prostitute's movements in a way which shows that he is aiding, abetting or compelling the prostitution".
That formulation is present in existing definitions of offences by those who commercially exploit the prostitution of others. The formulation of the words,
"for the purposes of gain"
is based on existing offences. It seems inconceivable that someone would exercise control over a prostitute for purposes other than for gain. What other reason would he have?
Earl Russell: People who do those things may not all have perfect mental balance, so gain may take forms other than financial ones.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure that that is the case. The courts have never questioned that the gain may be other than monetary, which as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has hinted, could be widely construed.
The existing formulation is, however, well understood by the courts and law enforcement agencies. It will be open to the courts to take into account evidence that coercion, threats and other aggravating factors have been used in determining what sentence to pass on convicted traffickers. We do not feel that adding the proposed wording, however well-intentioned and well-drawn it may be, will make it easier to prove the offence, which surely is the key.
It is only fair to put on the record that having such a wide definition of elements may actually prove to be confusing rather than helpful. It could make it harder to prove the offence, thus frustrating the amendment's intentions. We are committed to implementing the UN protocol and EU framework decisions, which will require amendments to existing criminal offences that fall well outside the scope of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. In formulating the amendments, we shall make it clear that the issue of t he victim's consent is immaterial to providing an offence of trafficking. For that stop-gap offence we do not want to overhaul the law on commercial sexual exploitation as it is part of the review of sexual offences. I know that Members of the Committee are aware of that.
We have drawn concepts from existing offences relating to controlling prostitution and have given a clear statement of intent. In drawing attention to where our wording comes from, and in making it plain that it is a stop-gap measure, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. We are grateful for having had this short debate as we share a common intent.
Lord Judd: I assure my noble friend that I have no intention of pressing my amendment, but will he agree to consider again what lies behind it? I do not claim to be legally qualified but, as a layman, it seems to me that the courts will have to demonstrate that the action

303
was for gain. That may make it more difficult to bring a successful prosecution. The point needs some attention.
Lord Hylton: Will the Minister reflect on the possibility that one criminal might do something involving prostitution to repay a favour to another criminal? That would not necessarily be for cash or immediate financial gain.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I have another case to put to my noble friend. Does my noble friend agree that when the Philistines persuaded Delilah to seduce Samson that was probably for gain, although no money changed hands?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I was not there on that occasion but I expect that the noble and learned Lord has a point.
The term "for purposes of gain" is obviously widely drawn and the courts will understand that. There is no harm in reflecting further on the amendment, as recommended by my noble friend Lord Judd. I say that without making a cast-iron commitment about bringing anything back. Our short debate has been valuable and it has allowed us to focus on the issue. We have put some important points on the record, so I hope that Members of the Committee will feel more comfortable about withdrawing their amendments.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I would like the Minister to consider and reflect upon the fact that it is rare to see a charge of trafficking in prostitution appearing in the higher courts of this country. No doubt the Home Office has the figures. Perhaps one of the problems in bringing such a charge is the necessity to prove gain. The response of the pimp who is arrested and said to be controlling prostitution is, "That's my girlfriend. My relationship with her does not involve passing money". It is difficult to disprove that, particularly when the lady is not prepared entirely to co-operate with the police or the prosecution. Therefore, from a practical point of view, proving gain may be difficult.
I am encouraged by the Minister's reply and ask him to consider whether now is the moment to amend the wording. I suggest that we do not follow what has happened previously, which has produced few successful prosecutions, but strike out in accordance with the United Nations protocol and soforth and define with those who advise him a workable way of dealing with what we all regard as a serious and challenging problem. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 238ZGR not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 126 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: At Second Reading, I drew attention to the fact that only Clauses 126 and 127 did not apply to Scotland. I asked the Minister to
304
explain what would happen in that regard because it seemed necessary that the provisions should apply throughout the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, was kind enough to write to me about the matter and he told me that the Scots Parliament, to which the matter is devolved, stated that it would legislate in similar terms.
Will the Minister assure the Committee that that will happen with all speed? Stop-gap though the measure is, it will be awkward if the offence does not apply to Scotland because there will be a large loophole in the arrangements. I do not require another letter from the Minister, but if he does not know the answer perhaps he will give me an assurance that the Scots Parliament will be asked to get on with it. It is in recess and has been for a couple of weeks, so I have not been able to discover anything.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Knowing that the noble Baroness was likely to raise the question, our civil servants have been swift off the mark and provided me with a briefing note. It is clear. As the noble Baroness rightly says, this is a devolved matter. We do not intend that there will be a loophole across the UK and it is intended that similar legislation will be brought before the Scottish Parliament. We are in discussion with our colleagues in Scotland to that effect, although the details are not yet available.
I hope that that provides the reassurance sought. I give it honestly and openly.
Clause 126 agreed to.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 238ZH:
After Clause 126, insert the following new clause—
"PROTECTION OF VICTIMS' RIGHTS

(1) For the purposes of this section, a "victim of trafficking" is a person described in section 126 as the "passenger", irrespective as to whether a person is charged with an offence under section 126 or at all.

(2) A victim of trafficking shall be granted a reflection period of not less than six months in which to make an informed decision as to whether to co-operate with the authorities in a prosecution during which time such victim of trafficking will be given access to suitable accommodation, medical, psychological and material assistance and information regarding their legal rights in a language they can understand.

(3) Where there is a reasonable likelihood that, if removed from the United Kingdom, a victim of trafficking will be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 2, 3, 4 or 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Secretary of State shall grant that individual exceptional or indefinite leave to remain."

The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 126 to protect victims' rights. We set out a framework for protecting and supporting the victims of trafficking. Estimates vary, but the latest estimate suggests that thousands of people are subject to trafficking in this way.
We believe that the victims of trafficking need a breathing space or a reflection period during which they can receive assistance, can recover and can reach an informed decision on whether to co-operate in prosecuting the offenders. It may be that such people will have language difficulties or fear reprisals, not

305
only against themselves but against their families in the country of origin. Those who have recently been rescued from traffickers need a period of time during which they can decide what they are going to do. These people usually have irregular immigration status owing to false documents, because they have overstayed or do not have a passport. As a result, they may be subject to immediate deportation unless they co-operate with the authorities.
The period of reflection proposed in the new clause would also give agencies an opportunity to offer the support and assistance needed to help these people regain control of their lives and come to an informed decision about giving evidence against traffickers. Even if they are not prepared to assist in a prosecution, they can be a vital source of intelligence and information which can assist in the arrest of the traffickers.
This is not a novel proposition. Similar provisions apply in the Netherlands where a three-month period of reflection is offered; the same is the case in Belgium. The European Union directive on short-term residence permits is proposing its introduction for all Union states. A period of six months may be necessary in the case of children.
Subsection (3) provides a safeguard where there is a reasonable likelihood that the victim, on his return home, may be subject to torture or other human rights abuses. The protection should be available regardless of whether the victim wishes to co-operate with the authorities in a prosecution.
Perhaps I may quote the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights who has said:
"Victims should be entitled to adequate protection under any circumstances, irrespective of any decision to instigate judicial proceedings".
I beg to move.
Lord Judd: I should like, briefly but very warmly, to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. When one repeats a remark, its credibility may be in doubt, but I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will forgive me for saying again that I believe them to be decent and humane people. I wish to emphasise only one point.
Imagine the trauma and the nightmare that some of these people will have endured. In the name of decency and humanity, does not the amendment suggest the minimum civilised response to their situation and does it not strengthen the determination to ensure that they are dealt with not only legally and administratively, but helped to restore themselves to some kind of hopeful and positive life?
10 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: I rise to support the amendment and to declare an interest as a council member of Anti-Slavery International. Although I did not speak to the previous amendment, I was not impressed with the Minister's response on that occasion. I hope that this time he will offer a more generous response.
306
Anti-Slavery International estimates that hundreds of women and children are trafficked every year into the United Kingdom for sexual and labour exploitation. That has been confirmed by Home Office research undertaken in 1998 as well as by research published last year by the End Child Prostitution campaign. Yet we still have no legislation aimed specifically at the prohibition of trafficking of this kind and no specialised agency to which victims can be referred. Anti-Slavery International and other NGOs which have been approached cannot provide the necessary support on their own.
The Government have given an undertaking that legislation is on the way consistent with the EU framework decision, which is encouraging. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, these two amendments are designed to cover the intervening period to provide protection for victims of trafficking who might otherwise have no redress.
As the noble Lord explained, the first amendment proposes a reflection period of three months, or six months in the case of children, during which victims would have access to services during police investigation. As the noble Lord said, their irregular immigration status currently means that they are liable for immediate deportation. The amendment follows the Italian model, which I understand has proved quite successful.
The second amendment seeks to establish a fund which would support non-governmental organisations and those agencies which provide safe houses and services and would pay compensation to victims. This would cover the period until the Government decide—as we expect they will—to support a well-resourced organisation, as recommended in the Home Office's own research paper.
Taken together these amendments would surely strengthen the Government's hand and provide the necessary protection while we are awaiting the legislation.
The Countess of Mar: I, too, support the intentions behind the amendment but I am a little concerned about the wording in subsection (2) which refers to "not less than six months". That strikes me as being very open ended. How long is "not less than six months"? Is it a year or is it 20 years perhaps?
I am not sure about the necessity for subsection (3). I understand that before we deport anyone we consider the human rights aspects.
Lord Hylton: I have added my name to these amendments, which have been extremely clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. There is an urgent need for the establishment in this country of safe houses. I suggest that that could be done most satisfactorily by carefully selecting a housing association or two to provide a place where these people—mostly women—will be able to receive the counsel and support they urgently need.

307
I tabled a Written Question on this subject. The reply that I received more or less said that this is premature; that the Government will think about the matter. I urge the Government to think about it now and continually throughout the Recess.
As to the second amendment, I ask the Government not to limit the fund to the illegal proceeds of trafficking that they have managed to confiscate or otherwise acquire, but to ensure that it is of sufficient size to provide the kind of specialised housing and services mentioned in the second amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, have reminded me that I have not spoken to Amendment No. 238ZHA, which is grouped with the first amendment. I hope that the Committee will permit me to have a second bite of the cherry and to speak to the second amendment.
This issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in the debate on the Proceeds of Crime Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, committed the Government to review the scope of the recovered assets fund in advance of the next financial year, 2003–2004, and to consider, in particular, whether it should be used for the benefit of the victims of crime, including victims of trafficking. This assurance was given on 25th June this year in Hansard, col. 1227.
We seek an unequivocal commitment to providing funding for safe houses and support services within a specific time frame. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, the facilities are provided by only one agency, Eve's Housing, which has very limited facilities. Support for that organisation is needed now.
We call also for compensation to cover economic, physical and psychological damage. Article 6 of the United Nations protocol, to which I have already referred, deals with this issue. Under the protocol, governments are required to ensure that their domestic legal systems contain measures that offer victims of trafficking in persons the possibility of obtaining compensation for damages suffered. The money is available from the recovered assets fund. I ask the Minister how much further the Government have advanced in thinking about this since the reply was given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to the debate in June.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Will my noble friend indicate when, at best, the European law can be initiated, so that victims' rights are properly protected? How long will it take for the Government to ensure that that law becomes part of our law?
Earl Russell: I support my noble friend's comments about Amendment No. 238ZHA. The problems are similar to those of running a women's refuge—of which my wife and I have some experience and knowledge. The problem is one of obtaining decent financial support for people who have had to abandon their previous career and give up their source of
308
income. They may be trying to break a drug habit. They may be recovering from physical trauma caused by quite severe injuries from time to time. That calls for a considerable sum of money.
I should like to express my delight at the tabling of Amendment No. 238ZH, and especially at the inclusion of Article 3. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, expressed doubt about that.
The Countess of Mar: I expressed doubt because I think that it already applies. I do not think that it is necessary to include it here.
Earl Russell: Yes, I fully understood that that was the noble Countess's position. I was about to say that I do not think that she quite understands the depth of fear that exists among people who are in this sort of position. One remembers the cases of domestic slavery—of the foreign maids who were kept more or less like dogs in the kitchen. These people simply did not dare to inform the authorities for fear that they might be deported. That is the main reason why so few perpetrators of trafficking are ever brought to justice. I do not think that any reassurance can be too great for that. At the very least, it must be absolutely explicit. If it is not, no victims will come forward—and if no victims come forward, no prosecutions will take place.
I take the point about the limitation of "not less than six months", but again this is a problem which is familiar in the management of women's refuges. People inevitably arrive there in a state of trauma not so very different from the states created by torture, to which I may refer later. Rates of recovery from that state are unusual. In practice, in that context the decision as to when it is time for the person to go out into the world and feel safe to face it again is based on careful daily observation by those who care for such people and on medical judgment. I have no doubt that that would prove to be the case here.
Without this time for reflection, a great many such people will feel unable to tell their stories. Again, the problem is the same as that of victims of torture, who frequently for a long time find it difficult to tell their stories—and then find that they are not believed because they did not tell them immediately. Time for reflection, time to find yourself again, to find a little shred of self-respect somewhere, is vital to the ability to give evidence; and that ability is vital not only for the safety of the victim—which is not thought about nearly enough in these cases—but also in terms of the ability to do justice. I warmly support the amendments.
Lord Judd: Before the noble Earl sits down, he has made an important point characteristically well. But does he agree that in the midst of all our deliberations we are beginning to lose sight of the needs of the people with whom we are dealing? It is a matter not simply of bringing prosecutions, but of enabling these people to be rehabilitated so that they can start to live a decent life again.

309
I hope that my noble friends the Ministers, with their humane commitment, will see this point. If they are not motivated by the legal arguments, I hope that they will feel compelled at least on humanitarian grounds to take action.
Earl Russell: I could not agree more with the noble Lord. If I mention prosecutions, it is only because of the context in which the Bill puts them. I have no objection to persuading people when I can.
Lord Avebury: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is attributing greater altruism to the Home Office than it ordinarily possesses, and that arguments about prosecution are more likely to appeal to it than arguments about the humanitarian needs of the victims. I do not, of course, cast any aspersion on the Minister. I think of the Home Office as a mighty dinosaur which moves in its own way, and that the Minister represents the tiny brain at the front of the animal but probably does not know what goes on in its bowels or at the back of its tail.
So I think that we ought to consider what are the effects on prosecutions of not having a victim support system. As my noble friend Lord Thomas said, such prosecutions are very rare. I should like to ask the Government a specific question on this. In considering this new clause, have they consulted the police? In particular, have they spoken to the head of the vice and clubs unit of the Metropolitan Police, Chief Inspector Simon Humphreys? I think that he would have a lot to say about the need for victim support. The lack of such support prevents many of these women from coming forward and volunteering to give evidence.
Pursuant to what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was saying, I should also like to ask the Minister whether there have been discussions at European level on a common system of victim support throughout the European Union? If so, what models have they been looking at? My noble friend Lord Thomas mentioned two such models. A third one which has commended itself to many people is the Italian system, under which six months' exceptional leave to remain are given initially when a person is in a situation of violence or grave exploitation and concrete dangers to his or her safety have emerged. That seems a quite useful model which might be adopted on a European scale.
I think that the offence of trafficking, and the victims of trafficking, should not be thought of within the framework of the English or Scottish systems of law, but considered as a phenomenon that covers the whole of Europe. As the Minister knows, trafficking crosses all boundaries, and the criminals who indulge in it are equally international. So it seems to me very important that we go beyond the framework decision, which has very little to say about victim support, and that we engage in discussions with our partners in the EU and come up with a robust system of help for victims that covers the whole continent.
Lord Dholakia: I shall be very brief. Bearing in mind the cross-section of opinion expressed in this debate, I
310
ask the Minister to consider, if at all possible, a time of reflection not only for the victims but for the Government. I ask the Government to consider very seriously the possibility of sitting down with us between now and Report stage to explore the ways and means by which we can take this issue forward. Protection of the victims will be of paramount importance in that discussion. The Minister has suggested the possibility of meeting on other issues. Perhaps we can do so in relation to this issue.
Lord Filkin: This has been an important debate on an incredibly important issue. I think that all sides of the Committee have recognised the seriousness of the issue, both in terms of what one understands to be the increased scale of trafficking of women and sometimes of children for the purposes of sexual exploitation—if media and other reports are to be believed, such trafficking has grown very considerably in London in recent years—and in relation to the potential effects on women and even more so on children. I hardly need labour the effect that prostitution has on any woman or child. However, that is compounded in circumstances where a person is afraid of escaping from such oppression as that person is most probably an illegal immigrant. Such a step may also put their family at risk. These people are in a position of servitude or semi-servitude in terms of the oppression they suffer.
The Government stand foursquare with all those who express concern at this situation. The issue that divides us, however, concerns the mechanisms or rather the timing by which the matter is to be addressed. We set out in our White Paper, Secure Borders, Sale Haven, a comprehensive strategy to clamp down on organised criminals and to deal appropriately with the victims of the crime that we are discussing. We have made it clear that Clause 126 is a stop-gap measure pending much more comprehensive legislation on trafficking for sexual and labour exploitation when parliamentary time permits. For reasons that the Committee will understand, I cannot go further than that at this point in time. I do not know what the position is in that regard and I am not in a position to say what is in the Queen's Speech.
Nevertheless, it is clear that this Bill alone cannot pretend to deal comprehensively with the scale of this issue. That is why we believe that there is a need for separate legislation. Work is going on to explore those issues. In that respect I am happy—as I hope that I always am—to accept the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, to have further discussions. I say that without commitment. I hope that we can discuss early stages of thinking and that I shall be able to give what comfort I can with regard to the seriousness with which the Government address this issue.
We are not passive on these issues. Already in co-operation with the voluntary sector we are considering how we shall offer victims of trafficking particular support so that they can escape their circumstances, and also help law enforcement against organised criminals. Where they are willing to come forward to the authorities, we are considering special

311
arrangements for their protection. We shall also consider whether it would be appropriate to allow them to remain here. Where they are to return home, we are considering how to assist them to do so and how to provide them with counselling to ensure that they have suitable accommodation to return to and help to enable them to reintegrate into their own community and find employment.
As the Committee will know, it is already possible to allow a reflection period where it is considered appropriate. It is also possible to grant exceptional and indefinite leave to remain. Each case is considered on its individual merits. However, we do not think that an automatic reflection period would be appropriate in this case. I was interested in the points that were made about, I believe, Dutch and Belgian legislation by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and, I believe, Italian legislation by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. It will hurt us little to explore what is done elsewhere and to reflect whether we can learn anything from that either in respect of this Bill or in respect of further legislation.
Although we have considerable sympathy with the aims of Amendment No. 238ZH, we are concerned that the provisions would apply even where it may be clear at the outset that the person concerned cannot be charged because his or her identity is unknown or because they are in an outside jurisdiction. There is also concern among investigators that the creation of a fixed reflection delay could be an impediment to prosecutions in some cases because of the time lag involved. Of greater concern is the fact that the existence of such a widely drawn reflection might have the opposite effect to that intended by creating a perverse incentive to increase trafficking. I take the point about what is happening elsewhere in Europe. We can test some of our concerns against that experience.
It is already possible for a person who is brought to the UK and forced to work as a prostitute to be allowed a period of reflection. But we do not believe that it is necessary to make mandatory statutory provision for that. However, we shall reflect on that. The measure stipulates that a victim should be granted exceptional or indefinite leave to remain but it is unnecessary to make provision in the Bill. Where we are satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood that anyone—a victim of trafficking or not—is at risk of being killed or subject to torture or inhumane or degrading treatment, they will not be removed from the United Kingdom. The same applies where persons are held in slavery or servitude or are deprived of their liberty. Exceptional leave to remain is leave granted on a discretionary basis, outside the provisions of the Immigration Rules. It would be anomalous to set criteria in legislation.
I am foursquare with those who spoke on support services for victims of trafficking. It is a significant issue. Creating a separate fund for that specific category is not right or necessary when specific funds are not created for other categories of offence. That does not refute or gainsay the need for appropriate
312
support services. I have already signalled that that aspect will have to be considered as part of later legislation. We currently pay an annual grant of £28 million to Victim Support, to enable that organisation to provide a range of services to victims of all types of crime. We are also working with the voluntary sector to identify the cost implications of making provision for the victims of trafficking.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, commented on the need for safe houses. That point was covered by my previous remarks about the comprehensiveness of the support that may be necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about the situation in Europe. There are no proposals for European law to provide victim support and no basis of which we are aware for such a measure. As I understand it, that matter is regarded as one of national competence, not for supranational action. However, international action is co-ordinated through Project Reflex, to identify trafficking criminality and there is evidence that is bringing some benefits. The noble Lord asked also about police consultation. We are in the process of consulting the Metropolitan Police, who are represented on the steering group at deputy assistant commissioner level.
I have given assurances that we shall reflect, but I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken. I shall remember the passion with which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke. If I had closed my eyes for a moment, I might have thought that the noble Lord was speaking from our Benches. I hope that some of his passion will infiltrate the Home Office when it examines these amendments.
When considering Amendment No. 238ZH, we looked at co-operating with the prosecution and giving access to suitable accommodation and providing medical, psychological and material assistance, together with information about the person's legal rights in a language that he can understand. That amendment was presented in a balanced way, without an emphasis merely upon supporting a prosecution.
I was disappointed with the reply about the trafficking fund. We do not feel that the amount of money available is great—perhaps it is not great enough. I was not impressed by the noble Lord the Minister's response that creating a separate fund is not necessary because there is another means of providing compensation. I was a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and resigned when the then Conservative government broke the link between common law damages and compensation, so that victims of crime receive substantially less compensation that they would otherwise do. That change was vehemently opposed by the Labour Party, led by a current Member of Parliament, but the current Government have done nothing to restore compensation to a proper level. I am not at all impressed by the Government's argument.

313
However, we are encouraged by the noble Lord's expression of willingness to take the advice of my noble friend Lord Dholakia and to undergo a period of reflection. I hope that the sun will shine over the summer holiday and that we shall see some sunny results when the House returns in October. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 238ZHA not moved.]
Clause 127 agreed to.
Clause 128 [Employment]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 238ZJ:
Page 71, line 8, after "partnership" insert "(other than a limited partnership)"
The noble Lord said: These clarifying amendments identify when the partners of a partnership can be prosecuted for the employment offence contained in Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Clarifying that matter will assist in the prosecutions of partnerships for that offence. As currently drafted, Clause 128(3) of the Bill makes it clear that where the employment offence is committed by a partnership, each partner shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
In the context of traditional partnerships, where every partner acts on behalf of the partnership and of every other partner when transacting partnership business, we believe that that provision is sensible and reasonable. However, on reflection, we believe that special provision needs to be made for limited partnerships.
Limited partnerships are a less common type of partnership governed by the Limited Partnerships Act 1907, in which the liability of some members is limited to the amount of capital that they advance. Such partners do not take part in the partnership business at all. We have decided that the liability of a partner of a limited partnership for the employment offence should mirror the liability of the director of a company. In other words, such a partner should not be liable unless he consented or connived in the commission of the offence or unless it was committed as a result of his neglect.
In case there is any confusion, it is perhaps best for the record if I make it clear that limited partnerships are of course entirely different, as I am sure most Members of the Committee know, from limited liability partnerships. Limited liability partnerships are a recent form of business vehicle authorised by the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000. That Act permits partnerships in which partners are not liable for debts and obligations which go beyond the extent of the firm's own assets.
Clause 128 does not make specific provision for that new vehicle because it is unnecessary to do so. The Limited Liability Partnerships Act provides that such partnerships are bodies corporate, and the existing provisions in Section 8 which deal with corporations will therefore apply to them without any express
314
amendment being necessary. In other words, like the partner of limited partnerships, the partner or "member" of a limited liability partnership will be liable only if the commission of the offence was a result of his consent, connivance or neglect. ,However no express wording is required to achieve that result. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 238ZK:
Page 71, line 10, at end insert—
""(6B) Subsection (5) shall have effect in relation to a limited partnership as if—

(a) a reference to a body corporate were a reference to a limited partnership, and

(b) a reference to an officer of the body were a reference to a partner.""

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 128, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 129 [Registration card]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 238ZL:
Page 72, leave out lines 19 to 21.
The noble Lord said: We are moving into an area that is very different from the important matters of principle that we have been discussing. The amendment proposes the deletion of Clause 129(7). That provision creates new offences in relation to the misuse and alteration of registration cards. Those cards are not created by statute and are currently restricted to asylum seekers simply as proof that they have made an asylum claim.
Subsection (7) leaves it open to the Secretary of State to amend the definition of a registration card. The amendment seeks to probe what the Secretary of State has in mind. As subsection (7) is currently drafted, it could be altered for any purpose whatever. We appreciate that it can be altered only under the affirmative procedure. We should be grateful if the Minister explained why such a power is required. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Filkin: I shall seek to answer the noble Lord's probing amendment succinctly and, I hope, helpfully.
Clause 129 introduces a number of offences relating to the creation, possession and use of false or altered registration cards, also known as application registration cards, or ARCs. ARCs are currently issued to asylum seekers and their dependants as an acknowledgement of their applications for asylum. The card contains information about the individual asylum seeker—his or her name, address, nationality and date of birth—as well as a photograph and fingerprints which are stored on a computer chip. Although the card has been designed to incorporate a number of security features making it difficult to forge or alter, it is possible that attempts will be made to do so. That is the reason for the forgery offences in Clause 129.

315
The definition of "registration card" in subsection (1) of the clause refers to a card that is to be issued "in connection with a claim for asylum". That reflects the current practice of issuing cards to asylum seekers to speed up the process of establishing their identity when they report to the Immigration Service or access benefits at a post office. However, it is possible that in the future registration cards will be issued to other classes of person who are subject to immigration control, as provided by subsection (7).
The purpose of this power is to ensure that the offences contained in Clause 129 will apply to the cards issued to non-asylum seekers in the same way as they apply to those issued to asylum seekers. If the power is removed and the IND issues cards to non-asylum seekers, it will be unable to bring prosecutions in relation to false or altered cards.
However, the clause is not concerned with conferring powers to issue cards or imposing requirements to carry them. It contains none of the provisions that would be needed if some form of general entitlement card scheme was to be introduced. If that is the anxiety behind the probing amendment, I am pleased to clarify that this is not a back-door means to some form of general entitlement or identity card. That is not the intention. The amendment contains none of the provisions that would be needed if some form of general entitlement card were to be introduced.
It therefore follows that if the amendment is accepted, the IND would continue to be able to issue cards to non-asylum seekers, but would not be able to prosecute someone who committed a forgery offence in relation to such a card. That is why we believe that the power in subsection (7), subject to affirmative resolution, is necessary. It will afford Parliament a full opportunity to scrutinise any changes made to the definition of the card, but it is not intended to be a means of introducing general entitlement or identity cards.
Lord Avebury: Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the cards that are already being issued to asylum seekers contain electronically-coded information and, if so, whether it is based on the individual's iris, or what feature of a person's physiognomy is electronically encoded? Will he also say a little more about how it is possible to forge that information? As I understand it, the iris, like fingerprints, is absolutely unique to an individual and could not possibly be substituted by some other person.
Lord Filkin: The answer is that some of the information will be electronically coded by means of a microchip. The biometric data, if that is the correct term, is not the iris but fingerprint information. I am not an expert in forgery—otherwise I probably would not be here—but one would clearly expect that if there is a benefit in a card, people will make serious attempts to forge it. If more technical detail becomes available
316
that may interest the noble Lord, I shall be happy to write to him. However, as a non-expert, I cannot at present answer his question more fully.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful for the assurance that the intention behind this amendment is not to extend the power in any of the ways to which the noble Lord has referred. On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 129 agreed to.
Clauses 130 to 132 agreed to.
Clause 133 [Power of entry]:
On Question, Whether Clause 133 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hylton: I want to ask why the Government consider it necessary to create a power of entry and search into business premises with no warrant. Could that possibly be a cover for fishing expeditions of one kind or another? Surely a justice of the peace could grant such a warrant without notice being given to the affected parties. I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say on that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that, in a sense, the noble Lord is asking whether there is a precedent elsewhere in legislation for this provision. Is that what the noble Lord is after?
Lord Hylton: With respect to the noble Lord, I am asking for justification for the power.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord also asked about fishing expeditions. I want to make plain that the power does not concern the authorisation of fishing expeditions. In seeking entry, officials must have a basis for entry. That is the thinking behind the provision. They do not want to experience the delay of obtaining a warrant. If that were to happen, then the purpose of making an entry to secure evidence in order to secure an individual might well he defeated. The purpose of the clause is to enable immigration officers and constables to enter business premises to search for and arrest someone for offences such as illegal entry or over-staying.
It is, of course, regrettable that it is necessary to include such a provision in the Bill. However, while some employers are prepared to co-operate with Immigration Service officials when information indicates that the immigration offender might be working on the premises, it must be said that others are less than co-operative. Increasingly, we are finding that employers who were prepared to assist formerly are now refusing to do so.
Therefore, we are finding that offenders are becoming more sophisticated and using false or altered documents. That makes it difficult to trace them when they take up employment or when they change from one employer to another. Thus, we believe that the

317
power is necessary and essential as part of the enforcement approach. That is our rationale, our thinking and our justification for the provision.
Lord Avebury: The Minister seeks to justify the exercise of the power without a warrant by saying that there may be a need to act quickly and without notice. But does he agree that obtaining a warrant is not necessarily a cumbersome or time-consuming process because any justice of the peace may grant it? Furthermore, it will be granted without notice to the affected parties. Therefore, does the noble Lord agree that there are serious considerations of privacy and commercial confidentiality which might make a business reluctant to subject itself to unnecessary and unjustified searches by officials? Is it not a necessary and valuable safeguard against frivolous and unjustified searches that the persons concerned need to apply for a warrant?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I invite the noble Lord to think of the following. Let us imagine that an immigration official approaches an employer and goes to his premises. If, for example, the employer refuses entry and the official is then obliged to go away and seek a warrant so that he can gain access to the premises, it is possible that, during the course of seeking the warrant, valuable evidence will be destroyed or removed from the premises. That power is required for exactly such situations.
The hard fact is that there are people who seek to evade the law. There are people who wish to frustrate sensible, efficient and effective enforcement. Whether or not we like it, the powers are essential in those circumstances. I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to be seen to frustrate the powers required in any way. I hope that all Members of the Committee support Clause 133 because we believe that it is essential. It is needed as part of our armoury of enforcement.
Lord Dholakia: My noble friend raised a somewhat different point. Before an immigration officer knocks on the door of an employer to find out whether people are there illegally, should he not first obtain an appropriate warrant from a magistrate before searching the premises? That occurs in ordinary cases. I have sat as a magistrate. The police come to you. I do not tell employers that the police will knock on their door. But there should be a safeguard so that immigration officers do not go on fishing expeditions. Those cause considerable harm to good community relations. That is why my noble friend insists on the need for a warrant before entering premises.
Lord Berkeley: A number of noble Lords have talked about fishing expeditions. Which amendment are we discussing? I see no amendment on the Marshalled List on clauses between Clauses 129 and 134. It would be better to discuss an amendment on the Marshalled List or to have an amendment tabled at a subsequent stage.
Lord Hylton: If it helps the noble Lord, we are discussing whether Clause 133 shall stand part of the Bill. There are separate amendments on Clause 134.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: If we were obliged to follow the course of action upon which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, insists, there would be occasions when good law enforcement would be utterly frustrated. Knowing the noble Lord as I do, I cannot believe that he would wish such a situation to arise. Of course enforcement officers will respect the sensitivity of their investigations. But I am sure the noble Lord will accept that there will be occasions when it is essential for immigration officers to act with due speed. In those circumstances, we believe that the powers are justified.
Lord Avebury: In order to substantiate his claim surely the Minister can give examples where immigration or customs officers have been frustrated by the lack of these powers. For example, they have first asked the employer whether they can gain voluntary access to premises to see whether illegal entrants are working there or whether evidence of the activity of illegal entrants can be found; when the employer refuses access they have had to obtain a warrant, and that delay has resulted in the destruction or mutilation of evidence.
Where the police or customs officers have reasonable cause to think that illegal entrants are being harboured on the premises, or that evidence of illegal entrants having worked on the premises will be found in a search, they would not alert the employer by knocking on the door and asking, "Have you any illegal entrants here?" They would know that the answer would be, "We refuse to give you access to the premises". They would obtain a warrant from the magistrate and, armed with that warrant to search the premises, the employer would be bound to admit them.
The Minister has not produced any cases which demonstrate that the police or customs officers have been frustrated, or where cases against employers have not been able to be mounted because of the lack of those powers. Therefore, we should probe the matter further on Report. I do not suggest that we can do anything now. The noble Lord has not given a satisfactory explanation of why these somewhat extensive powers are needed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am sorry if I have not satisfied the noble Lord. These powers have a precedent. For example, there is an existing power in Section 28C of the 1971 Act which allows an officer or a constable to enter premises without a warrant in order to search for and arrest someone for the facilitation offences in Section 25 of that Act. It is a much broader power than we are creating here. It applies to any premises, not just to business premises. Other agencies, such as the police and customs, have power to enter premises without a warrant in order to search for and to arrest offenders. The main police powers—noble Lords will probably know better than I—are contained in Section 27 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

319
We are not aware that these powers—these precedents—have caused any problems in the past. If the noble Lord has good cases that suggest they have created problems, of course we should like to hear of them. I simply argue that these powers are important to this piece of legislation. It is important for us to have effective enforcement powers. We have not had, to date, any experience of problems with them. They work perfectly well. There are more than adequate safeguards. So I suggest to the noble Lord that these powers are absolutely essential. I understand that it is right that we should debate and discuss these matters, but they are an effective part of a whole battery of things that we need in order to make sure that—so far as concerns the exercise of powers—immigration officers are able to be effective and efficient in carrying out their duties.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord sits down, it is not for me to justify my arguments as a reason for not having this clause on the statute book. The Minister is the Minister. It is up to him to justify what the Government are asking for. They are asking for the clause to be accepted by noble Lords. So it is up to them to say why they need it and not for me to prove the contrary.
Clause 133 agreed to.
Clause 134 [Power to search for evidence]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 238ZM:
Page 75, line 16, leave out "the constable or immigration officer reasonably believes" and insert "on application made by an immigration officer, a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 238ZM, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 238ZN, 238ZP and 238ZQ.
I listened to the discussion on Clause 133 stand part with considerable interest. Long experience tells me that it is not more powers given to investigating officers, it is not more and more sophisticated techniques from the police or other investigating authorities and it is not even more bobbies on the beat which leads to the solution of crime; it is the co-operation of the public. It is the people who have to endure being witnesses in court and who have to throw open their premises from time to time for searches to be made. It is important always to get the balance right.
It really is not sufficient just to increase powers all the time. What was revealing about the Minister's response to the last debate was that he said it is getting more and more difficult to get people to co-operate. That really proves my point. The greater the powers sought, the more it appears to the public that an imposition is being placed on them by the investigating authorities and the less co-operation the authorities will receive.
Nothing causes delay or difficulty in obtaining a warrant from a magistrate. It happens every day all over the country without any problems whatever. It is in those circumstances that I move Amendment No. 238ZM.
Clause 134 refers to the situation where a person has been arrested for employment offences. The constable or immigration officer goes to the business premises where that person is employed and demands to see the records. It is not as though he is even investigating that firm necessarily. There should not be fishing expeditions. There should be the simple safeguard of a warrant. That is one point.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 238ZP and 238ZQ. They try to confine the powers of investigation not to all employee records, as the Bill is drawn, but to the records of the employee who has been arrested. As drawn, the Bill would permit the investigating authorities to go to business premises where one person is suspected of being in breach of immigration employment laws, and carry out a trawl through all the records of that company. That is excessive and it is fishing. We suggest that the Government would gain the co-operation of employers and the public much more if they struck a proper balance between the need to investigate and catch offenders and the co-operation of the public who are the people who will ensure that convictions are ultimately obtained. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: As has been indicated during the discussion on Clause 133, this power does not require prior authorisation. It is in response to circumstances which cannot be predicted and to which an immediate response is needed. As I shall seek to amplify, it is for these reasons that the power is extremely limited.
First and foremost, someone has to be liable to arrest as an immigration offender and has to be found on business premises before the power can come into play. It is circumstances where a constable or an immigration officer enters business premises with the intention of arresting a person who is believed to be an immigration offender. That is the first and the major trigger. Unless that happens the power does not exist.
Secondly, the constable or the immigration officer must reasonably believe that an immigration employment offence has been committed in respect of that person. Thirdly, employee records must be present on the premises and of substantial value in the investigation of the alleged immigration offence. All of these subordinate conditions have to be met before the power comes into play.
Our concern about the amendment, which I acknowledge has been argued with tenacity, is if the officer were forced to go to a justice of the peace to obtain his approval before any search is conducted in the very limited circumstances that we are describing and where officers are on the premises with the intent to arrest someone. The employer would have every incentive to destroy any evidence of a Section 8 offence which existed before the officer returned. The fact that the employee had been arrested or was liable to be

321
arrested, would have alerted the employer to the interest of the enforcement authorities and therefore to the employer's own potential breach of employment and immigration laws in these respects.
But as I sought to indicate, we are talking about very narrow and tight circumstances. The immigration officer or the constable cannot just wander into business premises and look to see whether anyone might be creating an immigration offence. These officers cannot go to other business premises and ask to see all the employee records to see if they can spot any names which look suspicious to them. They can only go in when they believe there is someone there and they have grounds to believe that an immigration offence has been committed. Amendment No. 238ZM would render the proposed power ineffective for these reasons and that is why we cannot accept it.
The remaining Amendments Nos. 238ZN and 238ZQ would have the effect of limiting the power under the new Section 28FA to a power of search, seize and retain the records of the person who has been arrested. We do not believe that such a limitation is practicable or desirable.
Amendment No. 238ZN seeks to ensure that the power to search is only triggered when an officer reasonably believes that records of the arrested person will be found on the premises. That is unnecessary. Subsection (2) already makes it clear that the power of search is only triggered if the officer believes that an immigration employment offence has been committed in relation to the person arrested.
Although Amendments Nos. 238ZP and 238ZQ are identical to Amendment No. 238ZN they would entail a change. They would restrict the scope of the search which can be undertaken and the power of seizure and retention of employee records to the records of the arrested person only, as was argued. That is impractical because it is unlikely that the records of a suspected offender will be kept separately from those of other employers. If a constable is searching for a record of that employee, he will almost certainly be required to search the records of other employees to find the one for which he is looking. If, in the course of that search, the constable or immigration officer comes across evidence of other immigration employment offences, or evidence of mass fraud, he simply cannot ignore it. That would be absurd. He must be able to seize and retain that evidence immediately, which is what the clause as drafted provides. If he must go away to get a warrant, when he comes back the chances of the evidence still being there are remote.
I have sought to explain that the circumstances in which such an entry can take place without a warrant are extremely limited and the powers to obtain data to support the potential immigration offence are themselves limited to the tight circumstances that I described. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The system that we in this country have of obtaining a warrant from a magistrate
322
to carry out searches is centuries old. It has a reason behind it: keeping the balance between the freedom of the individual and the need to investigate crime. Parliament holds that balance. Constantly, one hears from the Government that they are being pushed to change the balance against civil liberties. This is just another example of that. We shall reflect carefully on what the Minister has said; we may return to the matter. For the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 238ZN to 238ZQ not moved.]
Clause 134 agreed to.
Clauses 135 to 138 agreed to.
Clause 139 [Money]:
[Amendment No. 238A not moved.]
Clause 139 agreed to.
Clause 140 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals]:
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 238B:
Page 105, column 2, leave out lines 32 to 35.
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that discussion of this amendment would pre-empt debate under Part 5. In the light of that, it is right and proper that I do not move the amendment now but return to discuss it under Part 5.
[Amendment No. 238B not moved.]
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 141 [Commencement]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 78, line 25, at end insert—

"() section 14,

() section 30(1)(h),

() section 34(1),

() section 35(1),

() section 36,"

The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if in moving Amendment No. 240 I briefly refer to Amendment No. 241 and to the following group: Amendments Nos. 242 to 245. By and large, they are minor and technical amendments. I do not intend to address them at any length, but simply to say that Amendments Nos. 240 and 241 enable some provisions relating to accommodation centres and the money provision to commence on Royal Assent.
Amendments Nos. 242 to 245 concern the manner in which the provisions of the Bill will apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Unless the Committee wants me to speak in detail about the amendments, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 241:
Page 78, line 36, at end insert—
", and
() section 139."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 141, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 142 [Extent]:
11 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 242 to 245:
Page 79, line 15, after second "Act" insert "or inserts a provision into another Act"
Page 79, line 16, after "repealed" insert "or as the Act into which the insertion is made"
Page 79, line 16, after "ignoring" insert ", in any case,"
Page 79, line 27, after "modification" insert "or adaptation"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 142, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 143 agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Right of appeal: general]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 194J:
Page 39, line 30, after "immigration" insert "or nationality"
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 194J to 194L would extend the right of appeal to an adjudicator to cover decisions on nationality, specifically a refusal of naturalisation or registration as a British citizen.
The decision whether to grant naturalisation is a matter of discretion for the Minister. At present, there is no possibility of that decision being reviewed, save by judicial review. The limitations of judicial review are well known. The courts will not interfere with a decision on the merits of a case, provided the Minister has followed a fair and proper procedure and his decision is not so outrageous as to come within the limited scope of Wednesbury unreasonableness.
The Government have decided to draw a distinction between a decision not to grant citizenship and a decision to withdraw citizenship that has already been granted. For the former decision, the only challenge available is procedural, by way of judicial review; for the latter, a full right of appeal on the merits of the case is to be granted. I do not understand or appreciate the validity of that distinction.
It is highly unlikely that, in the normal run of things, a Minister will follow a course in deciding whether to grant naturalisation that could be challenged procedurally. There are too many applications, and the machinery is so well oiled, that it is unlikely that that would happen. However, decisions on the granting of naturalisation are based not on procedures but on facts, such as whether a marriage on the basis
324
of which citizenship is claimed is genuine, whether the appropriate 10-year period of residence has lapsed where residence is the basis of an application for naturalisation, or whether children are entitled to have the same citizenship as their parents and so on. Those are factual decisions, and they make judicial review a pointless remedy in questions relating to the granting of naturalisation. We seek a simple means of reviewing the facts of a decision on whether naturalisation should be granted.
Amendment No. 194M, although in the group, covers a different point. On 6th November, 2001, in the Kehinde case, the Immigration Appellate Authority held that applicants served with removal directions had a right to appeal against them, notwithstanding the fact that no new immigration decision had been made. Clause 70 removes that right of appeal and leaves judicial review as the only remedy. Lawyers will not object: a trip to the Divisional Court is more profitable than an appearance before an adjudicator. For lawyers, judicial review means more money in their pocket. However, we must ask whether that is a sensible use of resources. We suggest that the adjudicator should retain the right to decide whether removal directions have been properly made and whether they are supported by a proper factual basis. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked why we have given the right of appeal against the denial of citizenship when no previous government had ever given a formal right of appeal to the adjudicator on the denial of an application for citizenship. I am sure that the noble Lord can sense the answer himself on that specific point.
The denial of citizenship, as we discussed earlier, is so significant and has such immediate consequences for the person concerned that it seems right and proper to allow an appeal, whereas the consequences of refusing to grant citizenship, while having significance, will not be so immediate, so powerful, or without alternative forms of redress.
Our belief that the amendment is not necessary is stiffened by the fact that we have also made provision in Part 1 of the Bill—in Clause 7—to remove the Secretary of State's statutory exemption from the obligation to give reasons for nationality decisions that are discretionary. From now on, apart from it being the practice to give reasons, there will be a statutory duty to do so. Clause 7 removes the limitation on the powers of the courts to review discretionary nationality decisions by enabling the decisions to be subject to normal judicial review. That will include consideration of the reasonableness of the decision.
As I said, reasons are already given, but there are further remedies available. People can make a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and other avenues for redress are open to them. They may be dissatisfied with a citizenship decision, as we discussed on day one. If the complaint came under the new provisions of the Bill relating to

325
their qualifications in English, they would make their complaint in the first instance to the college of further education that marked them down.
If it is an exercise of judgment by the Secretary of State, it is perfectly reasonable to make representations to the Secretary of State either on their own account or through a Member of Parliament. Some 80,000 decisions are made each year, with very few refusals. That does not mean to say that there is no issue, but most of the refusals are about people not meeting the residence requirements.
There is evidence of cases—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has already raised cases with my noble friend Lord Rooker. The noble Lord, as usual, was eloquent in his advocacy and my noble friend Lord Rooker and the Home Secretary reconsidered their decisions, which produced a favourable outcome. That is not always guaranteed. There are very few cases. There has never been an appeal to an adjudicator, but there are common sense routes for redress that are workable.
For those reasons, the amendment is unnecessary. We believe that we have strengthened the rights of people who have been rejected in their citizenship applications by the measures in Clause 7.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The Minister drew a distinction between the withdrawal and granting of citizenship, based on the assumption that the granting of citizenship is not very important. There may be circumstances when it is crucial. A person may be stateless; he may be unable to avail himself of his current citizenship; or he may wish to travel under British protection. Those are all circumstances in which the grant of citizenship is very important to that individual.
Reasonableness is not the issue; the question is what are the merits of the decision taken by the Secretary of State. It is all very well to say that there are other ways of approaching the Secretary of State, but one is going to the judge and jury, as it were, and asking him to change his decision.
We are seeking an independent arbitrator, namely, the adjudicator, who will examine independently the merits of the arguments on both sides—those of the state and the individual—will reach his own conclusions about the facts and will take a decision. We shall consider the matter and may return to it, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 194K to 194M not moved.]
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Appeal: claim for asylum]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 194N:
Page 40, line 21, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: The crucial words in Clause 71(1)(b) are "exceeding one year". The Court of Appeal in the case of Saad and others recognised that it is the United Kingdom's international obligation
326
under the 1951 refugee convention to include the recognition as a refugee of any person who is in fact and in law a refugee.
The effect of paragraph (b) is that any applicant for asylum whose claim has been rejected, but who is granted temporary leave to enter or to remain for a year or less, will not be able to access the appeal process to pursue his claim for refugee status. That status grants specific rights, including the right to be reunited with family members and the right of settlement. At present, all those who are granted exceptional leave to remain, even for one year, can appeal to an adjudicator to upgrade their refugee status. That is the existing position under Section 69(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
However, the limitation in paragraph (b) leaves it open to the Secretary of State to grant periods of one year or less consecutively and thereby to deny the right of final determination. That frequently happens in respect of children up to the age of 18.
Amendments Nos. 194P and 195ZA are grouped with this amendment. They represent another approach. The word "limited" prevents extensions but the 28 days suggested postpones the right of the applicant to appeal for a minimum period. He can exercise his right to appeal not after one year but after 28 days. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 194M is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 194P.
Lord Avebury: In the past couple of years, the practice has been to grant an increasing number of ELRs. The figures indicate that the total number of people granted ELR rose from 11,500 in 2000 to 19,500 in 2001. Six thousand people were granted ELR in the first quarter of this year, so they are now running at the rate of 24,000 per year. However, we do not know how many of those were for periods of one year or less. The point underlying my noble friend's amendment is that, since the Secretary of State has total discretion over not only the granting of ELR but the period for which it is granted, he could arbitrarily put a stop to all appeals for refugee status simply by giving everyone a year or less.
It is not clear whether under this proposal, as my noble friend has suggested, he could continue to grant ELR one year at a time and thus stop the person from ever making an application for refugee status or whether, after the first 12 months have passed, the person could apply for refugee status on the first day of the new year.
All practitioners and many noble Lords know of cases where people have been given ELR and have applied successfully for upgrading to refugee status. Why is this right to be removed, which has been enjoyed by the holders of ELR ever since it was first introduced?
11.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: The clause appears to remove certain existing rights. On those grounds I support the first amendment and the variations grouped with it.
Lord Kingsland: Our Amendment No. 195 is included in this grouping. It is a probing amendment, but nonetheless it is, in my submission, an important one.
As we have heard, Clause 71 of the Bill is concerned with the procedure by which an asylum claimant whose claim for refugee status is refused, but who is nonetheless granted a limited period of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, can appeal to an adjudicator against the rejection of his claim for asylum. Under Clause 71 as drafted, the right of appeal will be available only where leave is granted for a period exceeding one year. This right to appeal is important. Why is that? It is important because those granted exceptional leave to remain do not have the same rights, such as the right to family union, as those granted full refugee status.
At present, under Section 69(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, such an appeal may be brought by those whose exceptional leave is for a period greater than 28 days. The change from 28 days to one year is significant and the policy reasons for it are by no means clear from the debate held in another place. In the Standing Committee, the Minister, the honourable Ms Rosie Winterton, said that:
"The appeal is not available for those given a year's leave or less, because that is a deliberately limited period and a further decision will have to be taken at the end of it. If that decision is to refuse further leave or to grant more than a year's further leave, it will attract a right to appeal".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 21/5/02; col. 385.]
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the honourable Mr Hughes, asked whether this meant that where the asylum claim was refused, but leave of a year or less was granted,
"the process could be spun out by recurrent extensions so that no right of appeal is allowed for a long time".—[col. 386.]
The Minister responded by saying:
"I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that we do not intend to use the system in that way".—[col. 386.]
That may well be the Government's present intention, but as the Committee will be only too well aware, intentions change. Only last week the Committee debated the Government's change of intention with regard to Part III of the 1999 Act on bail, which they regarded as significant and important three years ago, but which they now propose to repeal.
The Government must come forward with a clear justification for their decision to remove the right of those given ELR for a year or less to make an appeal in respect of their asylum claim so that they can have their refugee status determined. Why was a threshold of ELR for more than one year chosen, rather than six months as provided for in our amendment, or the status quo of 28 days?
Lord Filkin: I recognise that these are important questions the Committee is probing. Perhaps I may set
328
the context. The Committee is aware that in a significant number of cases people apply for asylum and refuge in this country—for example, the significant number of people who came from Kosovo in 1999—who are not found to qualify for asylum but it is held that they have a right to exceptional leave to stay for a period of time because, for example, the situation in their own country does not make it possible to return them at that point in time. That is a necessary and important use of ELR to give them a temporary stay of occupation until such time as return is possible.
Clearly the Government's position—and, I believe, that of the previous government—is that when people are able to return to their countries, not having been awarded asylum status, it is right, proper and necessary for them to return—as, indeed, more than 3,300 Kosovans have returned subsequently to Yugoslavia from the United Kingdom.
The point has been rightly made that there is a difference between asylum status and ELR in terms of the benefits that go with that status. It is therefore fair and reasonable that a person whose asylum claim has been rejected should have the opportunity to challenge that rejection at an appropriate point in time. Through this clause, the Government are essentially saying to people who are in the situation where we do not believe that they have a valid claim for asylum but are granted ELR for a period of time—we believe 12 months or more is reasonable for reasons I shall touch on—that there should be a stay on them exercising their appeal for that period of time.
If at the end of the 12 months plus they have not, for whatever reason, gone back to their country, we will make a fresh decision on their case. If that fresh decision is again to deny asylum, at that point in time they will be able to exercise a right of appeal. I put on the record that, as a matter of policy, the Government would not engage in repeat offers of one year. Clearly that device would frustrate a person's right, which he should have, to apply, through appeal, to challenge a decision not to grant him asylum.
The Committee may ask why we are doing this. I hope for reasons that noble Lords will understand. Again let me take as an example the number of Kosovans. If a substantial number of people were able to return, it would clog up the appeal system before it was necessary to test their appeals. If at the end of their year we decide that they should go back—that they should not have the right of asylum—they will then have the right of appeal, which they can exercise through the due processes of which the Committee is aware.
Essentially it gives them a period of stability, the opportunity to move back if appropriate and the right to exercise their appeal at a point in time when the Government have made a new decision that they are still not to be granted the right of asylum because they do not qualify for it. In short, in imposing the one-year time limit, it is not our policy to use it to deny the right to challenge the refusal of asylum by granting successive periods; it is simply to manage the process more intelligently.

329
We prefer a period of 12 months rather than six months because it seems to us that six months is too short a period. One should give some settlement to people and time to allow the country where they came from to get over the difficulties which have made return inadvisable or impossible. For those reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: It appears that there is a proper rationale for postponing the decision for 12 months. We are pleased to receive the assurance that the period of 12 months will not be rolled over and continued. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 194P to 195ZA not moved.]
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Grounds of appeal.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 195A:
Page 41, line 3, at end insert "or would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) as being incompatible with the appellant's Convention rights."
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee, and so as not to take up time unnecessarily, I have suggested that we group these amendments to Part 5. They are either minor or technical. They are designed to clarify how matters work or to resolve some inconsistencies.
I shall be more than happy to respond to any inquiries that Members of the Committee may wish to raise when we come to each amendment; but, otherwise, I propose simply to move each of them formally when we reach them on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I do have a few points to make about these amendments. I am afraid that some may take a little time, but they are of serious substance and may save time when we come to Clause 82.
I turn first to Amendment No. 195A, which allows for Article 6 of the European convention. I welcome that warmly as far as it goes. My query is: why does it not include Article 3, which is quite a common reason for not returning people to a particular country of origin. There is presumably a reason for excluding it.
I am concerned also about Amendment No. 196A, which confines adjudicators to considering,
"the circumstances appertaining at the time of the decision to refuse".
My concern relates to the effect of this on torture victims.
The late recollection of torture—indeed, the extreme difficulty in recollecting it at all—is notorious. It is not confined to torture. I remember, in 1948, an Australian all-rounder—the sort of person who scraped into the Test team when he was lucky—scoring 207 in a Test match. He was knocked out by
330
his first ball. It later transpired that, from then until his dying day, he never remembered a single ball of his great innings. I feel very sorry for that man.
The effect of head injuries on memory among torture victims is a very common circumstance in asylum appeals and tends to cause a good deal of trouble. Let us take, for example, the case of an African survivor of torture who had suffered multiple head injuries and who now suffers from chronic pain, insomnia, memory loss and depression. He did not disclose the fact of his torture at the time of his appeal. It came out quite a long time later, after the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture had managed to talk to him. He was granted refugee status the day before his hearing before the adjudicator. So, of course, that case is not included in the Home Office statistics relating to successful appeals—which is a point to remember.
It is not only a question of head injuries. Sleep deprivation is a very common form of torture. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture finds that a year after the torture has taken place, 75 per cent of victims are sleeping four hours a night or less. We all know, and particularly in this House at this time of night, that going without sleep tends to affect the memory. So this kind of case may not come out immediately. I could go on multiplying cases of this sort, as I am sure the Minister knows perfectly well.
If it is not possible for a later adjudicator to consider evidence of torture which did not come out at the initial hearing, that will do a material and a grave injustice. I hope that the Minister can assure me, first, that it was not the intention of his amendment—I am sure that it was not. Secondly, I hope that he can assure me that it is not the effect of his amendment. Thirdly, I hope that he can assure me that, if inadvertently it is the effect of the amendment, it will be rectified.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Earl asked first why Amendment No. 195A does not refer to Article 3. It does so refer. The amendment refers to acts unlawful under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and that includes all convention rights under that Act including Article 3. I think that that is a substantial reassurance for the noble Earl; it certainly ought to be. He asked whether Article 3 is covered, and the answer is that, yes, it is.
I turn to the issue of whether torture will always be considered. It will be considered regardless of whether the evidence is raised before, during or after appeal. At all stages, evidence of torture—which is obviously material in all these cases—has to be very carefully considered. I hope that that reassurance will satisfy the noble Earl.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I hope that my noble friend will forgive me; I apologise for interrupting. However, does he appreciate that the noble Earl's point is not that there is no power to consider torture if it is disclosed late; it is that that is sometimes taken as a

331
reason for disbelieving the allegations of torture? What is being said is that the research mentioned by the foundation shows all kinds of reasons why people disclose torture only at a late stage, and that that does not necessarily show that the allegations are untrue.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I accept what my noble and learned friend says. That is why I repeat that, as far as we are concerned, evidence of torture will be considered whenever it is raised. It is obviously highly relevant. We also recognise and fully accept that the research is clearly important and has a bearing on these issues.
The Countess of Mar: If I may, I should like to have this clear. Is it right that we are not necessarily talking about asylum claims in this clause, but about applications for leave to enter for other reasons—as students, for example, or for other purposes such as marriage?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have been advised that that is the case.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 195AA:
Page 41, line 3, at end insert—
"(h) that the appellant ought to be removed (if at all) to a country specified by him which is different from the country to which it is proposed to remove him in consequence of the immigration decision;
(i) that a person who claims that he ought to be removed to a country other than one he has objected to on an appeal under paragraph (h) must produce evidence, if he is not a national or citizen of that other country, that that country will admit him."
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to preserve the right of appeal against a proposed destination that is specified in removal directions. At Report stage in the other place, the Government amended the Bill to remove this existing right of appeal. No good reason seems to have been given for removing it. Our amendment reflects so far as possible the working of a similar appeal right under Sections 67 and 68 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I am informed that that right of appeal has not been used by very many appellants. Many representatives will not have had any experience of such an appeal.
As the Minister has no doubt appreciated, paragraph (i) is really not a ground of appeal; it is a requirement that,
"a person who claims that he ought to be removed to a country other than one he has objected to…must produce evidence…that that country will admit him".
That is really a condition of the exercise of the right of appeal which we propose in paragraph (h). If it is possible for a person to use that particular right, it may be of great importance to him. We await the Minister's explanation of why the law has been amended in this way. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: There was such a right of appeal in the 1999 Act. As my noble friend has just said, it was
332
removed only at a very late stage in the proceedings in another place. That was done without any discussion at all. The Committee has a responsibility to go into the reasons why the Government suddenly decided to revoke that right which has been on the statute book since 1999 and apparently worked perfectly satisfactorily, as my noble friend said. In the small number of cases that are involved it may be of enormous importance to the future of the applicant.
I refer to an appeal against destination by a citizen of Sierra Leone who challenged a decision to send him there because he had a spouse in Canada whom he wished to join. Surely that person had every reason for an appeal against destination for reasons of family unity and the fact that he might stand a good chance of success.
It seems to me that when things happen at late stages without discussion in another place and they come before the Committee at 25 minutes to midnight, there is serious concern about the whole of the parliamentary process. I have already said on an earlier occasion that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, can easily rebut me by saying that these matters have been agreed through the usual channels, but it seems to me disgraceful that at this hour of the night we should be discussing the withdrawal of a right which people have enjoyed when no debate whatsoever on the matter occurred in another place. I hope that the noble Lord will give serious consideration to my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Filkin: I hope that there is a general feeling that we have not rushed through matters in Committee—we should not do so—and that we are giving proper attention to the amendments. I accept the challenge of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Avebury, to explain why the change has been made. There was debate in another place about a requirement that we had added for the purposes of this Bill; namely, that the evidence that an alternative country would accept a person on removal from the United Kingdom should be produced before an appeal could be lodged. Our rationale for that was that if the evidence was available, in all likelihood we should be happy to send the person to his alternative destination. If no good evidence is available, it seems to us that there is nothing to convince an adjudicator that entry to the alternative country is possible, let alone desirable in the appellant's case. Therefore, after reflection, it seemed to us to be a redundant provision. I shall try to express that more clearly.
If we reach a judgment that a person does not have a valid asylum claim and that exceptional leave to remain or indefinite leave to remain is not appropriate, after the person has exercised their proper, appropriate and sometimes considerable rights of appeal, there will come a point at which the state will ask them to leave and, if they do not do so, will take action to remove them. But if at that point in time the person says that he or she wants to go to country Y rather than to country X, and they are able to do so, we would have absolutely no reason whatsoever for wishing to frustrate that. They would be at liberty to do so and we would do whatever

333
was appropriate to permit that. However, if they said that they wanted to go to country Y, and they did not appear to us to have any valid entry ability to go to that country, and after a process of consideration and appeal it was considered that return to country X was safe, they would have to return to country X and, in time, make whatever applications they wanted to from their original country to go to the alternative country of preference.
I cannot see that that is anything other than reasonable and appropriate. If people can move elsewhere, we should be foolish and wrong not to support them in doing so. However, we cannot have a situation where a person spends time at public expense seeking to explore other places where he can go when the asylum system and appeals have determined that it is safe for him to return to his country of origin.
There is no need for the amendment because we will not seek to frustrate the transmission of people to countries to which they want to go, if they are able to do so. If it is impossible for a person to reach a country, there is no point or need for an appeal.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I welcome the assurance that the Government will not seek to frustrate an asylum seeker's desire to go to another country if he or she can establish an entitlement to go there. My only reservation is that going to another country may not be immediately open to an individual at the time of applying but circumstances may change. In the course of proceedings, an opportunity may arise for an individual awaiting removal. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to provide the right of appeal to an adjudicator against a removal direction to country X and argue that he should go to country Y.
Lord Filkin: Such a right of appeal would give the person time to open up an alternative route of exit, which does not seem reasonable.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I beg to differ but will not elaborate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Matters to be considered]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 195B to 195D:
Page 41, line 11, leave out from "70(1)," to end of line 13.
Page 41, line 17, leave out from "against," to end of line 18.
Page 41, line 21, leave out from "commenced," to end of line 23.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 41, line 28, leave out subsection (5).
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Burnham): If this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 196A.
Lord Kingsland: This amendment, which is intended to delete subsection (5), seeks to probe the reason for allowing the adjudicator to consider evidence that
334
arises after the time of the decision in subsection (4) but limits him under subsection (5) to evidence available to the decision-maker in cases of refusal of entry clearance or refusal of certificate of right of abode.
Government Amendment No. 196A appears to mitigate some of the potentially adverse affects of subsection (5) by changing,
"evidence which was available to the person who took the decision to refuse",
to,
"the circumstances appertaining at the time of the decision to refuse".
That would deal with circumstances where some relevant evidence was not available to the decision-maker.
Why should an adjudicator be permitted to consider what weight, if any, to give post-decision evidence in an immigration matter where the appellant is in the United Kingdom but not be allowed to consider the same range of evidence when the appellant is overseas? I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: Amendment No. 196 would mean that appeals against overseas decisions would be heard on the same evidential basis as in-country appeals—that is, considering matters arising after the decision. To get rid of the differentiation between in-country and overseas appeals would ignore the conceptual difference between them. In-country appeals are one-stop appeals in which all issues affecting a potential removal are considered at one point in time. Such appeals look forward to the future consequences of a decision and can cover a variety of strands put forward during the course of an application—often in response to a requirement to state the full case for staying. If a removal would breach our international obligations because of matters arising since the decision was made, it is clearly beneficial to establish that during the course of the appeal against the decision that leads to that removal.
People applying for entry clearance and certificates of entitlement, however, are not facing removal. They are not in a one-stop system, they are under no obligation to state anything else in addition to their basic application and they can re-apply and appeal against any refusal without fear of certification. If they want to put forward a different basis for coming here or to present new evidence, the right course is to approach the entry clearance officer abroad.
Under the 1999 Act the adjudicator has to decide the case on the basis of the circumstances applying at the time he hears the case if those circumstances relate to an asylum or Article 3 human rights matter. Other matters are to be decided according to the circumstances applying at the time of the decision. This was based on case law—that is, the case of Ravichandran—the reason being that in asylum cases the breach of the convention being claimed can be taking place only in the future. Section 73 extends the principle so that nearly all in-country appeals are dealt with on the "time of hearing" basis. That has advantages for "one stop", in that updated

335
circumstances can be considered without requiring a new decision or appeal—the system calls for a comprehensive and contemporaneous review of the case by the independent adjudicator.
Appeals against decisions taken abroad do not work the same way. These are not "one-stop" appeals. There is no question of removal and there is no penalty for making a further application to the entry clearance officer if circumstances change. New circumstances are also much easier to investigate in the country of origin. A hearing in the United Kingdom, some months after the original decision was taken, would often need an adjournment so that the post abroad could consider the fresh evidence.
Applicants overseas are given every opportunity to put relevant information before the entry clearance officer. If their application is refused and their circumstances then change, it is better that they approach the officer direct. If they qualify to come here as a result of the new circumstances, they should and will get their hearing and clearance. If they do not, they can make another appeal. That has been the way in which such cases have worked for some 30 years and it is a practical way of proceeding.
11.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I believe that I may have misheard the Minister. I heard him say that new circumstances are much easier to investigate in the country of origin. Was that a mishear? I should be very glad to hear that it was.
Lord Filkin: No, it was not a mishear; the noble Earl heard correctly. That was what I said. If the circumstances of a person's application for entry clearance have changed, they are in a position to make a new application for entry permission.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his reply. I of course accept that his amendment in this context is helpful and goes some way, but not all the way, towards meeting my concerns. Bearing in mind the long delay that often occurs between refusal of entry clearance and the hearing of an appeal—it can be as much as a year—does the Minister not think that it is unfair in those circumstances that subsequent facts should not be taken into account?
Lord Filkin: In a sense, that touches on the same point as that raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. At this time of night, I shall reflect on the noble Lord's point. Essentially, the answer is as I gave it: there is an opportunity of investigating the refusal directly and there is an opportunity to put in a new application if the person so wishes. Nevertheless, I give the assurance that was sought. I shall reflect on whether our consideration is fair and, if appropriate, I shall correspond with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that thoughtful and constructive suggestion. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 196A:
Page 41, line 31, leave out from "only" to end of line 33 and insert "the circumstances appertaining at the time of the decision to refuse."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 74 and 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Ineligibility]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 196B:
Page 42, line 25, leave out "wholly"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 196BA:
Page 42, line 31, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns Clause 76, which deals with exceptions and the circumstances in which a person may not appeal against an immigration decision. I seek clarification of the words in subsection (2)(c),
"seeking to be in the United Kingdom for a period greater than that permitted in his case by immigration rules".
That is different from the usual expression,
"leave to enter or remain".
For example, the next subsection uses the words,
"seeking to enter or to remain".
Why are the words
"seeking to be in the United Kingdom"
used when "enter and remain" is the constant expression used throughout?
Amendment No. 196BB, which deals with subsection (2)(d), is conjoined.
Concern was expressed in the other place that the right of appeal to an adjudicator against a decision made under established policies and concessions, rather than under the Immigration Rules, was being abolished. I understand that an appeal against policies and concessions has been available until now in limited circumstances. In the other place, the Minister said that an adjudicator should not review a discretionary decision of the Secretary of State under a concession or policy. He said that judicial review was the appropriate procedure. I have already made the point today that judicial review is cumbersome, expensive and limited in its review of procedure, as opposed to merit.
The Minister also said that the Government were taking steps to consolidate the concessions. As I understood it, she said that the Government were taking steps to bring within the rules what were previously called concessions. I use this amendment to ask how far this process of consolidation of concessions, bringing them within the rules, has progressed and exactly what it covers. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I believe I am right in saying that the Statement made by the Minister in another place is not the first occasion on which the Government have promised to bring these extra-statutory concessions

337
within the rules. Considering that the use of what are called policies has been prevalent since the 1980s, I wonder why it has taken them so long to do that. One prominent example is that during the civil war in Somalia, the Government took account of the fact that Somali family units work in a different way from those of other asylum seekers and were therefore prepared to grant special leave to persons not within the normally permitted degrees of consanguinity in the rules to enter or remain. Other concessions that are not embodied in the rules relate to people coming here or remaining here in order to care for seriously or terminally ill relatives, pupil barristers and MPs' researchers.
I understand that the Government have from time to time made efforts to move some of the policies into the Immigration Rules. However, there are some of long standing that remain as extra-statutory concessions—for example, children who have been living in the UK continuously for seven years or more would not normally be removed.
Therefore, a number of the concessions are treated as though they are within the rules, but now the Government will make them unappealable. I can see no justification whatever for taking away rights of appeal which have always been enjoyed by this series of groups of people and which would continue to have been enjoyed if the Government had done what they said they were going to do—that is, to embody all the concessions in the rules.
Lord Hylton: Are the Government aware that this amendment is supported by Amnesty International, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Justice, the Public Law Project, the Refugee Council and the Refugee Legal Centre?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall deal with the point raised at the outset by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. In moving the first of the amendments, he asked what was the purpose of including in the legislation the term "seeking to be in the UK". So far as we are concerned, it has no different meaning from the current wording. I believe that in another place the Minister said that she believed that it covered the examples that she used. Those included the working holiday-maker who simply wanted to be in the United Kingdom for a longer period than permitted by immigration rules, someone from outside who was applying to enter to look after a relative, or even someone who was in the UK on a visitor's permit for six months and who wanted to extend the permit because her daughter had a baby and she wanted to look after it. Therefore, the provision covers that type of case.
Currently the immigration rules provide that an application must be refused where the applicant seeks to remain for a period longer than that permitted under the rules or where leave is sought for a purpose not covered by the rules—for example, in a case such as the ones that I have just cited. Therefore, it would be impossible for an adjudicator to uphold an appeal made wholly on those grounds.
338
The effect of the amendments would be to permit wholly hopeless appeals. They would put an unnecessary and unwelcome burden and pressure on the resources of the Immigration Appellate Authority. It goes further than that. They would extend the appeals queue, making other appellants wait longer for a hearing.
Of course, it would be open to adjudicators to make extra-statutory recommendations in those hopeless cases. But such recommendations are not binding and can only suggest that the decision-maker reviews new evidence. As a matter of policy, the Home Office reviews new evidence in any case. Therefore, as things stand, the power to make recommendations adds nothing to what is achievable by making direct contact with the Home Office.
Wherever possible, the policy will be to incorporate concessions within the rules at the first opportunity. That will always be the case. In areas where that would not be appropriate—for example, in relation to country information—we do not believe that incorporation would be right.
I am happy to write to the noble Lord setting out the point that we have reached on this matter. But I hope that I have added some clarity in the explanation that I have given. I hope that the explanation will have satisfied the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Clarity, there is not; obfuscation, there is. I should welcome a letter from the Minister, as offered, which would help to explain a little more what he said a moment ago. I shall not pursue the matter further at this time of night and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Midnight
[Amendment No. 196BB not moved.]
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 77 to 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Appeal from within United Kingdom: general]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 196C:
Page 44, line 18, at end insert "or would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)as being incompatible with the applicant's Convention rights,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 81 [Appeal from within United Kingdom: "third country" removal]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 196D:
Page 44, line 36, leave out "in his opinion"
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to retain the current wording for "third country" certification as in Section 72(2)(a) of the 1999 Act and to ensure that if the Secretary of State has to certify he must do so as to the merits of the claim rather than his own opinion of the merits.
In the 1999 Act, a person can appeal against removal to a safe third country when the Secretary of State has issued a certificate under Section 11 or 12 that under standing arrangements with an EU state that state has agreed to be responsible for his asylum claim; or that he is to be sent to an EU state other than under standing arrangements or to a state designated by the Secretary of State subject to specified conditions. Where the claimant says that any of the conditions attached to that claim were not satisfied when it was issued or have since ceased to be satisfied, he does have a right of appeal, but under Section 72(2)(a) it is only exercisable from outside the UK where the Secretary of State certifies that his allegation that an authority acted in breach of his human rights or racially discriminated against him is manifestly unfounded.
If the reason for the difference in wording is that in Section 72 the Secretary of State has greater certainty because it is about matters occurring within his own department, whereas in Clause 81 the certificate is about events in a foreign country, the right of appeal should not have been removed and the opinions of the Secretary of State should be tested before an adjudicator. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): We are not attracted to the idea of leaving out "in his opinion", as suggested. Clause 81, as drafted, makes it absolutely clear that the decision to certify, or not certify, is based on the Secretary of State's opinion. The Secretary of State cannot make a claim clearly unfounded just by certifying it. All he can do in a certificate is state "in his opinion" on the basis of the materials available to him that it is clearly unfounded. The subsection accurately reflects the position. Like all administrative actions, the issuing of a certificate based on the Secretary of State's opinion will be subject to judicial review in the courts. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: I wish that the noble and learned Lord had addressed himself to the comparisons that I made with Section 72(2)(a) of the 1999 Act. In the absence of any reference to that section, I am still unable to understand the reason for the difference in certification of third country appeals which has taken place in the mind of the noble and learned Lord or his department since the 1999 Act. Perhaps on another occasion—not at five minutes past midnight—noble Lords will be grateful for an explanation of the reasons why the change has been made. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 44, line 37, leave out "clearly" and insert "manifestly"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 197, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 198. The amendments would reverse the Government's
340
proposal in the Bill to change the term "manifestly unfounded", which is the wording of the existing legislation to "clearly unfounded".
There are serious consequences for an asylum claimant if the Secretary of State certifies that his claim is "manifestly unfounded" under the existing legislation or "clearly unfounded" under the proposals in the Bill, which involve the limitation of appeal rights.
It is therefore important for the Committee to determine what the effect in law would be of the change from "manifestly unfounded" to "clearly unfounded". The term "manifestly unfounded" has already been interpreted by the courts. There is case law on the issue going back a number of years. It is a term whose meaning is now generally understood. Indeed, its meaning was defined by the member states of the European Union in the 1992 London Resolution on manifestly unfounded applications for asylum, as claims which,
"clearly raise no substantive issue under the Geneva Convention",
where either,
"there is clearly no substance to the applicant's claim to fear persecution in his own country",
or,
"the claim is based on deliberate deception or is an abuse of asylum procedures".
Whatever the Government's assurances, it is the courts that will have to provide an interpretation of the legal meaning of "clearly unfounded". It would be quite open for them to conclude that Parliament intended that the term "clearly unfounded" should be given a different meaning from that of "manifestly unfounded", simply because it could well be argued before them—perhaps even by counsel for the Secretary of State—that if Parliament had not intended such an effect in law, then Parliament would not have parted from its decision in several previous Acts to use the word "manifestly".
I recognise that the Government's contention in another place was that the terms "clearly" and "manifestly" were synonymous and that they intend no change in the legal meaning of the term. No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Minister will repeat those arguments before the Committee today. The Minister might well intend to say that the courts could, under the rule of interpretation approved by your Lordships' House in the case of Pepper v Hart, use the statements made by the Minister in another place, and any he might make today, as an aid to the interpretation of the statute in this regard. However, it is important to note the limits of that doctrine, which applies only if the statutory provision in question is ambiguous, obscure or leading to absurdity. I am not sure that the expression "clearly unfounded" would fall within any of those definitions.
I take the Government's assurances about their intentions at face value, but I am by no means certain that they have considered in full the possible legal consequences of what they propose. Given the Government's attitude in another place, I anticipate that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will

341
indicate when he addresses the Committee that these amendments will not be accepted. I therefore give him the opportunity now to consider two alternative suggestions.
First, if the term "clearly unfounded" is to be retained in the Bill, and if the Government's intention is indeed that "clearly unfounded" should have the same meaning in law as "manifestly unfounded", then the solution, in my submission, is to make that plain on the face of the Bill by providing, for the avoidance of doubt, that no change in the legal position is intended by Parliament.
If for some strange reason the noble and learned Lord is unable to accept even this benign suggestion, perhaps he will give the Committee an assurance that in all future proceedings counsel representing the Secretary of State will be instructed not to advance the contention that "clearly unfounded" should be construed by the courts as in any way having a meaning different from that of "manifestly unfounded". That again is what the Government say they intend. Will they go even this far in backing up that stated intention with such an assurance to the Committee today? I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support this amendment. I see a difference in the English language between the words "clearly" and "manifestly". The word "clearly" implies a judgment; "manifestly" is what we used to call in judicial review proceedings something on the face of the record, which is obvious. We talk about what is on the face of a Bill, but on the face of the record is a concept that we all understand. Furthermore, the expression "manifestly", as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, has received judicial consideration.
I do not accept for a moment the suggestion that in this and in nothing else the Government are suddenly updating their language to introduce more modern expressions. I regard that explanation given in the other place as just ludicrous and unacceptable. I hope that we do not hear it from—
Lord Kingsland: Manifestly unacceptable.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Manifestly unacceptable. I hope that we do not hear that from the noble and learned Lord. I am sure that we will not in the discussion today.
Lord Hylton: I support this pair of amendments because I fear that the effect of the Bill, as drafted, will be to lower the protection for applicants and thus reduce the standard of quality of the initial decisions. I have already discussed this with the noble and learned Lord's colleague. The standard is fairly low.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I have returned to the Chamber. I arrived just before midnight when the Liberal Democrats were complaining about opacity or opaqueness in terms of the language of the Bill. I am delighted to see that, having passed
342
midnight, we have moved into the sunny uplands of clarity. I am not a lawyer so I cannot contribute to the textual analysis which has been taking place.
There is a passage in Robert Graves's Goodbye To All That where he sought to illustrate the quickness of mind of Lawrence of Arabia who was returning from London and being met by Graves in the Lodge at All Souls. Professor Edgeworth, the economist, who was also a Fellow of All Souls and much given to polysyllabic language, said to Lawrence as he came through the gates, "Was it caliginous in the metropolis today, Lawrence?" Lawrence, in the view of Graves and indeed myself, said with extreme quickness, "Somewhat caliginous, Edgeworth, but not altogether inspissated".
On these grades and shades of light and colour no doubt the Minister will shortly shed light. On the other side in terms of gradations of clarity, before sitting down I remind the Minister of Arthur Balfour's verdict on Asquith's lucidity of style of which he remarked that it was a positive disadvantage when he had nothing particular to say. Not being a lawyer, I look forward enormously to hearing what the Minister has to say. It is a very great pleasure, even after midnight, to have returned to the debate.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is the view of parliamentary counsel that "clearly" and "manifestly" mean the same. It is a view to which we accord the greatest of respect. I confirm that we will not argue that "clearly" means anything different from "manifestly". That gives the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the assurance that he seeks. It is the view of parliamentary counsel that "clearly" is a clearer word than "manifestly", a view that I share. Our commitment to treat "clearly" the same as "manifestly" is unswerving. I think that that helps.
We have spent 10 most interesting and exciting minutes identifying that the law has not changed one jot. It is of great importance that we emphasise that. For the moment, we intend to stick with the word "clearly". I hope that the assurance that I have given reassures the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that the level of protection is no less than it was when the test was "manifest".
Lord Avebury: Could not the noble and learned Lord solve the problem by including an additional paragraph stating that, in this section, "clearly" means "manifestly"?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is hard to imagine a more unnecessary and pompous way to deal with the matter or a greater unnecessary lengthening of a statute—in the light of the clear assurances given by my honourable friend in another place, repeated in this House and coupled with the assurance given to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
Lord Kingsland: I rise to celebrate a rare victory. In those circumstances, I am compelled to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Appeal from within United Kingdom: unfounded human rights or asylum claim]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 197ZA:
Page 44, line 41, leave out "either or both of the grounds specified in section 80(4)(a) and (b)." and insert "the ground specified in section 80(4)(a)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 197A:
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment, it may be for your Lordships' convenience if I speak also to Amendment No. 199A.
I have not previously engaged in debate on the Bill—either on Second Reading, when I was unable to be present, or, save for two brief interventions, in Committee. I am well aware of the backlog and other problems that the Government seek to address. I do not quarrel with the overall purpose of the Bill.
Notwithstanding that, I beg your Lordships' indulgence now, because there are questions—which are not linguistic—raised by Clause 82 that have given rise to great anxiety not only on my part but on the part of a wide spectrum of non-governmental associations that command universal respect. They were listed a few moments ago during a previous debate by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, so I shall not repeat them.
That anxiety is not diminished by the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out earlier, this part of the Bill was introduced in another place so late that there was no opportunity to debate it. Not only does it fall to your Lordships' Committee to scrutinise it for the first time, at a somewhat belated hour; it raises questions as to how it came about that a Bill that contains a considered scheme of measures to address the issues arising was considered, drafted and introduced with no apparent suggestion of any intention to include the measures now included in Part 5. They appear to have been a complete afterthought.
I hope that, when my noble and learned friend replies, he will explain to the Committee what triggered this intrusive package of proposals at so late a stage. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have added their names to the amendment, and I apologise to the Committee that this is not a matter that can properly be dealt with as briefly as have some matters during earlier debates.
Clause 82 reads as though its intention were to breach as many constitutional principles of democratic government as can be crammed into 65 lines of print. First, it would remove the right of appeal to the judiciary against an executive decision. Clause 70 provides a right of appeal to an adjudicator against an immigration decision, as defined in that clause. That is what we would expect, as a matter of course, in any democratic system of government. Decisions of the executive ought to be subject to scrutiny by the judiciary. Where possible, a specific channel of appeal should be prescribed; the matter should not be left to
344
judicial review. That has applied to immigration decisions in the past, but now there is to be a category of immigration decision in respect of which that right is no longer available. The judiciary will not monitor the executive; the executive is not to be accountable.
It is true that the appeal is not to be removed in all circumstances and for all purposes, but that brings us to a further infringement of a principle of democratic government. Not only should the judiciary be empowered to scrutinise the actions of the executive but that scrutiny should be effective, not an empty shell. Under the Bill, the applicant may still appeal, but only after he has been removed from the country, either to his country of origin or to some intermediate country at the executive's choice.
We are considering asylum: what is the point of discussing whether someone should be granted the right of asylum after he has been returned to the country from which he seeks asylum? If the appeal were concluded in his favour, would a writ of habeas corpus be dispatched to his persecutors, saying, "Please send him back to the United Kingdom"? If he is dead, what is the point of establishing his right? If he is being tortured, how can that be undone by saying that he may now come back to the United Kingdom?
Subsection (4) seeks to don a mantle of compassion by providing, in effect, that the claimant shall be removed to a country that can be relied upon not to kill or imprison him for any of the reasons set out in the clause and not to send him on to a country in which he would be at risk. However, that matter lies in the judgment of the executive, and, as I understand it, there is no appeal against that judgment. Once the claimant has passed out of the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, we have no control over what happens to him. The fact that we are discussing an appeal presupposes that the claimant may be able to establish a right to asylum by showing that he would be at risk of death or torture in his own country.
The third principle breached by the clause is that a person involved in proceedings should be free to present his case to those who adjudicate. Anyone who has tried to conduct proceedings in this country from a European country knows how difficult it is when everything must be done by post or e-mail and his legal advisers cannot have a proper discussion with him. We should imagine the difficulties for someone conducting an appeal from Afghanistan or the Sudan. Will the authorities that have been persecuting the claimant stand idly by while he attempts the exercise? The right of appeal would be a charade.
We have not yet exhausted the list of infringements of basic principles. It is fundamental to any legal proceedings that the right of one party to participate in them should not depend on the grace and favour of the other party. What will trigger the deprivation of that right for the appellant? As was pointed out, it is to be a certificate from the Home Secretary saying that the application is clearly unfounded. That is the very question that the adjudicator is likely to have to determine. One party to the proceedings will be given the power to decide that the other party has no case and should not be permitted to proceed.
Even that is not the full extent of the problem of providing a fair hearing with a just outcome. In asylum cases, above all others, the outcome may—usually does—depend on the assessment by the adjudicator of the applicant's evidence and of the reliance that he can place on it. That judgment must depend to a substantial degree on seeing and hearing the witness. It is rarely a judgment that can be made from a sheet of paper. The adjudicator will not be given a fair opportunity to assess the vital evidence.
How many basic principles can be brought into contempt in 65 lines? The debate in another place was precluded, so we have not heard the Government's arguments on this provision. No doubt my noble and learned friend will explain the need to decide those questions expeditiously. I wholly agree; I have been urging that since I was privileged to chair the Council on Tribunals. Of course, the shortest way in which to achieve expedition is to abolish appeals altogether, but we are concerned not only with expedition but with according justice expeditiously, so that would not be achieved by not according justice.
A possible safeguard for claimants that remains in the Bill is the possibility of seeking judicial review of the Home Secretary's certificate. I was grateful to my noble and learned friend for confirming in a previous debate that that has not been excluded by something that we had not noticed. I hope that I shall not sound churlish when I say that that is scarcely an occasion for rejoicing. The Council on Tribunals has said repeatedly that judicial review is not a substitute for a specific right of appeal because it relates only to the procedure adopted and the Wednesbury criterion, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said.
In any event, it appears to be self-defeating. If the purpose of the whole miserable exercise is to expedite the examination of claims for asylum, that is not likely to be achieved by encouraging a flood of applications for judicial review. I hope that my noble and learned friend will confirm that the remedy is expected to be used and that it will be available without let or hindrance. I wonder whether it is an unworthy thought to say that that remedy was perhaps left untouched because it was hoped to head off a challenge under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is the right to an effective remedy in domestic law.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights drew timely attention to that in paragraphs 97 and 98 of its 17th report. It said that if the applicant has been removed before that application can be made, it would not satisfy the requirements of the article. If the Government propose to ignore what is said in that report, no doubt we shall be told, but if, as I expect, they intend to pay heed to it, perhaps my noble and learned friend will explain how they will answer a complaint under the convention.
Time is passing but as the amendment is grouped with my Amendment No. 199A, perhaps I can say a word about it. I am grateful again to my noble friend Lord Judd for adding his name to it. It is an alternative
346
to Amendment No. 197A. In the unlikely event of my noble friend resisting Amendment No. 197A, this amendment represents a fall-back position.
Whatever the general principle, I hope that it will not be disputed that to be returned without the possibility of an appeal is not a fate that should befall someone who has already been subjected to torture in the country to which it is proposed to remove him. That raises the question who decides whether, according to the evidence available, the person has been subjected to torture. My answer would be that an adjudicator should decide on a balance of probability. It has been suggested that the amendment might have been drafted more clearly. If my noble and learned friend accepts the principle, I promise not to make trouble about the draftsmanship, which can be considered at a later stage.
What troubles me about a certificate that the application is clearly unfounded is that it may rest simply on the fact that the applicant did not say at an earlier stage that he had been tortured. That matter was discussed at some length earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I shall not repeat the arguments, but there is a great deal of evidence that there are all kinds of reasons why someone does not disclose torture at the first opportunity.
This is not a debate about text-book principles. As my noble friend Lord Judd said in an earlier debate, the principles are there to protect human beings and what we are discussing is human lives. I hope that it will be apparent to anyone reading the report of the debate that we are not playing word games and we are not moving pieces on a chess board. We are discussing whether people are at risk of torture and death, and their fate may be in our hands. I beg to move.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, had no need to apologise at the outset of his remarks for taking longer than he would have wished at this hour of the evening. For my part, I should need to apologise if I were to take time seeking to improve upon what the noble and learned Lord said or to put any kind of gloss on it. I agreed with every word I heard him say. I add only that I have never in either House heard a more shattering condemnation of a proposal of any government delivered from behind the Treasury Bench from a source commanding such respect as does the noble and learned Lord.
As we have been reminded by the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, the courts have made it clear that a right of appeal post-removal is valueless. It cites the 1997 Immigration Appeals Report case of Canbolat v Secretary of State for the Home Department. I hope that as the Government precipitately included the proposal in the other House without debate, they will as precipitately withdraw or abandon it.
Lord Judd: After those two speeches, it would be rash for a layman to try to add any substance to the

347
argument which has been so well put. I want to make one observation. At Second Reading we spent a good deal of time discussing the Bill's motivation. Was it to ensure that all those who were entitled to asylum should receive it while those who were not would be dealt with firmly, fairly and decently? Or was it to portray a determination that as many people as possible should be sent home while of course we tried to fulfil our obligations to those who had a genuine case for asylum?
This amendment goes to the heart of that debate. If we are concerned that all those who may have been through the most appalling experiences in their lives and who should be granted asylum can receive it, there should be no question whatever of curbing the normal well established practices in this country for appeal procedures.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I was struck early in the Committee stage by the catholicity and comprehensiveness of names which have been summoned and accrued behind that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, in support of the amendment.
It is 50 years or so since the Korean War. During that war, seven clergy of varying denominations were imprisoned by the North Koreans. They were placed in a single cell and given a single plank on which to sleep. The plank was sufficiently narrow that if they wished to turn they all had to turn together—a process which rapidly became known as the "ecumenical movement".
I regret that the names of the Liberal Democrats and the Cross-Benchers do not appear attached to the amendment but all members of my party know that we live in an imperfect world. The force of argument displayed by the two noble Lords on the Government Benches, the silent testimony of the Bishops Bench, along with the views of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew have been eloquent—I see that I have prevented the noble Earl, Lord Russell, from speaking, which he will do in a moment—mean that it is totally proper that, at twenty-five minutes before one in the morning, we should be discussing a matter as serious as this on behalf of those we are considering here.
Earl Russell: Our names have failed to appear on the amendment only for two reasons. First, only four names are allowed. Secondly, we felt that those who have put their names to it had a better claim than ours to be heard. They had much more new to say. Nevertheless, I should like to add a few words.
I am not particularly impressed with the view of the Secretary of State that a case is clearly unfounded. All day I have been looking for a quotation from Mr Justice Megarry, which disappeared when it came back from Hansard. I shall quote from memory:
"We have all known cases which appeared to be open and shut, and were not. We have all known arguments which appeared to be unanswerable, and were not. We have all known determinations which appeared to be unshakeable, and were changed by argument".
348
A case may appear to the Secretary of State to be clearly unfounded, but that does not prove that, after hearing, it will be.
I am also concerned about the selection of what I will describe as the cuckoo country; that is, the country to which the person is to be sent back. In my reading of the clause I have been a little less pessimistic than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. I had supposed that it was not actually intended to send the person back to the country from which he had come. If it is, then it is rather like the procedure for ducking witches: the guilty witch floats and is safe; the innocent witch sinks and drowns. If the person's claim was genuine, he dies. If the person's claim was bogus, he can prosecute it.
If it is to be a third country, then I do not see why any country should volunteer to take on the role. Furthermore, the Government have taken no account of the fact that many countries generally regarded for good reasons as safe will not accept an asylum seeker into their process if he has entered illegally into their territory. I recall a case to that effect which we discussed at some length during our deliberations on the 1996 Bill, where the country concerned was Belgium, but I confess that at this distance of time I cannot remember the precise name and reference of the case.
What concerns me more is how all this is to be reconciled with the principles of natural justice which, according to Sir William Wade, have acquired almost the status of a fundamental right. I shall not enter into argument about whether in declaring a case to be clearly unfounded the Secretary of State is acting as judge and party in his own cause, but there is a line of precedence that would argue that he would not be so found. In my opinion that line of precedence is not absolutely certain, but it falls well within the balance of probability.
Where we do find that the procedure fails is in the maxim, audi alteram partem—"hear both sides". It is not to be presumed that the Secretary of State personally will have heard the applicant before he certifies the claim to be clearly unfounded. I am not at all certain how far a hearing from abroad, conducted in writing, can be construed as a proper hearing within the principles of natural justice. Sir William Wade discusses specifically the question whether a hearing in writing can be regarded as a hearing for the purposes of hearing both sides. He produces two cases, neither of which is quite to the Government's purpose.
One concerns the militant councillors in Liverpool who were held to have been lawfully judged without a hearing by the Appellate Committee of this House, because they had not requested a hearing. The other case concerns the procedure in planning started in 1986 which can be conducted without a personal hearing and in writing if the parties so agree. There is no precedent here for an argument that you can hear both sides in writing without the consent of the two sides.

349
There is also a problem that this principle of hearing both sides has entered into the law of the European Union. Again in the words of Sir William Wade, European Community law recognises,
"the general rule that a person whose interests are perceptibly altered by a decision taken by a public authority must be given the opportunity to make his point of view known".
That is something that the Westminster Parliament cannot very easily alter.
As to what a hearing by both sides actually means, in the words of Lord Denning,
"If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him; and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them".
I do not see how this procedure meets that standard.
There is no clear ruling on what happens when an Act of Parliament contradicts natural justice. I am in no hurry to produce one. Natural justice, of course, pre-dates Parliament itself, so it must have at some stage an authority independent of Parliament. In the words of Lord Russell—I am pleased that it was not me—
"it is to be implied, unless the contrary appears, that Parliament does not authorise by the Act the exercise of powers in breach of the principles of natural justice, and that Parliament does by the Act require, in the particular procedures, compliance with those principles".
That is the origin of the famous line of judgment, "Parliament cannot possibly have intended that". This legislation positively invites such a judgment. I hope that it will not get it.
Lord Hylton: I shall try to make some points relevant to the second amendment standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and also to clause stand part. They concern late disclosure of torture.
It is becoming accepted that the initial interview may be experienced by some applicants as a form of interrogation. This in turn will trigger painful memories and counsel them to keep silent. Cultural factors also enter into the matter—for example, what is considered shameful or dishonouring in a particular culture. Even the presence of an interpreter of the same or similar ethnic origin may trigger acute suspicion and shame in the mind of the applicant and inhibit his or her full disclosure.
Lord Kingsland: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, suggested that I speak to my Amendment No. 199 in this group. It seems sensible to do so. I can be very brief.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I do not wish to discourage the noble Lord from doing so, but I suggested that we should discuss Amendment No. 199A. I certainly have no intention of discouraging the noble Lord.
Lord Kingsland: I thought that it was such a good idea of the noble and learned Lord that I would say a few words about it in any case.
350
It is clear that in some cases the finding by the Secretary of State that a claim is manifestly unfounded will be wrong. Our amendment seeks to ensure that those whose claims are certified as "manifestly" or "clearly" unfounded, and thus have to make their appeals from outside the United Kingdom, receive appropriate legal advice about the making of those appeals.
If such an appellant cannot be advised about the merits of his appeal, does not the right, in the opinion of the Minister, itself become a sham?
Perhaps I may ask the Minister with how many countries the Government have bilateral agreements to take non-suspensive appellants. In the light of that answer, when would he expect the clause in the terms expressed in the Bill to be implemented?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We on these Benches support the amendment moved so well by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. I have nothing to add to what has been said, particularly by my noble friend Lord Russell. We on these Benches are behind the amendment.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: On behalf of the Government, I welcome the opportunity to give an explanation and a defence of this significant and important clause.
For the sake of clarity, I should say what the substantive effect of the clause is. It has two parts. Where a case is clearly unfounded, the effect of making an appeal will not be to suspend the removal of the applicant to his country of origin, from where he must make the appeal. In any other case, the clause allows a person whose claim has been refused to be sent to a third country, so long as his ECHR rights will not breached in that country. So there are two alternatives—first, a claim is clearly unfounded, in which case the appeal is non-suspensive and the person must go before making the appeal; alternatively, he can be sent to a safe third country; namely, one where his ECHR rights will not be infringed. If that is the position, he may make his appeal only from that safe third country.
A preliminary question was asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell: why was this provision added to the Bill effectively at a late stage after a Bill with a complete scheme had been put together? The provision seeks to deal with the problem that large numbers of migrants seek to remain here on the basis of asylum and human rights claims that are clearly unfounded.
It was thought after the first parts of the Bill had been drafted—that is, those without this clause—that they did not deal adequately with that particular issue. That is why this clause was added. We are dealing here with the problem of people who have a clearly unfounded claim. In very many areas where people make a claim and it is found to be clearly unfounded, the person adjudicating on the claim must decide

351
whether or not the fact that the applicant wants to take it to another level should lead to his or her position being preserved pending the matter being put—
Earl Russell: Will the noble and learned Lord explain to me how a claim can be known to be clearly unfounded before it has been heard?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Secretary of State, before deciding upon the claim and whether it is clearly unfounded, must obviously evaluate what is said by the applicant. In his excursion through the law, which was profound and helpful, the noble Earl was dealing in very many cases where rights are taken away from people on the basis of allegations made against them. What we are dealing with here are applications made by asylum seekers in effect when they advance a case, saying, "Give me a particular right or concession on the basis of my case being advanced".
What happens in a Clause 82 situation is that the Secretary of State, after hearing both sides of the argument as to whether the claim should be granted, must then conclude whether to grant it or not. As the noble Earl pointed out, that does not necessarily mean an oral hearing.
So this is stage one of the process. On the hypothesis with which Clause 82 is dealing, the Secretary of State says, do not think that the claim is made out". Moreover, he says that he believes that the claim is clearly unfounded. Where there are clearly unfounded claims, it is not remotely a breach of any principle of justice that the person deciding that the claim is clearly unfounded also says, "I am not going to delay the consequence of the claim's failure because I believe that this is a clearly unfounded claim". That does not infringe any principle of justice. As many noble and learned Lords will know, that happens quite frequently in courts. For example, when applications are made for injunctions and the court believes them to be hopeless, the court will say, "Not only are we not going to grant the application; we are not even going to grant one pending any application for an appeal". It is a question of a judgment that has to be made at the first stage.
If people make applications down the line after the first stage and the applications are based upon clearly unfounded claims, then no legal principle is infringed by saying that they have to leave the country before they make those applications. On the basis of the hypothesis put forward, if the application is clearly unfounded, the Secretary of State will be bound to conclude that the applicant does not face a significant risk of torture or persecution if he returns to his country of origin.
It must be faced that some cases are without merit. There is no reason why a person who has made such a claim should then be able to remain here in order to pursue a hopeless appeal. These claims might involve an applicant expressing a fear of something happening that has no objective basis whatever, or fears that the state cannot protect him from attack by non-state agents when it is clear that the state does provide
352
effective protection. Of course, we would not remotely consider any of the sorts of examples given by noble Lords as ones that were clearly unfounded. However, it is easy for us all to think of cases in which clearly unfounded applications are made.
In some cases—considering the facts, such as the nature of the country referred to or the basis of the claim being made—one can almost immediately say, "That is not likely to succeed. Even if all the facts were made out, it would not remotely constitute the relevant risk required to satisfy the basis of an application". The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is of course right that some cases which look weak initially look stronger when one examines them more closely. However, there is a category of cases that readily suits the description of unfounded.
Earl Russell: Does the noble and learned Lord remember a case when, after a particularly notorious murder of a policeman, a Home Secretary got up in the Commons and said that the police had arrested the guilty party? The wrath of the House of Commons descended upon him. Why are the cases different?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: What is happening here, as the noble Earl knows, is that the Secretary of State is required in each individual case to consider all the material before him in relation to the application, and to decide on the basis of fact and law whether such a claim has been made out. It is an adjudication that the law gives to him. It is not like the type of case to which the noble Earl has referred; namely, one in which the Home Secretary expresses an opinion in Parliament in respect of something on which a court has yet to adjudicate. In the particular sorts of cases to which we are referring, the first stage of the process is the Secretary of State himself making the adjudication.
Lord Avebury: Is the noble and learned Lord aware that the Secretary of State was certifying Zimbabwean cases as manifestly unfounded right up to the point in January when he reversed the decision not to grant all of them temporary leave to remain in this country, and that some of those cases went to appeal and were upheld by the adjudicator?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That does not detract from the basic point I am making; namely, that it is a decision—as it was in the Zimbabwean cases to which the noble Lord refers—for the Secretary of State to make. He must adjudicate on the basis of the facts before him. He may be wrong, he may be right but he must adjudicate on the basis of the facts before him.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It is tiresome to be continuously interrupted. However, I refer to his very last remark. Can he really expect someone who, in pursuance of this proposal, has been sent back to Zimbabwe or to some equivalent country to accept that no legal principle has been infringed? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, said, we are talking about people, not symbols or pawns to be

353
pushed about on a board. We were given an analogy earlier about an injunction being refused even while an appeal was waiting. However, in that instance no one was being sent back to a country in which they claimed that they would be tortured or oppressed. That is totally different.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right to say that this is about people. The procedure would empower the Secretary of State to say that a claim was clearly unfounded. That decision made by the Secretary of State—as I think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, or the noble Earl mentioned—is susceptible to judicial review. If there is a proper basis for the Secretary of State to conclude that the case is clearly unfounded, that decision will be upheld. If there is no proper basis, the decision will be quashed.
Obviously, one of the factors for the Secretary of State to consider before reaching his conclusion that a case is clearly unfounded—to use the words of the statute—is the consequences if he reaches the wrong conclusion. We are discussing a decision for a responsible Secretary of State to make in accordance with the facts and the law—one that is protected by judicial review. The courts are able to intervene where there is no proper basis for the Secretary of State to reach that conclusion. Of course, no one would want any decision made that a case is clearly unfounded when the sorts of risks to which Members of the Committee have referred exist.
However, the Committee should address the sorts of cases where there are clearly unfounded claims and where a claim is entirely without merit. Is it right that the applicant should be able in those circumstances to use the process to stay longer? That is the conundrum that this section seeks to deal with. We believe that—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Can the noble and learned Lord inform us whether the Secretary of State takes the decision personally, or is he advised? Is he advised by people on the other side of the argument? The noble and learned Lord used the analogy of applying for an injunction on an ex parte basis. However, when one applies for an injunction on an ex parte basis, one does so to a judge who is totally independent. He can decide the issues. However, in the cases that we are discussing I very much suspect that the Secretary of State does not take the decision but rather his officials. How can that be just when the consequences are that the person concerned is sent back to the country from which he has fled?
I hope that the Committee will forgive me for saying that before the intervention in Afghanistan I was concerned by the case of the Afghan refugees who took a plane all the way to this country. How on earth can one say in those circumstances, "Sorry, you must go back to Afghanistan and then make an application and we shall see what we can do on that occasion"? The provision is manifestly unjust. I am amazed that the noble and learned Lord does not see it.
Lord Judd: Further to that point and before my noble and learned friend responds, I wish to pursue
354
what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said by means of the following observation. I am a layman, not a lawyer, and am totally perplexed. It is accepted that the Secretary State, having done his level best to make a sound decision, could conceivably still be wrong and therefore an appeal can take place. The anxiety being expressed is about how that appeal can be pursued. Does my noble and learned friend accept from somebody who spent most of his professional life outside the House—working, for example, with third world issues—that many in such situations have on more than one occasion been disturbed at how long it takes Whitehall to recognise the reality on the ground?
We are expecting new arrivals in this country to take tests in citizenship and in what Britain is about at its best. Does my noble and learned friend further accept that one person sent back to face reality, which might be a nightmare, is one too many? Can my noble and learned friend be complacent at that prospect?
1 a.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked whether the decision will be made by the Secretary of State in person. Although that Minister will be responsible and accountable, he will not decide the matter in person. The matter will be decided by an official. Obviously the Secretary of State will ensure that such cases are carefully considered by trained staff and that any proposal to which the clause applies will be checked and approved by a senior caseworker before the decision is served—so two pairs of eyes, not just one. In addition, the Secretary of State will ensure that a proportion of cases are randomly quality checked after being decided—so there will be two pairs of eyes, plus an additional random check to ensure that cases have been dealt with properly.
In addition, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary indicated in another place that the country information used to assess applications will be audited for accuracy by an independent panel of assessors. In establishing the arrangements, my right honourable friend is as aware as members of this Committee of the consequences of getting a decision wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is obviously correct when he says that in a number of areas, Whitehall takes some time to catch up with reality. But a serious decision will be taken in each individual case.
I ask the Committee to consider whether there are cases in which applications are clearly unfounded and identifiable as such. We believe that there is such a category of cases. If that belief is correct then, subject to proper safeguards—I have set out the approach in broad terms—it is right that before an appeal is heard in a case that is clearly unfounded, the Government are entitled to say that the appeal should be made outside this country. That could be done either in a safe third country, which would not give rise to the problems to which noble Lords have referred, or in the country of origin. That is the basis for our defence of Clause 82, which we believe is sensible and has sufficient safeguards.

355
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, issued a challenge in relation to ECHR compliance and to Article 13 in particular. If a claim is clearly unfounded, there is no breach of the convention's provisions.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: At the risk of being tiresome, has my noble and learned friend read the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights which dealt specifically with this matter?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My answer is that if the claim is clearly unfounded—I stress that I use the phrase "clearly unfounded", not simply "unfounded"—no human right is being infringed in that regard.
In a powerful speech, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in effect said that that is not an effective remedy and he referred to a 1997 immigration case, which was to the effect that an application being made from abroad is not an effective remedy.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, on the basis of Sir William Wade's book, that natural justice and the right to be heard involve a right to give evidence in some circumstances in person. We do not accept, in the context of a clearly unfounded claim, that an application being made from abroad is an empty or ineffective application. There are many applications of a non-asylum sort—for example, in relation to entry clearance—which have to be made from abroad and which cannot be made from this country. No one regards those rights of application or rights of appeal as empty rights or empty applications. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, knows, the hearing to which Sir William Wade refers in his book does not necessarily involve the right to give evidence in person. It involves the right to be able to put one's case effectively to the person who must make the decision. We do not think that either of those rights is infringed.
Earl Russell: With respect, Sir William specifically discussed the question whether a hearing in writing was sufficient. He said that those were the only two cases that he could find.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not know the particular passage to which the noble Earl refers but I suspect that Sir William Wade was saying—I shall check—that it depends on the circumstances of the application. That is what Sir William is likely to have said on that issue.
I have dealt with the main points. This is a specific and important clause. It raises difficult issues but we believe that we have fairly wrestled with them in the clause. No Members of the Committee, including those on these Benches, wish to send people back when there is a real risk that they will then face persecution. That would not be a case in which their claim was clearly unfounded. It is only in those cases in which the claim is clearly unfounded that the procedure can apply.
356
I turn to two further points. In Amendment No. 199A, my noble and learned friend Lord Archer seeks to provide that an adjudicator can accept evidence in support of an application to which an appeal relates in order to establish a reasonable likelihood that the appellant has been tortured in a country to which it is proposed to remove him. The drafting of the amendment means that one is in effect saying that if the adjudicator who hears the appeal believes that there is a risk of torture, the person cannot be removed to another country. However, the problem with which one is wrestling involves the circumstances in which the person is removed before the adjudicator's decision. My noble and learned friend might have been saying, "Don't worry too much about the drafting; think about the principle". The principle is: if there is evidence that the person might face torture in the country to which he goes back, surely the "clearly unfounded" approach should not apply. It is difficult to imagine circumstances in which there is a risk of torture to the individual in his country of origin to which he will be sent which would be a "clearly unfounded claim". If the condition at which the amendment is aiming existed at the time at which the Secretary of State was hearing the case, it is difficult to believe that he could remotely conclude that it was "clearly unfounded". In a sense, what the amendment is aiming at is unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, discussed Amendment No. 199. I have no problem in that regard. In effect, he says that before "clearly unfounded" can be certified or the third party is safe—I am not sure—a certificate must be issued that the applicant has received independent legal advice and assistance in relation to the consideration and preparation of an appeal to be lodged from outside the United Kingdom. The effect of that, far from encouraging people to seek legal advice, would create a strong incentive for people to shun such advice. As the noble Lord will recognise, that would be the most direct and reliable way of securing a suspensive right of appeal; namely, an appeal that suspends the removal of the applicant from this country.
Those who sought advice would be able to gain an advantage by not mentioning that fact to the authorities, with the result that representatives would not be served with important documents, such as a notice of the date of an appeal hearing; some would be driven into the arms of unregistered advisers, who would be content to hide their involvement from the Home Office; and even reputable legal advisers may consider it in their clients' best interests to suspend their involvement in a case following the asylum interview, advising clients not to contact them until after a suspensive appeal had been safely lodged. All manner of confusion could flow from this proposed amendment.
We feel that the best solution is to encourage claimants to take the right kind of legal advice at an early stage. People going through the induction centres will be given guidance on that, as they will on the one-stop process. For others, there will be many sources of information—for example, the CAB will point them in

357
the right direction. The Home Office cannot force people to take legal advice. It can only encourage them to do so. It would be most unfortunate if our efforts were to be undermined by an amendment which we believe encourages them not to take legal advice.
Although I fully understand that this is a perfectly sensible amendment, it would probably have precisely the reverse effect of that which the noble Lord desires.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Had the Government in response to an earlier amendment been prepared to take a more constructive view about the provision of early legal advice at the induction stage and the stage immediately thereafter, the Minister's response to my amendment might have carried more weight. Perhaps the Minister may take away with him over the summer the thought that there is a clear relationship between our Amendment No. 199 and what the Government are not prepared to do in relation to ensuring that individuals get legal advice at the earliest possible stage.
While I am on my feet, perhaps the Minister will also touch on the point about bilateral agreements to take non-suspensive appellants.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: On the point of legal advice, I do not know to which precise amendment the noble Lord is referring. I shall find out and will consider what he has said. I should like to make it absolutely clear that we want to encourage claimants to take the right kind of legal advice at the earliest possible stage. We believe that it helps them and helps the process operate in the fairest possible way.
With regard to the point about third countries, each case is to be considered on its merits, no matter from which country the applicant arrives in the United Kingdom. However, it is likely that most applicants who will fall into this category will have passed through the European Union countries en route to this country, and it will be to those countries that they will be returned.
1.15 a.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: The Minister asked us to consider whether, in reality, certain cases were manifestly unfounded. I am very glad to consider that, but, in my view, it happens to be the wrong question. The question with which the Committee is concerned is whether the procedures which this clause provides will lead to a safe determination of whether any application is manifestly unfounded. They will not because they do not, for example, provide for an oral hearing.
The Minister will know, probably better than I do, that there are numerous cases in which, on hearing oral evidence, the court has reversed a decision taken initially on the papers in a case where leave for judicial review has been refused. That is because oral argument is important. In particular in a case of asylum, it is very important to see what the applicant has to say and how he says it.
358
On listening to the Minister, I felt that it was as though he could not visualise that a mistake could be made. He said that it is true that judicial review is available, but judicial review is granted sparingly and does not lead to the automatic rectification of every mistake that a Minister may have made. In the briefing prepared by the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, case after case is itemised where the Minister—we know that it was not the Minister; it was an official, as has already been acknowledged—has certified that the case was manifestly unfounded. Yet it was found on appeal to the adjudicator to be a perfectly well founded case. That is what we are faced with here.
I have listened with my usual admiration for the noble and learned Lord's skill. However, frankly the bland and, if I may say so, completely unreal picture that he conjured up of a person returned to a country whose name he has blackened here in support of his application for asylum, there peacefully to conduct an appeal from afar without sustaining the slightest disadvantage, is so unreal that at this time of night I thought that I was possibly dreaming. I am sorry to put it like this, but I am afraid that the Government deserve to be thumped over this issue, and I believe that they will be because it stinks.
The Countess of Mar: I have listened very carefully to what the Minister said. I have borne in mind the Addison rule, but I am profoundly disturbed by what I have heard from the Minister. We hear of such cases over and over again. We must bear in mind that the Home Office officials who make the decisions have piles and piles of files in front of them and they must get rid of them. That applies right the way through the system. Mistakes will be made. Even with the three tiers of appeal that we have at present, I believe that mistakes can still be made. We must be very careful to ensure that we do not make them.
With regard to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, perhaps I may suggest that, instead of the words "received independent legal advice", he uses the words "offered independent legal advice". I read it exactly as the Minister did—that is, that it would provide a wonderful excuse for delaying. I believe that if the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, were prepared to change the word from "received" to "offered", it might make things a little easier.
I am sorry to have come over so strongly but I am seriously concerned that, if we take away this right, we shall cause trouble.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: "In reality" it most certainly is. When the noble and learned Lord said that the applicant must get the right type of legal advice at the beginning, it immediately crossed my mind that the advice that one should receive at the beginning is, "Get your habeas corpus application in now. At least they can't throw you out until they have justified why you are being held for a particular period".
It is a question of procedures. The officials who make the decision that an applicant's case is clearly unfounded are no doubt the same people who will

359
instruct the Home Office representative to present the Home Office case in court. They will ask him to present the case that they have already decided by removing the person from the country. How can one put one's case effectively from abroad? I am trying to be as calm as I possibly can.
The procedure involves instructing counsel and lawyers to appear on your behalf. It involves listening to evidence given against you, documents produced against you, and considering and advising the evidence to be given by way of rebuttal. It also involves telling the tribunal, the adjudicator, what your case is and being tested upon it in the ordinary way so that the adjudicator can come to a proper conclusion. To suggest that you can sit in the country from which you have escaped, to which you have been sent back, and effectively present your case is ludicrous.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: All the examples mentioned by noble Lords relate to cases which are on the borderline where, if you go back you will suffer detriment, prosecution or difficulty. Let us remember that there are cases which are manifestly or clearly unfounded. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, the problem is not the principle which says, "If it is clearly unfounded, then to send people back to the country of origin is not in principle wrong", it is the procedure used which is being questioned in order to determine that. The procedure we propose is a certificate from the Secretary of State which is subject to judicial review in those cases where no proper Secretary of State could so certify. It is an administrative procedure subject to judicial protection.
On the second point, namely that no application could properly be made from abroad, as I pointed out earlier, a significant number of non-asylum applications have to be made from abroad. No one suggests that they are ineffective applications. That is the reason that we proceed with Clause 82. That is the reason that we seek to resist the amendments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: The whole basis of my noble and learned friend's argument is that the expression "manifestly unfounded" and "certified by the Secretary of State to be manifestly unfounded" are synonymous. That is precisely what is at issue in this case. The fact that a government Minister has said something is not simply conclusive: it makes it true. My noble and learned friend said that courts sometimes find that something is manifestly
360
unfounded. I hesitate to say this to my noble and learned friend because in his career it would certainly rarely have been true, but that would have failed him an examination in elementary logic. The whole purpose of a court is that it is part of the judicial machinery to examine and decide the position. The Secretary of State is not in that question. The whole of our immigration law is based on the fact that the Secretary of State is not in that position. Still less are busy officials of the Home Office in that position. As my noble friend Lord Judd said, the Government are incapable of considering it possible that they may be wrong.
I say only this. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and to the Refugee Legal Centre for placing in my hands a list of cases which were certified by the Home Office to be manifestly unfounded and were subsequently found to be well founded. Perhaps I may be permitted one quotation from the adjudicator who decided the case subsequent to the certificate and said:
"The appellant's case here is the opposite of that, it is in fact manifestly well founded".
Many cases are cited where that can be said.
It is easy to rubbish the argument which unhappily my noble and learned friend found himself compelled to advance. But it is not just an argument. It is not just an exercise in logic. It really is about individuals. The consequences for an individual if it goes wrong are very serious indeed. Of course there is a problem of needing to expedite the whole process. The way to do that is to address the way in which adjudications take place. Some of us have been saying that for years.
No doubt a great deal more could be said on this subject. I have a suspicion that it will be said in subsequent stages of the Bill; perhaps this is not the occasion for saying it. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 198A:
Page 44, line 46, leave out "grounds specified in section 80(4)(a) or (b) (or both)." and insert "ground specified in section 80(4)(a)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 199 and 199A not moved.]
Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past one o'clock.

  NEPAD
  NEPAD
  Diplomatic Missions: Minor Traffic Violation Fines
  Diplomatic Missions: Minor Traffic Violation Fines
  Diplomatic Missions NNDR
  Diplomatic Missions NNDR
  Public Guardianship Office: Annual Report and Accounts 2001–02
  Public Guardianship Office: Annual Report and Accounts 2001–02
  Criminal Justice: Government Response to Auld and Halliday Reports
  Criminal Justice: Government Response to Auld and Halliday Reports
  Lord Chancellor's Department
  Lord Chancellor's Department
  Law Commission: Quinquennial Review
  Law Commission: Quinquennial Review
  Retrials in Serious Criminal Cases
  Retrials in Serious Criminal Cases
  Highland Midges
  Highland Midges
  Treasury Silver
  Treasury Silver
  Life Peers
  Life Peers
  Criminal Cases in Consequence of 1994 Bomb Explosions at Embassy of Israel and Balfour House
  Criminal Cases in Consequence of 1994 Bomb Explosions at Embassy of Israel and Balfour House
  Local Government
  Local Government
  Parish Councils: Code of Conduct
  Parish Councils: Code of Conduct
  Accommodation for the Homeless: London
  Accommodation for the Homeless: London
  Gypsy Accommodation
  Gypsy Accommodation
  Science, Engineering and Technology
  Science, Engineering and Technology
  Dangerous Severe Personality Disorder
  Dangerous Severe Personality Disorder
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Complaints Audit Committee Annual Report 2001–02
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Complaints Audit Committee Annual Report 2001–02
  Prison Service: Key Performance Indicator Measures
  Prison Service: Key Performance Indicator Measures
  Forensic Science Service
  Forensic Science Service
  Police Use of Firearms
  Police Use of Firearms
  England Rural Development Programme
  England Rural Development Programme
  Defra and Forestry Commission: Spending Plans
  Defra and Forestry Commission: Spending Plans
  Veterinary Laboratories Agency Targets
  Veterinary Laboratories Agency Targets
  Environment Agency Management Statement
  Environment Agency Management Statement
  Animal Health and Welfare Expenditure
  Animal Health and Welfare Expenditure
  Adoption
  Adoption
  Prostate Cancer and AIDS: Government Expenditure
  Prostate Cancer and AIDS: Government Expenditure
  HIV
  HIV
  Contraceptive Advice for Young People
  Contraceptive Advice for Young People
  NHS Bodies: Contracts with non-UK Organisations
  NHS Bodies: Contracts with non-UK Organisations
  Mental Health Bill: Categories of Mental Disorder
  Mental Health Bill: Categories of Mental Disorder
  Disability Equipment
  Disability Equipment
  Meat Hygiene Service Annual Report and Accounts
  Meat Hygiene Service Annual Report and Accounts
  Medicines Control Agency Annual Report and Accounts
  Medicines Control Agency Annual Report and Accounts
  Medicines Commission Annual Report and Accounts
  Medicines Commission Annual Report and Accounts
  NHS Pensions Agency
  NHS Pensions Agency
  Religious Organisations Broadcasting Licences
  Religious Organisations Broadcasting Licences
  Centre for Management and Policy Studies Annual Report and Accounts
  Centre for Management and Policy Studies Annual Report and Accounts
  IT Procurement: Open Source Software
  IT Procurement: Open Source Software
  Executive Agencies
  Executive Agencies
  Civil Service Pension Arrangements
  Civil Service Pension Arrangements
  Government Car and Despatch Agency Annual Report and Accounts
  Government Car and Despatch Agency Annual Report and Accounts
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission