Sitting of 10 June 2002

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

    Parenting
    Mr. David Kidney: What steps his Department is taking to establish local schemes for the promotion of positive parenting. [57044]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): As well as supporting parents through Government initiatives such as sure start, the Home Office is currently funding a wide range of projects across the country by means of the family support grant. We are also funding parentline plus, a national 24-hour telephone service that gives advice and support. To date it has helped some 400,000 parents.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend, and congratulate him on his new position in the Government.
    Does my hon. Friend accept that if all parents raised all children with love, giving warm and responsive care and setting clear boundaries, future generations would be more emotionally mature, responsible and self-confident? Are there not also great financial gains to be made from additional educational needs provision, health and social services and law enforcement? Is there not a case for universal provision of information, advice and classes for all parents, from a range of providers, promoting positive parenting?
    Hilary Benn: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments about the basis of good and effective parenting, and particularly with what he said about love, support and encouragement. Those are the most important things that we, as parents, can give our children. I also entirely accept the need to ensure that there are places throughout the country to which parents can go for help and advice. That need not be seen as a mark of failure; there are times when we may all need some support and encouragement. We must put across the idea that asking for help and advice is something that all parents may need to do at some time during their lives as parents.
    Peter Bottomley: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his new duties.
    578
    Given that a third of all male children will be convicted of a serious criminal offence at some stage, that more than that will become teenage smokers, and that about 40 per cent. will be involved in a conception ending in a termination—all those being issues of family confidence and competence—will the Minister try to encourage broadcasters to devote as much attention to family functioning as they give to cooking, cars and gardens?
    Hilary Benn: I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I will go so far as to suggest that Members on both sides of the House would welcome a little less focusing by broadcasters on dysfunctional families and a bit more encouragement for functional families.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: I welcome my hon. Friend to his post, and wish him well.
    Is not positive parenting—through parents being given the tools with which to manage their children positively and effectively, without physical punishment—the key to dealing with so many problems in society, especially delinquency and antisocial behaviour? Should we not do far more of that, rather than locking up children in prison?
    Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend has raised an important point about the need for positive encouragement for children. As he will know, and as I can attest from my experience as a constituency Member, there are occasions when the behaviour of young people causes great distress and havoc to local communities. My constituents come to me in distress, and ask what we will do to protect them from the consequences. We also know, however, that such behaviour is strongly associated with problems in family upbringing and poor literacy skills. Those are the issues that we must address if we are to reduce the likelihood of reoffending by those young people.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: I join others in congratulating the Minister, who certainly suffered no lack of positive parenting.
    Is the Minister aware of the work of Dr. Stephen Scott of the department of child psychiatry at King's college London, which suggests that 80 per cent. of children who show behavioural problems by the age of five go on to develop more serious antisocial behaviour? Does the Minister know of the enormously important work being done by groups such as Befrienders—whom I recently visited—the Parent Network, the child development programme, and the child and adolescent psychiatry unit at the Maudsley hospital?
    Is it not very sad that despite the sure start initiative, which the Minister mentioned, there is generally no response whatever in the United Kingdom to a child who shows behavioural problems at the age of five, and that all too often we wait until criminality emerges before we do anything?
    Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), for their kind references to my appointment.

    579
    I was not aware of the research mentioned by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) until I read a very good speech given to a conference recently by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in which he too referred to it.
    I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the need to provide support and help when children are at an early age, and we can identify those who are at risk. That is the purpose of sure start, which applies to children from birth until the age of three; but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must do more, and intervene early to prevent small problems from becoming larger problems later.
    Mr. Letwin: I must read the Home Secretary's speech, as I am about to make one myself on the same subject. I wonder whether he mentioned the conclusions of the Rowntree Trust's study, which I think is called "Prevention through Family and Parenting Programmes". It concluded that successful programmes were those based on United States examples. Is it not a national disgrace that we have nothing remotely comparable to the Headstart programme, which has taken care of 15 million children with early behavioural problems and has mobilised vast resources in the voluntary sector and local communities as well as nationally? Does the Minister agree that we need to emulate that if we are to begin to tackle youth crime?
    Hilary Benn: Yes, I do. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the sure start programme is modelled on the American Headstart programme, which was initiated by the Johnson Administration in the United States in the 1960s. Long-term studies of the Headstart programme demonstrate the benefits of such intervention. I have not read the research to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I shall add it to the very large pile of reading on which I am currently engaged in my new responsibilities.

    Asylum Accommodation Centres
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: If he will consult Scottish Ministers on the provision of services within accommodation centres for asylum seekers which may be located in Scotland. [57045]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): As my hon. Friend knows, the operation of accommodation centres is a reserved matter. However, my officials are working closely with the Scottish Executive. My hon. Friend will also know that clause 34(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill requires us to consult Scottish Ministers prior to establishing an accommodation centre in Scotland.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her new post in Government and thank her for her answer, which is helpful. As she pointed out, the proposals going through Parliament specifically provide for consultation with the Scottish Executive on the provision of accommodation centres, but there is no requirement for consultation with the Scottish Executive on education. Given that asylum matters are reserved to this Parliament but that education is a devolved matter, does my hon. Friend accept that it may be more consistent to make
    580
    specific provision for consultation with the Scottish Executive on education, not just on the provision of centres?
    Beverley Hughes: The Scottish Executive have agreed that education in accommodation centres is part of a specific regime for asylum seekers and that it is therefore properly a reserved matter, but we recognise that to achieve our objectives—good quality education on-site, and consistent education for children in accommodation centres, wherever they are in the United Kingdom—we need to work with the grain of the practicalities and structure of education in Scotland. That is why officials have been working closely with colleagues in Scotland, especially on education matters. Those discussions will continue. Although there will not be a specific requirement to consult on education, we accept that in the provision of accommodation centres we need to consult specifically on education provision as we go forward.
    John Barrett: I, too, congratulate the Minister on her new post. Does she agree that, as well as consulting Scottish Parliament Ministers, it is important that the Home Office has discussions with the local authority, the wider community and organisations with experience in the sector, such as the Refugee Council, before any final decisions are made on locations in Scotland?
    Beverley Hughes: I thank the hon. Gentleman and also my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) for their welcome.
    If a planning notification in relation to the proposal is eventually made, we will want the widest consultation possible. We have already made that clear. We will be taking the advice of the planning authority about how that should best be done, but wherever planning notifications are laid, we intend to consult local people as well as the local authority and others.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Given that the Minister wants to work with the grain, as she put it, of Scottish education, is there any pressure on Scottish education to act in the same way as the Home Secretary would wish to act in England?
    Beverley Hughes: As I have already made clear, we want to ensure that children who are in accommodation centres, wherever those centres may be, have the same standard of education as children elsewhere, and that there is a consistent standard in accommodation centres across the UK. We will work with whoever is providing those services in accommodation centres in Scotland or elsewhere to ensure that that happens.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: May I congratulate the Minister on her new post and wish her well? I recall that we had some happy times together on the Home Affairs Committee.
    As the Minister discusses with Scottish Ministers key issues such as educating children in or outside accommodation centres, the size and location of such centres, and the need for a statutory duty to provide legal help on-site, does she think that those Ministers will agree with the Government's proposals, or with the dozens of

    581
    her own Back-Bench colleagues and all the respected non-governmental organisations, who oppose her totally on many of these matters?
    Beverley Hughes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome. He is widening the issue, and as he knows, in the next two days some of the matters that he raises will be debated more fully during the remaining stages of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill.
    We welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have in no way objected to the principle of accommodation centres. It is clear that a range of views exists on size, location and so on. A full debate took place in Committee, and in the past week I have studied Hansard and read all the points of view that were expressed in Committee. They make riveting reading, and those debates will continue tomorrow. As we move forward and establish accommodation centres, we want to ensure that we can trial a number of variables, and the Home Secretary has already given a commitment to do that in respect of size. If such variables prove to be the way forward, we want to ensure that we can learn from the trials about the best way to implement them.

    Police Resources (Greater Manchester)
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on police resources in Greater Manchester. [57046]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): It is good to be back, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where have you been?"] To the Palace and the Mall. The increase in the policing grant for Greater Manchester is £9.5 million higher this year, and a further £5 million has been allocated for the security and policing of the Commonwealth games. There has been an increase of £2.7 million in available capital spending for equipment and technology—an increase of more than 40 per cent. on the previous year. Following the Budget, I am today announcing an increase of £2.4 million for policing and security in Greater Manchester, as part of a wider announcement nationally. Taken together with the crime fighting fund, the overall increase for this year is 6.9 per cent.
    Mr. Brady: It would be wrong for me to take too much credit for the announcement that the Home Secretary has just made. However, he will be aware that the additional cost of policing next month's Commonwealth games in Manchester will be in excess of £8 million. The £5 million that has already been announced accounts for less than two thirds of the cost, and even if we take into account the £2.4 million that he kindly announced in advance of my question, we are still some way adrift of the additional cost. Which other budgets does he expect Greater Manchester police to cut as a result of his refusal to fund in full the policing of the games?
    Mr. Blunkett: It is certainly true that the estimate provided by Greater Manchester police is higher than the 63 per cent. of the cost that we envisage finding, but that figure is £1 million higher than the formula that we inherited in 1997. On the hon. Gentleman's specific
    582
    question about which budget will be cut, we expect Greater Manchester police to find the additional £3 million from the £7 million that it has in reserve.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: I refer my right hon. Friend to the situation in my constituency and in other inner-city constituencies. We have a combination of low-level but extremely aggravating crime that destroys the quality of life in those communities, and—as he knows—a serious problem with murder. In considering future funding, will he take into account the fact that each murder costs about £1 million to investigate, and that peculiar circumstances apply in Greater Manchester? Perhaps he can also say whether he will ensure that we get value for money from Greater Manchester police and the chief constable, so that we can be certain that Greater Manchester gets the policing that it deserves.
    Mr. Blunkett: I have been interested in the initiative taken in Greater Manchester and in the display of public disquiet and the commitment by the people of Manchester—particularly in the south of Manchester—to joining the police in tackling this serious issue. I was pleased to discuss with my hon. Friend how best to invest in, first, preventing and then overcoming the difficulties faced. We need to take into account the size of the challenge faced in Greater Manchester. On a slightly lighter note, I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish us to allocate funds according to the number of homicides committed. I shall have to consider how best to balance those two factors.

    Violent Crime
    Mr. George Osborne: What targets he has for reducing levels of violent crime. [57049]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): The Government are working to reduce all violent crime. The 2001 British crime survey showed that violent crime overall was down by 19 per cent. in 2000 as against 1999. Last year, street crime rose in some of our large towns and cities. We are working with 10 police forces and other agencies in those 10 areas to tackle street crime. The earlier announcement of resources from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary includes details of an allocation of £27 million across those 10 forces today to enable them to tackle street crime.
    Mr. Osborne: I noticed that the Minister did not repeat the Prime Minister's target of reducing street crime by the end of September. To clear up the confusion that has followed since the Prime Minister blurted that out at Prime Minister's questions seven weeks ago, will the Minister confirm that the Government expect street crime to fall in absolute terms by the end of September?
    Mr. Denham: I have made it clear what we want to achieve. Street crime rose last year. First, we must reverse that increase, and then we must deliver long-term and sustainable reductions in street crime.
    Ms Julia Drown: What plans are there to tackle the violent crime of rape? It is nearly two years since the publication of the sex offences review,

    583
    which suggested changes to the current defence of an honest but unreasonable belief in consent. When can we expect legislation to get that wholly outrageous defence off the statute book?
    Mr. Denham: A number of aspects of the matter are currently under consideration, and in the near future we hope to make announcements that will be of interest to my hon. Friend. At the last Home Office questions, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was asked about the joint report into the prosecution of rape. He said then that the Home Office would be leading a review by officials across Government Departments of how to respond to the low level of successful rape prosecutions. That work will be completed within the month.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Is it not the case that a growing amount of violent street crime involves guns? How can the Minister justify a situation in which an armed police officer who opens fire—even in self-defence—at an armed criminal is automatically suspended from all police operational duties for a long period of time, usually a minimum of 18 months? Is that not enormously wasteful and demoralising to some of the most highly trained and courageous officers in the police?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Thankfully, it is still the case that the use of firearms by the police in this country occurs on a relatively limited number of occasions each year. It has always been accepted by the police service that there should be proper procedures when someone is injured as a result. The hon. Gentleman's important point is how long it should take to satisfactorily conclude any investigation. That is a matter that I shall look into.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I welcome my right hon. Friend's response to the question. Does he agree that violent crime on the roads needs to be looked at carefully? We must drive forward our targets in that regard. I welcome also the speech of my noble Friend Lord Falconer last Thursday at the RoadPeace conference. Victims were at the heart of that speech. When are we likely to see a response to the sentencing review in that respect?
    Mr. Denham: I shall write to my hon. Friend. I do not know precisely when the sentencing review will be completed. I am sure that everybody acknowledges the underlying point that he raises, as many of those maimed by dangerous drivers—and the relatives of those killed in road incidents—feel unfairly treated by the present system.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: May I take the Minister back to his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne)? Is the Minister unwilling to endorse the Prime Minister's comments? Less than 48 hours later the Lord Chief Justice said:
    "you can have initiative after initiative … but if you don't touch the basic problems, you will never achieve public confidence".
    Is not that a better approach? Part of the problem is that the Government have contributed to making the police's task of tackling violent crime more difficult by introducing such restrictions as best value, which has led to greater bureaucracy, and the new stop-and-search procedures,
    584
    which will also add considerably to bureaucracy. Would it not be better to give adequate support to the police to carry out that task and leave alone the sort of gimmicks that the Prime Minister came up with?
    Mr. Denham: I presume that the hon. Gentleman includes in his attack on gimmicks the actions taken by the Metropolitan police in their safer streets campaign which, in its eighth week, has already delivered a fall in street crime in the target boroughs of 21 per cent. compared with last year. In those areas that we have targeted across the country we will stop the rise in street crime, then cause levels to fall and take the measures necessary to sustain that fall. We will do that through practical support for the police—first, by delivering record and rising numbers of police officers; secondly, by ensuring that they are supported by the rest of the criminal justice system; and thirdly, by introducing, as we have done in the past few weeks, video identity parades to cut bureaucracy and time-wasting. It is those practical measures and others, undertaken in partnership with the police, the criminal justice agencies, education and local communities, that will enable this country to get on top of street crime.

    Crime Reduction (Devon and Cornwall)
    Linda Gilroy: If he will make a statement about crime reduction in Devon and Cornwall in the last 12 months. [57051]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): In the most recently published recorded crime figures, in the 12 months to March 2001, crime in Devon and Cornwall fell by 7 per cent.
    Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome him to his new position. If he is not already aware of the role that crime and disorder partnerships have played in the drop in crime figures, I recommend that he investigates them. Does he share my concern that the advent of crack cocaine to the streets of Plymouth in the past year threatens to reverse all that good work? Will he pay early attention to the bid for a pilot project for a seamless health-based approach to tackling drug crime and give us his opinion sooner rather than later?
    Mr. Wills: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words of welcome. Crack cocaine is a problem in Plymouth and we share her concerns. We guaranteed funding of nearly £500,000 from the communities against drugs programme in 2002–03 to tackle drug-related crime. As she is aware, the Devon and Cornwall constabulary has initiated Operation Ovidian in response to the emerging crack cocaine problem in Plymouth and throughout the area covered by the force.
    We are aware of the funding bids that have been submitted to the criminal justice reserve fund and the recovered assets fund. The Under-Secretary who has responsibility for drugs policy, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), stated in his letter to Superintendent Isaac that Home Office officials have made an initial assessment of the bid, but

    585
    no formal decision has yet been made. Bids are being considered by a Cabinet Committee and we expect to announce the successful bids shortly.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Given the undoubted link between drugs and crime and the vital need for those who feed their heroin habit by committing crime to have access to treatment as soon as they wish, what does the Minister propose to do about the waiting time for access to detox and rehabilitation treatment in Plymouth, which is currently 65 weeks?
    Mr. Wills: The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points. Until 15 months ago, no treatment was possible, but we now have a national treatment agency and waiting times are falling. He is right to say that we must take action to tackle the problem, and that is what we are doing. We must deal with the problem across the range and choke off the supply, which is what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is doing. He is liaising with the Jamaican authorities to make sure that we tackle the problem of crack cocaine.
    The hon. Gentleman is right about the need to treat addicts, which we are doing. We must also educate our young people about these matters, which is why we have drugs education programmes in schools. Some 93 per cent. of secondary schools now have such programmes in place.

    Street Crime
    Mr. Win Griffiths: If he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to reduce crime on the streets. [57052]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): We are undertaking an end-to-end review of the criminal justice process, including the development of more training, more police officers, the introduction of community support and street warden provision to back that up. We have provided extra resources this year for police technology and investment in closed circuit television. Other measures taken include the premium Crown Prosecution Service, the establishment of 67 specialist street crime courts, the availability of the video ID system referred to earlier, the extension of electronic tagging and the use of intensive supervision, including bail conditions. In addition, we have introduced the Mobile Telephones(Re-Programming) Bill. All these measures are enabling us to bring down the street crime figures, which worried everyone earlier this year.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, I am sure that he is aware that old people in particular still fear going to their local shopping centres, especially at night, because of the youths who wander about aimlessly and sometimes threaten them. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that even more CCTV cameras are made available? The residents of the Wildmill estate in Bridgend greatly appreciate that the number of officers patrolling the streets has doubled, but they would still like to see CCTV cameras in the shopping precincts.
    Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the doubling of the number of officers doing the job out there on the street.
    586
    The use of CCTV has proved extremely popular against the predictions that were made when the programme started. There is no doubt that the quality and use of CCTV are crucial, so that the reassurance that it provides can in turn ensure a conviction when people are captured on the video screen. The combination of the use of CCTV and video ID parades, the emphasis that we are placing on pressing down on antisocial behaviour by giving it a focus at national policy level, and the encouragement that we have been giving the police to respond positively to any kind of intervention at that level will provide people, young or old, with the reassurance that they need. It is a fact of life that although elderly people are the least likely to be attacked in the street, they are the most likely to fear such an attack.
    Simon Hughes: I am sure that the Home Secretary agrees that to reduce crime, we need to deal with the causes of crime, as well as with the criminals. After the highly successful past few days in which the country has seen success in the cricket test against Sri Lanka, in the world heavyweight title match in the United States, and against Argentina on Friday, does the Home Secretary accept that bringing youngsters from primary school age upwards into sport—not just as participants, but as competitors—is as likely as any other activity to prevent them from getting into crime? Can the Home Office work with the Departments for Education and Skills and for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we give young people, from the age of five to 25, constructive alternatives to crime so that they can do positive things instead of being told only what they cannot do, which too often appears to be the Government's message?
    Mr. Blunkett: "All Our Futures", the work of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the splash schemes that we are introducing and the social cohesion programme for the summer are all very valuable, but I accept what the hon. Gentleman says: a win against Nigeria on Wednesday would do wonders for street crime, social cohesion and youth offending.
    Glenda Jackson: I welcome the measures that the Government have already introduced to reduce street crime, but I feel sure that my right hon. Friend would agree with many of my constituents who welcome technological advances but put their faith, as I do, in the deterrent power of a uniform. I sincerely hope that both he and the police will accept that bobbies on the beat can do a great deal to reduce crime and, more importantly, the fear of crime.
    Mr. Blunkett: We are all very pleased to see my hon. Friend back in the Chamber and we wish her well. I agree with her entirely: 4,500 extra uniformed police on our streets over the past two years, more than 1,100 of them in London, have been very welcome. That visible presence, combined with intelligent and community-based policing, will make the difference.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: Given the success in reducing street crime of the

    587
    experiment in Lambeth in which police resources were diverted from traffic control to patrolling the streets, is it not time to extend the policy nationwide?
    Mr. Blunkett: It is important to get the balance right between the various hot spots and difficulties at any one time, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is an operational decision, for the Commissioner in the case of the Metropolitan police, and for chief constables elsewhere. I respect that fact and know that they carry responsibility as well as power, and I answer the questions at the Dispatch Box every month. The honest truth is that if we can manage to get people focused where the greatest danger is we will not only provide reassurance but ensure that the police get the respect and support that they need, in the end, in order to drive down crime.
    Andy Burnham: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Greater Manchester police and Wigan council on last week's successful introduction of a drinking ban in Leigh town centre, which I believe will reduce street crime in Leigh? Is he aware of the belief of that force and others that, under the wording of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, they are unable to seize unopened bottles and cans from under-age drinkers? Will he consider amending the wording to enable the police to bear down effectively on under-age drinking and youth crime?
    Mr. Blunkett: I do indeed congratulate Greater Manchester police on that initiative, and I hope that it works well over the summer, not least in the few weeks ahead during the World cup. There is a real issue here, and we have asked the police to provide us with chapter and verse on the extent of the problem with unopened alcohol containers. If there is a problem, we will be prepared to include measures to put it right in the sentencing and criminal justice Bill for next Session. We all want to ensure—I am sure that this goes across political parties—that we reverse as quickly as possible, at the request of those on the ground, any anomalies that have been built in.
    Mr. James Paice: I pay tribute to the Metropolitan police for the way in which they rose to the immense challenge of maintaining the security of the streets of central London during the jubilee celebrations.
    The Home Secretary's desire to reduce street crime will be shared by everyone in the House and outside, but does not he understand that there is widespread concern in the police that the powers that he is seeking to be able to dictate precisely the contents of any action plan for improvement will mean that Ministers in Whitehall will be usurping the local knowledge of chief constables in their task of reducing street crime? The objective may be shared by everyone, but the method of achieving it should be the responsibility of chief constables and police authorities, and not interfered with by any Minister of any political party in government. There is wide concern in the police force and police authorities that he is seeking to reintroduce centralising powers.
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree with the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's contribution: there was exemplary, light-touch, sensitive and good policing.
    588
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, there would be great, justified fears if his statements this afternoon were correct. We are asking police chiefs to draw up action plans—we make no apology for that, nor for the fact that we shall be able to comment on the plans. We make no apology for asking the police to consider readjusting their plans in the context of the overall national plan—for instance, if they are giving only low-level attention to antisocial behaviour, which most Members regard as a scourge that we want to be tackled.
    We are not seeking powers to dictate the action plans, to overturn them or in any way to take hold of operational policing. The sooner we debate what we really disagree on, the more we shall be respected by the public.
    Fiona Mactaggart: My police service experiences real difficulties in ensuring that we get enough police officers on the streets, because it trains everybody else's police officers. Thames Valley has provided officers to every other force in the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend think about a system of transfer fees for police officers, so that police authorities that train young officers have the resources to train new officers, because everyone else has nicked the ones that we have trained?
    Mr. Blunkett: I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend. The level of crime and the difficulties experienced in Slough and some other parts of Thames Valley cause problems and the force has been vulnerable as a result of officers moving out of the area owing to the provision for recruitment in the Metropolitan police area. However, I am pleased to say that, as part of the provision of extra resources, Thames Valley will receive an extra £1.5 million this year. Taken with the flexibility in the new police negotiating powers, such as the use of priority payments, Thames Valley will be able to build on its success and to hold on to the trained police officers who are so crucial in my hon. Friend's area.

    Police (Early Retirement)
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on early retirement from the police force. [57053]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): We want to ensure that the skills and expertise of experienced police officers are retained by forces for as long as is practicable. The level of ill-health early retirement has fallen under the Government, but it is still important to ensure that we resort to it only where necessary. We therefore welcome the fact that the Police Negotiating Board has agreed in principle a fairer and more consistent approach towards early retirement due to ill health.
    Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister join me in congratulating North Yorkshire police, especially the chief constable, on reducing the number of officers applying for early retirement through ill health? Does he agree, however, that a pensions timebomb is ticking? North Yorkshire police cannot be unique in having more retired officers being paid out of the police budget than active operational officers. Earlier this year, the Home

    589
    Secretary promised a statement and proposals on the funding of police pensions. When might we have that statement?
    Mr. Denham: I hope that we shall introduce proposals on pensions, in line with those set out in the White Paper, as soon as possible. One of our aims was to try to ensure that police forces are more insulated from the fluctuating cost of ordinary retirements. However, it would probably be a step in the wrong direction to insulate police forces entirely from the costs of poor management or mismanagement of, for example, ill-health retirement. I welcome any moves to improve the situation in North Yorkshire, but it is a matter of fact that in the last full year—to 2001–58 per cent. of its officers retired due to ill health. That is a very high proportion indeed and one that has inevitably put a pensions cost on the people of North Yorkshire.
    Mr. Graham Allen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many officers approaching retirement age, and indeed many women police officers, are exactly those most suited to community policing and to being bobbies on the beat? Will he therefore consider what has happened recently in the city of Nottingham? On 2 April, a community beat officers system was introduced, yet within seven weeks that decision was reversed. Will my right hon. Friend make some inquiries into why certain chief constables are not living up to the Government's rhetoric?
    Mr. Denham: As my hon. Friend has raised the matter, I shall certainly familiarise myself with the situation in Nottingham, but I have to say that the decision about exactly how to deploy the rising number of police officers is an operational one for chief constables. My hon. Friend is right to say that we want to ensure that, as the number of police officers rises, one of the key roles that they fulfil is to be visible in local communities, identifying and solving problems and tackling and reducing the fear of crime, as well as tackling crime itself.
    Tim Loughton: In the year to the end of March 2002, 82 Sussex police officers retired at the normal retirement age, yet almost as many 77—resigned early, let alone those who retired early through ill health. Why does the Minister think that is?
    Mr. Denham: The level of wastage from the police service in England and Wales has remained remarkably unchanged for a number of years at under 5 per cent. It is true that a small number of forces have shown a much higher rate of early retirement than the vast majority of police forces. That is why officials from our Department are working with those police forces to identify the reasons why and to make sure that everything is done to ensure that their performance on retention is in line with that of the rest of the police service.

    Air Weapons
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What plans he has to review the regulation of air weapons; and if he will make a statement. [57054]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): All aspects of firearms law are kept under continual review. We are determined to tackle the problems caused by the misuse of air weapons and believe that much can be done through the enforcement of existing legislation and public education. At present, we are considering advice from the Firearms Consultative Committee on how that might be taken forward. We shall also examine ways to tackle those who misuse air weapons, as we move forward with measures to combat antisocial behaviour and street crime.
    Mr. Mullin: Scarcely a week goes by in Sunderland without an incident involving an out-of-control youth and an air weapon. May I put it to the Minister that, if the bureaucratic obstacles to some form of licensing are too great, we could at least significantly raise the age limit for using those weapons? Will he think about that, please?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is fully familiar with these issues. He knows that the Select Committee on Home Affairs reported on them not so long ago, and I am aware of the incidents that have been recently reported in his local press. As I have said, my response is not dogmatic; it is about being practical and proportionate to the problem. The issue is kept under review, and if we can find a way to be more effective, I am more than happy to consider it. Yes, of course I shall examine my hon. Friend's proposal, as we examined the Home Affairs Committee's proposals, but we need to be effective and to use resources as effectively as possible, and I ask him to consider the fact that those problems also need to be overcome.
    David Burnside: Could not the Minister learn from the positive experience in Northern Ireland on the registration of air rifles? Air rifles are used by parents to train children in a disciplined, secure and safe way to shoot for sporting purposes. The legislation in Northern Ireland is simple: air rifles' serial numbers and the amount of ammunition bought are listed on firearms certificates. The system is well disciplined and well policed, and it causes no problem to sportsmen and women who want to see greater regulation and secure and safe shooting for young people as they make progress through life.
    Mr. Ainsworth: I will be honest with the hon. Gentleman: I was not aware of the regulatory system as it exists in Northern Ireland. If there are lessons to be learned, we shall be more than happy to consider them. The issue has been debated a great deal, and we all understand that there is a very real problem, but we should consider how best to tackle it without unnecessarily wasting resources, while being as effective as we can in bearing down on the misuse of those weapons.
    Ms Claire Ward: My constituents are becoming increasingly concerned about young people having access to firearms. A 13-year-old boy in my constituency was shot in the face just three weeks ago, and almost lost his sight. We have had at least two exclusions from school of children found carrying these weapons into school. An urgent review is needed. Will my hon. Friend consider what controls and enforcement mechanisms exist to stop local shopkeepers selling these

    591
    weapons to young children, not just to those who are under-age but to those who clearly are not entitled and will not have a sensible use for the weapons?
    Mr. Ainsworth: In response to my hon. Friend and other Members who have raised this issue, I say that I shall consider it again and talk to the police about how we can be as effective as possible in bearing down on the misuse of these weapons. I give that guarantee; I do not dismiss the concern. Clearly, we want to be as effective as we can, and I assure her that I will consider again the issue of age. This is not the first time, however, that these issues have been examined. There are barriers, but we should give constant consideration to whether we can improve in this area, precisely because of the points that she raises about the distressing and dangerous circumstances that arise repeatedly up and down the country.
    Bob Russell: The Minister has just referred to instances up and down the country, and I urge him to follow the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, which have been repeated today. These incidents do not happen only in Sunderland. On Friday, in Colchester, which has a relatively low crime rate and is normally a peaceful town, a 12-year-old boy was attacked in the street, robbed, and shot with an airgun. Will the Minister explain what possible justification there is for teenagers roaming streets in urban neighbourhoods with airguns?
    Mr. Ainsworth: There cannot be a justification for teenagers roaming the streets with airguns. There is no justification, and it is illegal for them to do so. The hon. Gentleman should be aware of that. The main thrust of the Home Affairs Committee report was a desire to introduce a registration scheme. That is not opposed by Ministers, but there are questions about the practicalities, and the police have raised issues about the effective use of resources and the burden that running an effective registration scheme would place on them. I assure the House that those issues can be considered and that they ought to be kept under review. The hon. Gentleman should not pretend to the House or anyone else, however, that the kind of behaviour to which he has just referred is legal in this country, and that action should not and cannot be taken against people who behave in that way.
    Joyce Quin: May I support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and draw the Minister's attention to the case of my constituent, Nicola Diston, who has permanently lost the sight of one eye as a result of being attacked with an air weapon? I urge the Minister to consider the definition of weapons that should come under a licensing scheme. At the moment, many air weapons that are capable of causing permanent damage are outside controls, should not be outside controls, and should be brought under regulation as soon as possible.
    Mr. Ainsworth: I am aware of the case. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has spoken to me, and seeks a meeting with me on this issue. She is not right to say that these weapons are outside controls, but she is absolutely right that they are outside the more stringent controls that are placed on more powerful weapons. We can consider and
    592
    discuss those issues, which have been raised before, and there are problems that we would need to overcome. I am happy to talk to her about how we can be more effective in this area.

    Retail Crime
    Barbara Follett: What representations his Department has received from the British Retail Consortium about tackling crime against retailers. [57055]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): We appreciate the input that the British Retail Consortium makes to tackling retail crime. We have received a number of representations from the consortium in the past year and we are in regular touch with it at both ministerial and official level.
    My hon. Friend does a lot of work for and on behalf of the consortium, so she will know that the Home Office is providing £170 million for closed circuit television initiatives, £50 million for communities against drugs and £15 million in grants to retailers in deprived areas to enhance security. Other measures will inform retailers of how better to protect themselves against crime.
    Barbara Follett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for all the work that he is doing on behalf of retailers. However, given the importance of the reduction of retail crime in Government programmes for social cohesion and urban regeneration, why is the reduction in retail crime not yet one of the official police force performance indicators?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I think that my hon. Friend knows that, after consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities, we cut the number of performance indicators. We would be loth to add to them. I think that she also appreciates that there is a problem of under-reporting of crime in this sector, and that might undermine the value of a performance indicator. However, she is right about the importance of tackling retail crime and about its connection with social exclusion and community cohesion. I assure her that we will continue to work with the consortium to bear down on the problem.
    Mr. Mark Field: My constituency contains the west end of London, one of the largest retail areas in the UK. Retailers to whom I have spoken and Westminster city council have welcomed the idea of working in partnership with the police force so that street wardens ensure that, as far as possible, retail crime is kept to an absolute minimum. Will the Minister be looking to drive that initiative forward not only in the centre of London but in other centres that are important in terms of their retail excellence?
    Mr. Ainsworth: We have found a Conservative in favour of street wardens, and I am quite surprised by that. We are looking at all kinds of issues and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to support those covered by the Police Reform Bill. We are also constantly talking to the British Retail Consortium about specific issues and are keeping them under review to see how we can help.

    593
    However, there is much that retailers can do themselves, so responsibility for bearing down on retail crime does not lie all on the Government's side.

    Neighbourhood Wardens
    Martin Linton: What plans he has to give neighbourhood wardens powers to demand names and addresses and detain suspects. [57056]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): Members of street warden schemes, such as the one being set up in Wandsworth, are already able to be given local authority enforcement powers. Subject to the wish of Parliament, we intend that the Police Reform Bill will enable limited police powers, including the right to require a name and address in respect of certain offences, to be extended to wardens and others who are part of community safety accreditation schemes.
    Martin Linton: May I tell my right hon. Friend how much I welcome the fact that neighbourhood wardens started working in Clapham Junction last month? When I spoke to them on their first day at work, they said that they could certainly do with the additional powers proposed for community safety officers. If neighbourhood wardens catch a fly tipper red-handed and the alleged offender refuses to give a name or gives a false name, there is very little that they can do at the moment. If they witness an arrestable offence, they have to rely on the powers of citizens arrest. Would it not be better for all concerned if neighbourhood wardens had the same powers as community safety officers?
    Mr. Denham: I understand my hon. Friend's point. Although the important power to detain with reasonable
    594
    force that we have proposed for CSOs has currently been removed from the Police Reform Bill by the other place, it is the Government's judgment that that power should be exercised only by someone who is directly an employee of the police service rather than by someone who is an employee of a local authority. If local authorities wish to work in partnership in, for example, London with the Metropolitan police, it is open to them to provide funding for the CSOs who would be directly deployed in their local government area. I believe that the important power to detain with reasonable force should be exercised by and under the auspices of the police service, but I welcome my hon. Friend's positive comments about the impact of street wardens. They perform an important role in its own right.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: There is a further problem concerning the identity of suspects. Last week, in Exeter court, there was a case involving a paedophile who had served a custodial sentence, then, on the expiry of his licence period, changed his name by deed poll and reoffended. That caused huge problems to the police in identifying him as a suspect for the second crime that he committed. Will the Minister ensure that that loophole is closed, so that paedophiles who have served sentences cannot change their names by deed poll?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Lady raises a very important matter. I have not read the details of the case, but it is not immediately obvious why fingerprinting and other evidence would not have identified the individual. It is essential that something as simple as a deed poll change of name should not be used to evade the proper powers of the law or of the police. If the hon. Lady would like to give me the details of the case, I shall look into it as a matter of urgency.

India/Pakistan
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the situation in India and Pakistan.
Intense diplomatic efforts and decisions made in recent days by the Governments of India and Pakistan give grounds for some optimism, and tensions have eased a little. None the less, with 1 million men under arms on either side of the line of control in a high state of readiness, the risks of a conflict remain significant. As both countries are in possession of nuclear weapons, the potential consequences for the region and for the wider world are devastating.
Let me give some brief background, then set out the action that has been taken by Her Majesty's Government, working particularly with the Government of the United States.
The territory of Kashmir has been the subject of dispute since independence in 1947. Three major wars have been fought between India and Pakistan—in 1948 to 1949, 1965 and 1971—and in 1999 there was a particularly bloody battle in Kargil on the Indian side of the line of control. The people of Kashmir have been caught in the middle of that, at a cost of tens of thousands of lives and even more people displaced. There has long been serious concern in the international community about the human rights deficit in Jammu and Kashmir and about the conduct of some elections there.
During the last decade or so, the character of the conflict has changed as a result of the incursion of armed militants across the line of control into India from the Pakistani side. A number of terrorist organisations—including Laskhar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Harakat Mujahideen, each of which I proscribed when I was Home Secretary—have been at the forefront of violent activity in the region. India has long charged that such terrorism has had the covert support of successive Pakistani Governments and, in particular, of the main intelligence agency in Pakistan, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate—ISID. Her Majesty's Government accept that there is a clear link between the ISID and those groups.
Towards the end of last year, India suffered two serious terrorist outrages. On 1 October, more than 40 people died in an assault on the state assembly in Srinagar, the capital of Jammu and Kashmir. On 13 December, the Indian Parliament building in New Delhi was attacked, leaving 14 people dead. In response to intensive diplomatic pressure, including the visit to the region by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, President Musharraf delivered a speech on 12 January in which he pledged:
"No organisation will be allowed to indulge in terrorism in the name of Kashmir".
From early May, when the heavy winter snows began to melt, there was nevertheless an increase in terrorist activity in Jammu and Kashmir and a rise in levels of infiltration across the line of control. That renewed violence included an attack on 14 May on a passenger bus and residential quarters of the Indian army base at Kaluchak, killing 34 people, mainly women and children. A week later, the prominent moderate Kashmiri politician, Abdul Ghani Lone, was assassinated.
596
The dispute between India and Pakistan is at root a bilateral matter which can only be resolved by direct dialogue between the parties. But it is a dispute with potent international implications, both because of the potential scale of any military action, including the possible use of nuclear weapons, and because, post-11 September, new imperatives have been imposed on all member states by United Nations Security Council resolution 1373 to take effective action to counter terrorism.
Since last autumn and particularly since the resurgence of violence in recent weeks, the conflict has been high on the international community's agenda. There has been intensive diplomatic activity from the United States and the United Kingdom Governments, Russia, China, other European Union and G8 countries and, of course, from countries in the region. As part of this co-ordinated diplomatic effort, I visited Pakistan and India on 28 and 29 May. I had discussions in Pakistan with President Musharraf and Foreign Minister Sattar, and in India with Prime Minister Vajpayee, External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh, Home Minister Advani, Defence Minister George Fernandes and the Leader of the Opposition, Sonia Gandhi.
In Islamabad, I underlined to President Musharraf the need for Pakistan to take visible, decisive and verifiable steps to seal the line of control; to stop supplies to militant groups; to help restrain the violent activities of those groups; and to close the militant training camps on Pakistan's side of the line of control.
In my meetings in Delhi with Prime Minster Vajpayee and Jaswant Singh, I stressed that as Pakistan had demonstrated that it was taking the necessary steps to clamp down on terrorism, India should respond positively. A number of possible steps to reduce tension were discussed with both sides. I also underlined to the Indian Government once again the need for them to take steps to improve the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir and to ensure free, fair and inclusive elections in Jammu and Kashmir this autumn.
Before my visit, Commissioner Patten of the EU visited the region and held discussions with both sides. Last week at a regional conference in Almaty, both Russian President Putin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin met separately with President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken at length to both sides, and to Presidents Bush and Putin, about the situation.
Following my trip, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage visited both countries last week. Mr. Armitage was given a categorical undertaking by President Musharraf that sealing the line of control would be "permanent". The Government of India described that as a "step forward'" and said that they would respond "appropriately and positively." Separately, the US and UK Governments have assessed that there appears to have been a significant reduction in incursions across the line of control since towards the end of May.
I am pleased to tell the House that when I spoke this morning to my Indian counterpart, Jaswant Singh, he told me that India was announcing today that restrictions on overflights from Pakistan over India were to be lifted, and that the name of the next Indian high commissioner to Pakistan was being made public. I also understand that the western and eastern Indian fleets are returning to port.

597
We have, therefore, seen both sides take first steps in the right direction, but the position is still precarious. Terrorism is still a threat and the situation will continue for some time to require the engagement of the international community.
Like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Putin, President Bush has made it clear that he intends to remain personally involved. I should like to express my thanks and appreciation to US Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage for their indefatigable work in trying to help to resolve the crisis.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will be visiting India and Pakistan this week. The international efforts against terrorism and the Kashmir crisis will be an important agenda item for the meeting of G8 Foreign Ministers in Whistler, western Canada, which I shall be attending later this week. Fellow EU Foreign Ministers are discussing the matter today.
The present crisis has, of course, had direct consequences for many UK citizens and their families. The UK has up to 3 million citizens who are of south Asian origin. As Secretary of State, I have to balance our wider foreign policy interests with my direct duty of care for all UK citizens in the region and for all British Government staff and their families, whether UK based or locally engaged. In response to specific terrorists threats, I decided on 22 May to reduce the level of staffing at British Government posts in Pakistan. At the same time, our travel advice was amended to advise against all but essential travel to Pakistan. As the House was about to rise, there was no opportunity for me to make a statement. I wrote to all colleagues in this House and the other place to set out the changes that had been made and set out in a separate letter what we are seeking to do on the issue of Kashmir.
As tensions increased between the two countries, I announced during the recess, on 31 May, a drawdown of less essential British staff and their families from all posts in Pakistan and from New Delhi and Mumbai in India, and also issued new travel advice for India. Last Wednesday, 5 June, I announced further strengthening of our travel advice in respect of both countries.
We have been working hard to keep the south Asian communities here properly informed of what we are doing and to understand and respond to their anxieties. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary therefore met representatives of those communities on 29 May to listen to their concerns. As soon as I returned from the sub-continent on 30 May, I held similar meetings, including some with a number of colleagues from this House, to explain what I had been doing in New Delhi and Islamabad.
As every hon. Member knows, our high commissions in New Delhi and Islamabad are among the busiest visa and consular operations in the world. Throughout this difficult period, we have maintained a service in India, albeit at a reduced level. Visa and consular operations in Pakistan had to be temporarily suspended, but I am pleased to tell the House that a limited service resumed last Thursday, 6 June.
Notwithstanding the more hopeful signs, the situation in the region remains dangerous. The problems between India and Pakistan cannot satisfactorily be resolved by military means. That would only lead to more suffering
598
and potentially have devastating consequences for everyone. Working with our international partners, particularly the United States, our diplomatic efforts are there to encourage both sides to take the necessary steps to end terrorism, reduce tensions and enter into effective dialogue. Only then can we hope to break the cycle of crises and secure a permanent peaceful settlement to the issue of Kashmir.
Mr. Richard Spring: In thanking the Foreign Secretary, may I first congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), on his return to the Front Bench, and wish him well in his new role?
This is clearly a period of the greatest anxiety for the people of the sub-continent. However, there are millions of our own fellow British citizens in this country whose family origins lie in the sub-continent, in India, Pakistan and Kashmir itself. This is a time of special concern for them in respect of their friends and loved ones in the region, and our thoughts are very much with them. I hope that the most recent reports saying that there is some easing of tensions will provide some comfort.
Shortly after the events of 11 September, my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary warned that any instability between India and Pakistan was one of the greatest threats that the world might face in future. Sadly, it appears that that warning has now been realised. I welcome the Foreign Secretary's steps to withdraw staff and advise British citizens and those holding dual passports to leave India and Pakistan. What estimate has his Department made of the number of those warned who have taken the Foreign Office advice? What ongoing measures is his Department taking to ensure that British citizens abroad are kept informed of the unfolding situation?
There have been press reports over the weekend saying that the Government are making contingency plans for a considerable number of refugees coming to this country in the event of war. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that; indicate what arrangements are being made and for how many people; and tell us where such refugee camps would be established?
We have heard the threat of clashes and skirmishes and the rhetoric of "no first strike". Surely, the only acceptable language is that of "no war." The lack of a nuclear doctrine was raised before the Foreign Secretary's visit to the region. What progress did he make in establishing such a doctrine between the two countries?
During the cold war, there were direct communications links between the Kremlin and Washington at the highest level. If, as we understand, they do not exist in this case, surely every encouragement should be given to the two countries to establish a hotline without delay. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the risk of nuclear conflagration means that the matter is now no longer purely domestic, or even bilateral, but has been effectively internationalised? As we know from Chernobyl, terrible consequences will be felt well beyond the sub-continent.
Last week, the Secretary of State for Defence did not explicitly rule out UK troops being part of an international force to patrol the disputed line of control, the aim being to reassure India that serious attempts are being made to bring to an end guerrilla infiltration. Is the Foreign

599
Secretary aware of estimates of how many troops would be required to patrol the line effectively? The Indian Government have proposed a joint patrol force only. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Secretary of State for Defence about the possibility of internationalising the force, and has he received any understanding of what British forces might be available, especially given the extent to which our armed forces are already committed abroad? What is the current state of discussions with the Indian and Pakistani Governments about that possibility?
The UK Government were signatories to the United Nations resolutions of 1948 and 1950 which, inter alia, called for Kashmiri opinion to be tested. What is the British Government's present view of that matter?
Those are important issues which the Foreign Secretary needs to clarify. We welcome his involvement in encouraging both sides to take a step back from conflict and his visit to the region, but it is of the utmost significance that the US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has been in the region, followed by Donald Rumsfeld, whose visit took place this week. The US has a crucial role to play. Equally, we welcome President's Putin leadership and involvement, and note the role that the other regional power, China, is playing, given its relationships with Pakistan and India.
Following the terrible events of 11 September, President Musharraf won many admirers by his statesmanlike response to those events and subsequent events in Afghanistan, despite intense domestic pressures and difficulties. Equally, the people of India have every reason to feel affronted by terrorist attacks on their own territory and especially on their own Parliament. For more than 50 years, India has been the world's greatest democracy. It therefore seems tragic that Kashmir, the most beautiful corner of the sub-continent, continues to act as the catalyst for mistrust, conflict and war.
With the apparent easing of tensions, it is to be hoped that high-level diplomatic representation can be re-established quickly in situ in Delhi and Islamabad, leading to a direct dialogue. We shall of course support any genuine attempt to broker a peaceful settlement of the dispute. In their endeavours to achieve that, with our allies and friends, the Government have our full support.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for the support he offers. On a personal level, I am also grateful for his welcome back to the Front Bench to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). Since he, too, is sitting on the Front Bench, I should like to express my appreciation to the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), for the way in which he dealt with his portfolio as a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister.
The hon. Gentleman asked several specific questions, each of which I shall endeavour to answer. I cannot say precisely how many British citizens have returned. We have given clear advice which has been relayed not only in the United Kingdom, where it will have been heard by relatives and friends of those who are in India and
600
Pakistan, but in the media in both India and Pakistan. The advice is also available worldwide on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website. Advice in respect of Pakistan has been issued not once, not twice, but three times, and has been upgraded each time; and advice in respect of India has been issued not once but twice. I think that no potential visitor to India or Pakistan or British citizen in either country can be unaware of the advice that we have given.
The hon. Gentleman asked about contingency plans. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in association with the Home Office and other relevant Departments, maintains contingency plans on evacuation for about 100 countries. Obviously, countries in the sub-continent are among them; the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not go into details, except to say that if and when we judge it appropriate to make those contingency plans active and public, of course the House will be the first to know. At the moment, while we obviously have to prepare for all contingencies, we live in hope that maybe—maybe—the better news over the weekend can be sustained.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there has been a well-developed nuclear doctrine between India and Pakistan. While each side is developing what it describes as a nuclear doctrine, there is nothing like the level of sophistication nor anything like the failsafe measures that were developed by the Warsaw pact and NATO countries during the cold war. One lesson to be drawn from the history of east and west Europe is that as a result of the raising of the bar against the use of nuclear weapons by either side, east and west—the Warsaw pact and NATO—eventually decided to resolve their intense disputes and arguments not by resorting to nuclear weapons but by peaceful means. Who would have thought, even 15 years ago, that Russia would now be effectively part of NATO? That is what we have achieved by peaceful means; we could never have done so by nuclear exchange.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of troops patrolling the line of control. In all our discussions, the main proposition has been for joint patrols of Indian and Pakistani troops. Given the dangers on the line of control, its length and the terrain, that is effectively the only candidate for patrolling that difficult territory. If we were asked to provide military advisers, not infantry to patrol the line of control, of course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence would consider that but, as he has made clear on a number of occasions, no request has been made, still less have any decisions been taken.
The hon. Gentleman's last point was about the status of the United Nations Security Council resolutions passed in 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951. For the benefit of hon. Members, I shall arrange for those to be placed in the Library in a single form. It is worth while right hon. and hon. Members on both sides reading the original texts, because there are myths around them which are not sustained by the texts themselves. Suffice it to say that Pakistan believes that the Security Council resolutions should still be implemented; India says that the Simla agreement of 1972 superseded them. As for the British Government, we think that there is not a huge amount of point in getting involved in a historiographical exercise about which position is correct. We have to deal with the here and now and how we can best resolve the dispute,

601
which is bilateral, but has obvious international implications. It is therefore right that the international community has been engaged in the way that it has.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I tell the Foreign Secretary that neither in his analysis nor in his cautiously optimistic conclusions do I find anything with which to disagree? I commend him too for his sure-footedness in recent weeks in circumstances in which, as his predecessor found out, it is not difficult to become embroiled in controversy. He was right to underline to both Governments, as he did again today, the apocalyptic consequences of a nuclear exchange between them, which would not—indeed, could not—be contained within their own borders. Do not those events underline the pressing urgency to bring both India and Pakistan into the nuclear non-proliferation regime and, in particular, to persuade both of them to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty?
Finally, does the Foreign Secretary understand that in recent weeks the policy of Her Majesty's Government on arms sales has, to put it mildly, seemed to lack coherence? When the crisis began to reach critical levels, why did the Government not announce an immediate suspension of arms sales both to India and to Pakistan, and seek to persuade others to do the same?
Mr. Straw: First, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his welcome for the actions that have been taken. That is much appreciated. On such a sensitive and difficult issue, it is extremely important for any Foreign Secretary to have the support of those on his own side of the Chamber, which I hope may be forthcoming, as well as the support that has been forthcoming from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), the official Opposition spokesman, and from the Liberal Democrats.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the comprehensive test ban treaty. I hope that from this terrible and potentially devastating situation we may be able to get some good. We want to encourage both sides by bilateral dialogue to seek to resolve the long-standing dispute. In the past, there have been discussions that failed in the end, as they did in Agra last year, but came quite close to agreement. We hope that the parties will agree among themselves on the appropriate forum for such bilateral discussion and, in the end, resolution of the issue.
We hope, too, that both parties will consider joining the various international treaties, which in turn have helped to make the signatories much safer from the risks of nuclear war than they were before.
On the issue of arms sales, the then Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) in a detailed written answer of 15 March, set out that we were further restricting the sales of any sort of obvious nuclear material, or dual-use material, that could be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons and delivery systems in respect of both India and Pakistan. There was widespread approbation for that decision.
On the wider issue, the consolidated criteria that have been approved by the House, which are European Union and national criteria, contain sufficient flexibility, in our view, not to require there to be imposed a blanket arms embargo. There is every coherence in these criteria. For that reason, we have resisted such an embargo.
Given the potential conflict, I fully understand those who ask why there is not a blanket arms embargo. I have heard no argument that demonstrates how an embargo by
602
the UK, or even by the European Union, will be different from what is set out in the consolidated criteria, and could help to resolve the crisis. I sense that the way in which we resolve the crisis will be, I hope, the way in which we have been seeking to resolve it, which is by intensive diplomatic measures.
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which sets out a positive and sensible approach. I have genuine concerns because my village, where I was born and educated, is only about 60 miles from the border with Pakistan.
May I ask my right hon. Friend to comment on the recent reports regarding the Kashmir international relief fund and the Regent's Park mosque, which have been collecting funds for Islamic fundamentalists, and reports that President Musharraf is unable to prevent incursions into Kashmir by fundamentalists? What are the prospects of peace between India and Pakistan?
Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's huge knowledge and experience of the area from which he comes, which is so close to the border. If any hon. Member, or anyone else, has evidence that anybody resident or in this country is raising funds for causes that are banned by the Terrorism Act 2000 or by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan police will be pleased to hear from them. Such evidence will be fully investigated.
As for President Musharraf's position, I said in my statement that he set out clearly in his speech of 12 January that no organisation would be allowed to indulge in terrorism in the name of Kashmir. He has taken a series of actions since then to bear down on terrorist organisations, three of which I personally proscribedbanned—when I was Home Secretary. That proscription was endorsed by an overwhelming majority in the House.
Mr. Paul Goodman: Does the Foreign Secretary agree with my constituents of Pakistani and Kashmiri origin that there will be no just and lasting final settlement in Kashmir until the people who are caught in the tragic situation there are allowed to determine their own future, and that that cannot be a matter for India and Pakistan alone?
Mr. Straw: The resolution of this dispute does lie in the hands of Pakistan and India alone. How they resolve it is another matter, and of course we hope that in seeking to resolve it they will take full account of the wishes of the people in Kashmir. One of the reasons why we have sought to encourage the Government of India to ensure that there is a climate in which free and fair elections can take place in Jammu and Kashmir is our wish to ensure the provision of a democratic outlet for people's concerns in those regions.
Mr. Khalid Mahmood: In this conflict, the people who are being used as table tennis balls in a game of power politics are the Kashmiri people. It is time that India and Pakistan stopped using them in that way and messing around with people's lives.
We have lost more than 70,000 people in Kashmir. Others have been lost through acts of terrorism. I condemn all the acts of terrorism, and all the human

603
rights abuses and violations, that have taken place. Unless and until we move to secure international action, we will not resolve the issue. Will the Home Secretary—[interruption]—consider resolving it by means of third-party negotiation, and pressing both Governments to do something?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the compliment, but I assume he was addressing me in my current rather than my previous capacity.
My hon. Friend is right to say that more than 70,000 people have lost their lives in this terrible conflict. Those people were members of all religions—Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the statesmanlike position he has taken in saying that it is the Kashmiri people who have been caught up in the conflict; but because it is a dispute between two sovereign nations, it can only be resolved through direct dialogue between those two sovereign nations.
Obviously the dispute has substantial implications for the international community, which is why we have been taking the action we have been taking. As I have said, however, it is a direct territorial dispute, and it is through direct dialogue that a resolution is possible. If the two nations seek outside intervention or conciliation of any kind, of course the international community will stand ready to offer it; but it must be a decision that they take.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: May I ask a question arising from the Foreign Secretary's helpful statement? What is the Government's policy on the continued existence of terrorist training camps? What will be their approach should President Musharraf not respond positively to urgent representations made to him by the Foreign Secretary for the camps to be closed immediately?
Mr. Straw: United Nations Security Council resolution 1373 imposes clear obligations on all United Nations member states to take action in respect of terrorism in their territories. That plainly includes the operation of training camps in which terrorists are trained. We look to the Government of Pakistan to take effective action in respect of those camps, and we are monitoring the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not speculate on what action may or may not be taken if—and we do not think this will happen—President Musharraf does not follow through the undertakings he has given.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: While I welcome some reduction in the tensions in the area, I think my right hon. Friend will agree that we cannot walk away and ignore the situation again, or we will be brought to the brink of a nuclear war in just a few months' or years' time.
Many of my constituents are Kashmiris. Over the years, I have not heard one of them say anything other than that they want the right to determine their own future, and they want it through the United Nations resolution of 1948. Is it not time we all started to ensure that this goes back to
604
the UN, that the international community remains involved, and that the Kashmiris have the right to a plebiscite?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is correct to say that we cannot walk away and ignore the situation. During the earlier part of this year, there was intense diplomatic activity to try to resolve the immediate crisis over Christmas and the new year. Then crises elsewhere in the world, particularly in the middle east, tended to take over the headlines and to consume the immediate concerns of Foreign Ministries around the world. It is extremely important that the international community stays engaged in this matter.
I understand what my hon. Friend's constituents feel because I have a great many constituents of Kashmiri origin, but we have to deal with the world as it is. To suggest or imply that the dispute can be resolved by an argument about the history is to suggest to the people who have been the victims of all this conflict that it is through the history that a solution lies. May I give a parallel example? If we put the adversaries in Northern Ireland in a room, they will argue until the cows come home about the history. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his predecessor sought to get people to look forward rather than looking back. If there is to be a resolution of the Kashmiri dispute, it can only be by looking forward and by a direct dialogue between those two sovereign nations, India and Pakistan—with international encouragement, of course, but that is what has to happen.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the capacity for direct diplomatic intervention by the United Kingdom is somewhat restricted by the fact that all sides in the conflict allocate to the UK, the ex-colonial power, a certain responsibility for the conflict in which they are engaged? Given that he thinks that the United Nations resolutions are unclear on the question of self-determination for the people of Kashmir, will he give his interpretation of what those UN resolutions mean? In that respect, he might find that the history of this matter is rather more important than he thinks.
Can the Foreign Secretary point the way forward in the current situation? He asks why it might be important not to sell conventional arms to either side in the conflict. May not our arguments for peace carry more moral force if we were not simultaneously selling people weapons of war? Might not that moral force be a factor in increasing the right hon. Gentleman's persuasiveness in these matters? If he does not think that, I fear the moral compass on the basis of which he has acted.
Mr. Straw: Neither in India nor in Pakistan were my hosts impolite enough to mention Britain's less than entirely glorious role in the initiation of this dispute. The hon. Gentleman is right to acknowledge it, but it has not so far affected our capacity to encourage both parties to resolve the matter peacefully.
On the UN Security Council resolutions, I think the best service I can provide the hon. Gentleman and the House is to make those available in the Library of the House, and I shall do so. They extend, particularly one of the key ones, to a great many pages and hundreds if not thousands of words.

605
On the issue of arms sales, I may be wrong but I do not recall approving a single arms control licence in the past two months—neither does my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, so the assumption that the hon. Gentleman makes is inaccurate. Since we have agreed robust national and EU criteria for arms control, it seems that that is the appropriate way in which to run our arms control system, rather than by some ad hoc process. The simple truth is that we have one of the most effective and thorough systems of arms control of any country in the world.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Having visited Jammu and Kashmir on a number of occasions been to both sides of the line of control and seen the festering misery in the refugee camps of Kashmiri Muslims in Azad Kashmir and of Hindu Pandits in Jammu, may I put it to my right hon. Friend that whatever force India is capable of deploying, there is no chance whatever of the dispute being settled until the Kashmiris' problem is settled? There is no more chance of its being solved by leaving it to India and Pakistan alone than there is of the middle east problem being solved by leaving that to Israel and Palestine alone.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm the policy of his predecessor, whereby the United Nations Security Council resolutions would remain valid? Will he also make it clear that until India is ready to negotiate, there is no possibility of its becoming a permanent member of the Security Council?
I further ask my right hon. Friend to take note of what Adya Rajkotia-Luthra, a seven-year-old Hindu girl, reportedly said a few days ago:
"I wish I could go to Vajpayee's house and ask him not to have a nuclear war over Kashmir. I would also tell him to settle Kashmir and stop all talk of war".
Are those not the most sensible and wise words to come out of Delhi for a long time?
Mr. Straw: As I have already said, I accept that the conflict has caused the death and suffering of thousands of Muslims and Hindus, and of thousands of Sikhs as well. My right hon. Friend has a particular criticism of the Government of India, and that is his privilege, but I should point out that there is a great deal to be said on both sides about the history of this conflict. For example, the fact cannot be avoided that over a period of years, successive Governments of Pakistan have, through their Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, encouraged and funded terrorists—otherwise known as freedom fighters—to make incursions across the line of control as outsiders in that dispute, and to engage in mayhem and terrorism. I understand why many people of Kashmiri origin—including some of my own constituents—do not like to acknowledge that reality, but this House must acknowledge it, as the international community does.
As to the Government of India's becoming a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations, that has long been the position of Her Majesty's Government; indeed, it was the position of my predecessor.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I strongly commend the Foreign Secretary's statement, but I should point out that it is only in the most serious situations that a Government
606
should ask their citizens to leave another country. If that is done in any other circumstances, it devalues the product to such an extent that in future dangerous situations, people might not leave the country concerned, and some might even travel to it. Given that we have seen on our television screens expatriates in Delhi and elsewhere suggesting that there is no need to leave, is the right hon. Gentleman totally satisfied that such recommendations are right in respect of all of India? Will he give the House a guarantee that if the situation continues to improve, he will keep his decision under constant review?
Mr. Straw: These decisions have been very difficult. We are caught between trying not to raise the anxiety of people in the region unnecessarily or "devalue"—to use the right hon. Gentleman's description—the currency of advice, and recognising our clear duty of care to British citizens and to our staff. Today's news could have been very different, as could tomorrow's. My judgment was that the changes to travel advice were appropriate and calibrated, and in a sense I am comforted by the fact that similar judgments were made by the American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, by the United Nations Secretary-General in respect of his staff, and by many other Governments around the world. Of course, the last thing that we wish to see is any restriction on travel to Pakistan or India, or—following on from that—any restriction on trade. Trade with India has taken off, and with our active support trade with Pakistan has expanded, following a change in the EU-Pakistan textile agreement that was reached at the beginning of this year.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would keep the matter under review and change the travel advice when we think it safe to do so, and the answer to that question is yes.
Mr. Ben Chapman: I share my right hon. Friend's pleasure at the optimistic signs that are emerging, not least because my daughter is currently in Madras and is seeking to fly home. Needless to say, I make no special plea for my daughter, concerned about her though I am; I know that she will work to find a solution to her own problem. However, her experience of going to the airline with which she is travelling was to find, at the end of last week, that all flights this week were full and waiting lists were closed. If Governments are to issue advice that their citizens should leave a particular country, it follows that matching provision should be made for airline capacity to carry those individual citizens out of that country. What steps are being taken to ensure that seats will be available to those who seek to travel?
Mr. Straw: I know that my hon. Friend is not seeking to make a special plea for his daughter, but such an example is a useful way of illuminating what may be a problem. Our general information is that although there are heavy bookings for flights out of the main airports in India and Pakistan, flights are not fully booked. I hope to follow up the matter that my hon. Friend has raised, and I will let him and the House know the result.
On the wider issue, we have made contingency arrangements to charter a number of flights if we judge that the news is going the wrong way, and we ourselves have to organise an evacuation of British citizens from the sub-continent—but I hope that that does not happen.
Hugh Robertson: Is there any evidence to support the Indian Government's claims

607
that the terrorists have direct links to al-Qaeda? If so, what are the implications of that for our relations with the Pakistani Government, given our position in the war against terrorism?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not go into detail—but I have seen the speculation as well.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend return to the points raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) about the sale of arms to both India and Pakistan? They are both countries with enormous structural problems and tremendous poverty—huge problems that could be resolved with better attention, shall we say, to internal issues. However, the west, and Britain in particular, has been very happy to do enormous arms deals with both countries. There must be an increased danger of war between them the longer these arms sales go on. Will my right hon. Friend impose an arms embargo on both sides and encourage the rest of Europe and the western world to do exactly the same?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to say that those countries have devoted to military expenditure considerable resources that otherwise could have gone to civilian expenditure. That is why we in the international community—including the UK Government, myself not least—have been working so hard to encourage the parties to the dispute to reach their own solution to the dispute. As I said at the end of my statement, the problems between India and Pakistan cannot satisfactorily be resolved by military means. However, I have seen no evidence that a unilateral arms embargo by the UK, or even by the EU, would help to resolve this issue or lead to less defence expenditure by these countries. I simply do not believe that that would happen.
Mr. John Redwood: I compliment the Foreign Secretary on his diplomatic efforts, but will he tell us what applications for arms sales in the last two months, if any, have been blocked by the Government? Could he give guidance to UK companies that are perhaps thinking of trying to sell arms to India or Pakistan as to which licence applications would be blocked in future? We need more information about what the Government will and will not allow.
Mr. Straw: So far as I am aware, no applications have been blocked; they have been subject to processing in the normal way. However, I shall be happy to set the record straight for the right hon. Gentleman and for the House if my recollection is inaccurate.
The criteria were clearly laid out in the consolidated criteria that were put before the House on 26 October 2000 by my right hon. Friend who is now the Minister for Europe. The criteria on which we make decisions, which are the consolidation of national criteria and mainly EU criteria, are clearly set out. They are criteria that the defence industries themselves properly understand. I have had no request from the defence industries for us to provide a gloss on the criteria, as it were. The best way
608
that we can provide certainty is by saying to the defence industries that we will apply these criteria, which are sufficiently flexible to take account, for example, of changes in the level of conflicts and potential conflicts between different parties.
Mr. George Mudie: I am slightly disconcerted by the Foreign Secretary's approach in his statement, which seemed to view the Kashmir problem only in the context of the US war against terrorism. I am also slightly disconcerted by his apparent dismissal of past UN resolutions as historic and not worth arguing about. However, I am totally disconcerted by his view that this 50-year-old dispute can be settled only by the two parties concerned. It is 50 years of such advice from the Foreign Office that has led to the present situation. Is there not a case for the Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the Government, to approach the US Government and the other two regional powers involved to see whether the two parties to the dispute can be brought to the table, so that the issue of Kashmir can be settled? Clearly, after 50 years, it cannot be left to the two parties alone.
Mr. Straw: It is simply not the case that I have approached the issue solely in terms of the fight against terrorism. I have a fair knowledge of the dispute, not least after 25 years of representing people from both India and Pakistan who live in my constituency. I could turn my hon. Friend's argument back on him and suggest that if United Nations resolutions could have solved the matter, it would have been solved more than 50 years ago. I am happy to talk about the UN resolutions, but while Pakistan adopts them. India claims that they were superseded by the Simla agreement between the two countries in 1972. I shall put the terms of that agreement on the table for hon. Members to discuss.
I accept that the dispute is a bilateral one, but—as I said in my statement and have said on many previous occasions—it has serious international implications, both because of the potential consequences if war breaks out and because of wider humanitarian concerns for the benighted people of Kashmir on both sides of the line of control. That is why the Government have been so heavily engaged in seeking to encourage the parties to resolve the dispute by peaceful means. So too, have the US, Russia and China, to which my hon. Friend referred. However, external parties can do all that they can, with the best will in the world—President Putin and President Jiang Zemin both held meetings separately with President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee in Almaty some 10 days ago—but in the end the matter can be resolved only by the two key parties who are arguing about territory. We do not have the international law behind us, or the military might—even with the US, Russia, China and the UK combined—to police an agreement that has not been made by the two parties.
Mr. David Chidgey: The Foreign Secretary has already confirmed that there are contingency plans for British military advisers to be sent to help to seal the line of control if asked to do so. Are there contingency plans, or any extended contingency planning, to provide a helicopter fleet to assist with sealing the line of control? Will we send any other assets to assist, either on our own or with the help of the US?
Mr. Straw: No, although I cannot rule out what might happen in the future. The hon. Gentleman may be

609
referring to reports suggesting that some 300 helicopters might be provided, but the point that I was making to my Pakistani interlocutor was that to do as we have been requested and insert monitors along the line of control would require 300 helicopters and a large contingent of external forces. Such forces are not available, and the British Army does not have 300 spare helicopters—nor has even the US. That was my point.
Patrick Mercer: The Foreign Secretary has already alluded to the number of people in this country who have direct and personal involvement with affairs in India and Pakistan. What interdepartmental talks have there been about deterring and containing any outbreak of violence that might spill over from the sub-continent on to the streets of this country?
Mr. Straw: I understand the burden of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I do not believe that anyone has that idea in mind. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I, along with other colleagues, are well aware of the anxieties and strong passions, some of which have been expressed this afternoon, that are felt on the issue. As I said in my statement, my right hon. Friend deemed it appropriate to hold a meeting with representatives of south Asian groups, including Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, on 29 May. I met a similar group the next day to talk about community relations in this country, along with colleagues from both sides of the House and Lord Filkin, the new Home Office Minister with responsibility for race and community relations. We intend to stay very closely in touch with the communities in this country.
Glenda Jackson: I welcome the relaxation of tension to which my right hon. Friend referred in his statement. However, given the apocalyptic nature of the weapons available to India and Pakistan, despite the answers that he has given this afternoon and that his Department has given in the past, many of my constituents were, and remain, deeply concerned that the Government will not impose an absolute ban on arms sales from this country to that region at a time of such tension. Will my right hon. Friend look at the issue again, as the Government's approach seems to do little or nothing to contribute to what everyone in this country, regardless of nationality or creed, wishes for—that is, that there should be no war in that part of the world?
Mr. Straw: I understand the deep concerns of my hon. Friend's constituents, and I do not dismiss them for a second. However, some of the supplies that I have approved in the past, such as de-mining equipment, have been extremely benign, albeit that they are classified as arms sales. A blanket ban would involve a complete ban on any kind of material at all. I have already said that to the best of my recollection—I will correct this if I am wrong—I have neither seen nor approved any arms control licence in respect of India or Pakistan in the past two months.
The criteria that I mentioned earlier are applied very carefully. Moreover, the decisions that Ministers make are the subject of retrospective scrutiny by the so-called Quadripartite Committee. Although I know that there has been a separate discussion, led by my hon. Friend
610
the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), about strengthening that machinery, ours is among the most thorough parliamentary scrutiny of arms control licences anywhere in the world. When I gave evidence on behalf of the Government before the Quadripartite Committee about five weeks ago I was, quite properly, given a very thorough cross-examination by the right hon. and hon. Members present.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I thank my right hon. Friend not only for the consistent attention that he has given this issue but for meeting many community leaders on his return from the sub-continent, including many of my constituents and those of colleagues throughout the House. We appreciated that.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Abdul Ghani Lone's fatal error was to commit himself exclusively to following the democratic process in the state legislative elections coming up later this year, for which reason he was then, as a leader of the Hurriyat conference—and no friend of the Indian Government—targeted by the ISI and assassinated? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that when Donald Rumsfeld is in both capitals this week, he could do a lot worse than come away with a commitment from the leadership of Pakistan matching that already given by India that there will be no nuclear first use by that country? Such a level of equality in the nuclear relationship would greatly defuse the situation.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is right to draw attention to the great bravery of Mr. Lone and the fact that he—as no friend whatever of the Indian Government—paid for his moderation with his life. There are some extremely unpleasant people operating in Jammu and Kashmir in the name of freedom. This country, too, has had experience of people operating in the name of freedom committing the most outrageous terrorist acts, and we should bear that experience in mind. I should say for the record, however, that I have no evidence about the provenance of the murderers.
On my hon. Friend's last point, we want both sides to say that they simply will not use nuclear weapons to resolve the conflict, and that they will resolve it by other means.
Mr. Peter Luff: I declare an interest as chairman of the parliamentary friends of India. The Foreign Secretary will understand the importance that I attach to strengthening and deepening the historic trade and economic ties between our two nations. I want to reinforce the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) about the impact that unnecessarily severe travel advice could have on economic and trade relations. Does the Foreign Secretary understand that there is concern in India that travel advice may have been issued in order to be even-handed between India and Pakistan rather than on the merits of the case, and will he ensure that the advice is kept under constant review and can be relaxed at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Straw: It is worth repeating that I have every interest in and commitment to encouraging trade and commercial, business and tourist intercourse between the United Kingdom and Pakistan, India and all the other countries of that region. To reassure the hon. Gentleman,

611
I can say that the advice issued in respect of India was not issued in order to appear even-handed. I took quite separate decisions, which I spelled out in a letter to all colleagues—as the House was not sitting—giving reasons for the travel advice and the drawing down of our staff in Pakistan, which was to do with extant terrorist threats there. I held off from issuing travel advice in respect of India until I had been to the region and discussed my experiences, in particular with United States Secretary of State Colin Powell and European Union colleagues. I judged it appropriate, and it was required by my duty of care towards United Kingdom citizens, to issue the advice that I did on 31 May, and then to strengthen it on 5 June.
I promise the hon. Gentleman and the House that we will change the travel advice as soon as it is prudent to do so—back to normality, we hope, but that remains to be seen. Meanwhile, our albeit limited staffs in both India and Pakistan are making every effort to run as near normal a visa service as possible.
Mr. Keith Vaz: I, too, commend my right hon. Friend for his worthy efforts on the matter. He is walking a tightrope in respect not only of what is happening on the sub-continent but of the communities here. He has been assiduous in trying to secure a peaceful settlement. However, let me take him back to his statement about the entry clearance operation. I know that it is to be increased in New Delhi, but I have had complaints over the past few days from constituents who simply cannot make applications. That involves not only visitor visa cases but compassionate cases. I know that my right hon. Friend has an interest, because of the number of his constituents in Blackburn who will be affected. Unless we consider how to tackle the problem now, there will be a backlog of cases. Perhaps we can consider an alternative method by which people can make applications.
Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I understand what he says about the entry clearance operation. I was reluctant to make any changes in the visa processes or to draw down staff until I thought that it was absolutely necessary—but it had to be done. We have arranged a drop-box system in Delhi. As of this morning, I understand that our processing of applications across India as a whole is running at 65 per cent. of the level at June 2001, and 80 per cent. in Delhi. We will do everything that we can to get back to as near normal a level as possible. If my hon. Friend has specific constituency complaints or concerns, I hope that he will draw them to my attention or to that of the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North.
Tony Baldry: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that part of the continuing tragedy is that millions of the poorest of the world's poor live in India and Pakistan, as is evidenced by the fact that India is the largest recipient of bilateral aid from the UK? Does he also agree that every penny spent on armaments and nuclear devices by India and Pakistan could better be spent on primary education and health care in those two
612
countries? What realistic prospect is there that India and Pakistan would actually be willing to try to resolve the difficulties between them bilaterally?
Mr. Straw: India is a huge country and contains about one third of the world's poor, according to figures from the Department for International Development. Per head of population, India and Pakistan are significant recipients of aid from this country and from around the world.
As for the hon. Gentleman's question about realistic prospects, I have given an explanation why the matter has to be resolved by the parties, albeit with encouragement from others—[Interruption.] I am neither an optimist or a pessimist in such situations. We have to work hard for a peaceful solution to be agreed between the parties, and we shall continue to do that. However, it is also crucial that although the issue may fall away from the front pages, it should not fall away from the concerns of the House; it is not least a consequence of the international community's having moved on to something else that the issue blew up into a crisis and then festered without being resolved.
Mr. Peter Pike: I support everything that my right hon. Friend has done to achieve an easing back from the crisis that we face. He will know that I went right up to the line of control just before Easter. May I urge him to ensure, in the short term, that the United Nations has equal access to both sides of the line of control and that its reports on incursions and shelling across the line are made public, so that we have a neutral view of the position? In the long term, although I realise that the issue can be resolved only when Pakistan and India are willing to resolve it, we must take account of what people on both sides in Kashmir want. We must ensure that the problem is kept on the agenda; 54 years is far too long, and the problem must be solved.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to say that 54 years is far too long. As regards the specific issue of the UN monitors, I shall take up the points that he raised and will write to him.
Mr. Mark Francois: In the Foreign Secretary's remarks this afternoon, he appeared to rule out the formal deployment of British military units to Kashmir, but he has posited a scenario in which individual military advisers could be sent. Will he tell the House whether any British military personnel have been given warning orders or otherwise put on notice of possible service in Kashmir?
Mr. Straw: Although, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, I am not directly responsible for military forces—that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence—I am tolerably certain that no warning notices have been given.
Mike Gapes: Earlier today I had a meeting with the leadership of the Ilford mosque that my right hon. Friend visited a few years ago. Concern was expressed to me that nothing that happens in the conflict should be used in any way by extremists of any kind to damage community relations in this country. Given that the period from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs to the Cuban missile crisis was 16 years, how confident can we

613
be that it will not be 16 years from the inception of Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons before those countries realise the need for a hotline and a proper relationship to control and manage the fact that there are two nuclear states in that region?
Mr. Straw: First, I commend the very responsible approach taken by my hon. Friend's constituents as represented by the mosque in Ilford, which I well remember visiting.
Secondly, I cannot give a time line, but with good fortune, one better consequence of the current crisis and the international attention being paid to it may be that both sides understand the need better to develop a sophisticated nuclear doctrine, and above all, the need to improve their back-channel methods of communication so as to avoid a nuclear war starting by accident or misunderstanding.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Point of Order
4.40 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises from a report in The Mail on Sunday yesterday, to which I have drawn your office's attention, by that newspaper's political editor. You will recall that, throughout the last Parliament and at various times during this Parliament, various hon. Members have complained that Government announcements have been made to the media before being made to the House. The political editor of The Mail on Sunday claims to have documentary evidence that that practice dates from a meeting at No. 10 Downing street during the last Parliament, called by the communications director at No. 10, Alastair Campbell, in which he stated:
"We have got to think up new ways of communicating our message and be less tied by parliamentary rules."
That seems to suggest a pattern, and a hand behind that pattern, of flouting parliamentary convention. I should be most grateful to you, as I am sure many other hon. Members would be, if you would endeavour to investigate this matter.
Mr. Speaker: I will not comment on media articles—it is not for me to do so—but I reiterate that I want Ministers to come to the House when any important matter has to be announced, rather than releasing a statement to the press. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Orders of the Day

  National Insurance Contributions Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

  National Insurance Contributions Bill
    Clause 1

      PRIMARY CLASS 1 CONTRIBUTIONS
      4.41 pm
      Dr. Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out—
      'the current upper earnings limit'
      and insert "£100,000".
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out "1 per cent." and insert—
      '10 per cent. on earnings over £100,000'.
      No. 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 30, leave out—
      'the current upper earnings limit'
      and insert "£100,000".
      No. 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 34, leave out "1 per cent." and insert—
      '10 per cent. on earnings over £100,000'.
      Dr. Harris: These amendments were tabled by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), whom I am pleased to see in his place. I had imagined that we might be joined at some point in our proceedings by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who deserves to be congratulated on his new position. Indeed, I hope that he will join us in today's debates.
      It needs to be said at the outset of this debate that the Liberal Democrats welcome the resources for the national health service that will be provided under the Bill. However, we have four very clear concerns. First, the resources have come five years too late. Secondly, in the sense that they were not advertised at the last election, they have been introduced by stealth. Thirdly, we do not believe that the Bill represents the fairest way to act. Fourthly, we believe that significant difficulties will be created for business— in particular, but not only, manufacturing business. These amendments represent an attempt to resolve the last of those problems.
      Significant difficulties will be created for those who run and work in businesses by the Government's decision to use a rise in employers' contributions to fund the health service. For that reason, we propose in the amendments a 10 per cent. national insurance contribution rate above the current upper earnings limit—indeed, above earnings of £100,000 a year. That is as close as we can get, using the vehicle of this Bill, to a selectable amendment that reproduces our policy to fund public services in the fairest possible way and to do so progressively and by avoiding placing extra burdens on business.
      616
      Taken together, these amendments—especially if considered with amendment No. 3, which has not been selected for debate—would provide an alternative approach to funding the health service, instead of raising employers' contributions. There may be disagreements between those on the Treasury Bench and ourselves; they may consider that our proposal would be too fair and too good for business because they want to penalise business. I hope that they will accept, at least, that it is a statement of our position. When we say that we want improvements in the health service, it is right that we are asked how we will pay for them, just as the Government have said how they will pay for them. We have set out the ways in which we shall do so, as I am doing now. In contrast, Conservative Front-Bench Members are on much more difficult ground, as I suspect, for reasons that we may share, that they will express their concerns about the impact on business of the rise in the employers' national insurance contribution. They will have to answer—the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is perhaps eager to address this now—how they would pay for improvements in the health service if they are not going to support some of the measures in the Bill.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I await the explanation of his arguments with eager anticipation, bated breath and beads of sweat on my brow. Given that he has just referred to an amendment whose purpose and effect would be to limit the size of national insurance contributions paid by employers, will he confirm whether an amendment that has been tabled by Liberal Democrats will confine the limit on national insurance contributions by employers to those in Great Britain? The Liberals appear to have neglected to consider the situation in Northern Ireland.
      Dr. Harris: If that is the best that the hon. Gentleman can do on this key issue—I believe that the amendment to which he refers has not even been selected in this group—it shows the weakness of his position. The Chairman of Ways and Means has made his selection, and my intention is to make the general point that the funding of the health service should be progressive. For preference, that should be done without putting extra burdens on business, but, in the end, the health service needs to be funded.
      I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would answer the point that I put to him, and I hope that he will do so. If he opposes some of the resources of this Bill—I share some of the concerns that he may express later about some measures—he must state which parts of the health service he wants to cut, which parts he will not allow to grow, or what other taxes he would increase. That is important. However imperfect the drafting of our amendments, they are a genuine attempt to explore why the Government have chosen to go down this path.
      Our approach to raising the resources that are needed for the health service is progressive. We made it clear in our alternative Budget that we wanted a 50 per cent. rate of income tax for those earning more than £100,000—the very well-off and those best able to afford such a rise—to pay for this vital public service. Clearly, it is not possible to frame amendments to propose such a rise in income tax. As the next best thing—given that the

      617
      Government have sold the pass on the upper earnings limit—we would have liked a much better method than this tax on jobs, which is a much more second-rate option.
      The Government must say why they are opposed to the proposal set out in these amendments. They must have considered it, given that the upper earnings limit is no longer sacrosanct. Given the 1 per cent. increase in the upper earnings limit, the Government have conceded that it is not absolute, regardless of what they failed to say about it before the election. The drawbacks must therefore be addressed. It does not appear that it is unfair, because we would be asking high earners to pay more. It does not appear that it is the sort of tax that can easily be avoided—clearly, that will be an issue in relation to taxing high earners. Given all the evidence that a 50 per cent. rate on incomes over £100,000 is about the going rate worldwide, it is difficult to envisage how people will move their earnings abroad, especially when, in this context, we are talking about a payroll tax that is much more difficult to avoid. In New York, for example, when taken together with local taxes, the tax on salaries equivalent to £100,000 is about equivalent to the rate under our proposal.
      Are the Government concerned that our proposals are not explicit enough? I do not see how one could be more explicit than saying before the election that we wanted to ask the better-off to pay more tax in a fair way for the health service. We restated that proposal in our alternative Budget and we are seeking to make that case in Committee today.
      The Government cannot argue that our proposals are not a transparent way of raising money. The complexities that the Government have already introduced into the national insurance contributions system do not give them strong grounds on which to attack the transparency of our approach.
      There are strong reasons for seeking to make the changes proposed by the amendments. They would raise approximately the same amount of resources as the Government intend to raise from their tax on employers that will result from the Bill's proposals for employers' national insurance contributions. We weighed up whether we would prefer the money to be raised via our approach or from employers' national insurance contributions. Because of the significant drawbacks on business that will result from the tax that the Government propose, we believe that our approach is preferable.
      It is peculiar that the Government should seek to raise so much of the money for the health service from a tax on business. In previous debates such as that on the 1999 measures to deal with pollution, the Government have said that they did not want to tax jobs. They said that that would be bad and that employers' national insurance contributions would be reduced when other taxes on pollution went up. However, the bad tax that the Government have previously opposed is now being used as a vehicle.
      We believe that the top priority is extra money for the health service, but we do not believe that the Government's approach, as set out in the detail of the Bill, is the right one. Raising the employers' contribution will cause problems for employers, manufacturing and the businesses facing difficulties in exporting because of the strong pound. In addition, public service employers, including those within the health service, will lose money as they gain. It is not clear that the Government have taken that point into account.
      618
      It is clear that the amendments would be fairer and would not have such a severe impact on business. Our proposals are transparent and it would not be possible to avoid them. Those are strong reasons for supporting the amendments, and I ask, Sir Michael, that we be allowed to vote on amendment No. 2, which expresses the bulk of what we are trying to say. The Conservatives must also explain where they would get the money from if not from a tax on business.
      Mr. Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why, when the Government's proposal was introduced in the Budget, the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman described the 1 per cent. increase on employees' national insurance contributions as not being a tax? In fact, he asserted that income tax should have been raised by 1 per cent. However, when it comes to employers, the Liberal Democrats describe the increase as a tax. Why is it a tax on employers when it is not a tax on employees?
      Dr. Harris: I regret that the hon. Gentleman was not able to provide me with the direct quotation, but I shall set out again the position of those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. We recognise that national insurance contributions are a form of payroll taxation. Our position is clear in that we believe that income tax is a preferable way of raising money for the health service, and we said that to the electorate at the last election. We were clear about introducing a top rate of 50 per cent. on income of more than £100,000, and that would cover unearned income and wealthy pensioners. The Government's proposal excludes the wealthiest third of pensioners from contributing to the extra money that the health service needs.
      We must now decide how we want the money for the health service to be raised. Five years ago, we would have supported such a measure and we still want money to go into the health service. However, because the Government will put extra burdens on business through the national insurance contributions paid by employers, the amendments reflect our disappointment that the Government did not take the alternative open to them and apply a top rate equivalent to income tax through national insurance contributions on incomes of more than £100,000.
      Mr. Hendrick rose—
      Dr. Harris: I thought that I had answered the hon. Gentleman's question.
      Mr. Hendrick: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Liberal Democrats would much rather that pensioners paid income tax at an extra 1 per cent. than businesses paid 1 per cent. towards the health costs of their employees?
      Dr. Harris: We have been clear that wealthy pensioners who can afford it—
      Matthew Taylor: Rupert Murdoch.
      Dr. Harris: Not only Rupert Murdoch, but other newspaper magnates, should, when they become

      619
      pensioners, contribute to vital public services according to their ability to pay. I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. He is saying that people such as Baroness Thatcher and Rupert Murdoch should not pay for the health service. Given that one of them was partly responsible for reducing it to its present state, that is charitable of him.
      Matthew Taylor: My hon. Friend may want to go a little further and point out that the Labour party's policy is not only that Rupert Murdoch and Baroness Thatcher should not contribute extra tax to the NHS, but that low-paid employees on as little as a few thousand pounds a year should pay extra. So those on very high incomes do not pay extra, but those on very low incomes do. That is an odd policy for the Labour party to pursue.
      Dr. Harris: I direct the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) to page 46 of the Library research paper on the Bill, which shows the curve of the percentage of income paid in national insurance contributions according to gross income. Under the Government's plans, those earning £600 a week will pay 9 per cent. and those on £2,000 will pay around half that. That is no one's definition of progressive. People on around that earnings limit should make a significantly increased contribution to public services.
      Labour Members may be embarrassed that they do not have as progressive a policy as they might and will end up supporting a tax on businesses in their communities in preference to asking the better-off to pay more. That is hard to defend. We have clearly stated our position. A progressive form of taxation through asking the better-off to contribute is far preferable to asking business to do it, as are the Government.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: I say at the outset that we shall oppose the amendments. They position the Liberal Democrats to the left of Labour, and if they want to establish those credentials there are better ways of doing it than by tabling such amendments.
      I am confused about how the amendments fit in with the Liberal Democrats' alternative Budget. When that was published on 8 April, they pledged to increase the rate of income tax by 1 per cent. for all income up to £100,000. As I understand it, the amendments would not increase by 1 per cent. national insurance contributions for employees in the range of earnings between £35,000 and £100,000, but increase to 50 per cent. the burden on employees earning more than £100,000.
      Matthew Taylor: I do not know if the hon. Gentleman did his own research or got someone else to do it, but it was pretty poor. We proposed 1p on the basic rate plus a new 50 per cent. rate—a 10 per cent. increase—on earnings of more than £100,000. Combined with the Government's 1p national insurance rise, the amendment would replicate that, and that is its purpose.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining that. The Paymaster General and I were under the impression that the alternative Budget was expressed in terms that would cause a lot of confusion.
      620
      5 pm
      The idea of imposing a 50 per cent. marginal rate of tax on individuals earning in excess of £100,000 is obscene these days. Political parties on the continent—most recently in France—are campaigning to reduce the burden of taxation. They realise that it directly affects the willingness of individuals to participate in the economy and, in particular, their ability to attract the most able employees. It will be very damaging for our economy if we burden employees with penal tax rates of 50 per cent. for those earning more than £100,000.
      Many anomalies flow from the proposal. For example, if two married people each earn £60,000, they would pay tax at the 40 per cent. rate, but if one of them is at home looking after the children while the other earns £120,000, £20,000 of their earnings would be subject to the 50 per cent. marginal rate of tax. That would not be fair.
      Matthew Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman is questioning the Liberal Democrat position, will he clarify whether he intends to oppose the employers' national insurance rise? If that is the case, and as he does not agree with an alternative way to raise the money, does he accept that the NHS will not get the extra money? Are the Conservatives now opposing extra money for the health service?
      Mr. Chope: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was here for Second Reading when we alone among the Opposition parties firmly declared that the Bill was bad and voted against it, unlike his party which supported it. We are against the Bill. The NHS is already wasting a great deal of money, as the figures suggest. It is worth repeating what I said on Second Reading. Stuart Emslie, a senior civil servant, has said that the NHS in England alone is estimated to be wasting between £7 billion and £10 billion from a budget of £54 billion as a result of, for instance, fraud. We want to see the reforms. The Government continue to say that they will invest more money in the health service and that that will be accompanied by reform, but we have seen no sign of that and yet they still inflict the higher imposts.
      Matthew Taylor: So that we are absolutely clear on this: the Conservatives are against extra money for the health service, reformed or otherwise.
      Mr. Chope: That is a travesty of what I said. The hon. Gentleman might disagree, but people can make their own judgment by reading the Official Report. It is obvious that I did not say what he claims because otherwise he would not have felt the need to intervene again to put words in my mouth. I have given way three times to him and it is clear that he realises that he is on the losing end of the argument.
      I agree with the Liberal Democrats that the burden on employers will damage the economy. I am not prepared to accept, however, that the solution is to impose a high burden of extra taxation on those who earn more than £100,000 a year, which is not so unusual in London and the south-east. It will damage our economy if we send out a signal to the ablest and the best entrepreneurs in the world that we are no longer an entrepreneurial society and wish to penalise people by imposing higher rates of tax. One of the best things achieved by Margaret Thatcher's Government was the reduction of the penal high rates of personal taxation.
      The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): This is already developing into an interesting debate as we watch the fisticuffs between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives about some of the finer points of deciding how funding for the national health service should be raised. In the case of the Conservatives—this is not such a fine point—the argument is about whether that funding should be raised in the first place.
      I say to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that he is wrong on every count, and I should like to explain briefly to him the reasons why. He started by saying that the Liberal Democrats were against the measure because it was imposed by stealth. He also said that it was not good for business, even though the amendments are only about employees, and that it does not raise money in the fairest way. He went on to argue that there was a more progressive approach for raising money for the national health service.
      In this Committee of the whole House, the Government lay before hon. Members a judgment. First, the national health service needs more resources after sustained underinvestment for a long period, and those resources have to be considerable and guaranteed for a period. Secondly, the approach to how that money is raised must be taken on the fairest basis that can be achieved. Thirdly, the Government pinned their decisions on the basis of the Beveridge principle. I have to say to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that his amendments are neither progressive nor fair, which indicates the folly of trying to tinker with a little bit of the system, rather than looking at the whole system and how it is to be managed. Indeed, it could be argued that his amendments would introduce taxation by stealth. What he said that he was seeking to achieve is not what his amendments would deliver.
      First, the amendments would mean that people who earn less than the upper earnings limit would still pay the extra 1 per cent. on all their earnings. Secondly, those whose earnings are between the upper earnings limit and £100,000 a year would pay the extra 1 per cent. only on a part of their income. I assume that a drafting error was made in relation to the amendments' implied reference to people who earn £100,000 a week: I assume that they were intended to refer to people who earn £100,000 a year. I will be generous to the Committee and assume that that was the intention.
      The amendments would also ensure that those who earn £100,000 pay 11 per cent. on their first slice of income up to the upper earnings limit, but nothing at all between the upper earnings limit and £100,000. People would then pay 10 per cent. on £100,000 and more. I do not know what definition of the word "progressive" the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is using, but that is not a progressive system.
      Mr. Bercow: There are very few occasions on which the Paymaster General and I agree, but we do so at least in part today. She is guilty of a characteristic understatement in her critique of the Liberal Democrats, whose amendments are, frankly, hare-brained and madcap in equal measure—and there is nothing unusual about that. I say to the Committee and the hon. Lady that there is one thing of which we are not accusing the Government in relation to the Bill's tax increases, as distinct from a number of their predecessors: we are not suggesting that they are stealth taxes in any sense—far from it.
      622
      The Liberal Democrats are hopelessly behind the times and have got it wrong. These tax increases are brazen, brutal and a triumph of hope over reality.
      Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman has never knowingly understated anything in this House, and he rises to the challenge now.
      I was trying to make the point that when the Opposition advance a principle in debate on the Floor of the House, it is their responsibility to ensure that their amendments would deliver on that principle. Perhaps the amendments have indicated to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon how difficult it is to combine in practice the whole cascade of principles—progressiveness, fairness, certainty and delivery of necessary resources—that he articulates so readily. That is probably one of the many reasons why we are the Government and the Liberal Democrats are not.
      The hon. Gentleman cannot even get his figures right. He went on to say that the amendments set out a much fairer method—that his party is committed to raising the money for the national health service, but in a different way. I have news for him: the amendments would raise less, not more, for the NHS. That is true even before taking into account the fact that, as experience has shown, the tax system has to be sensitive in understanding that people, especially those whose pay is in the higher earnings range, sometimes engage in finding ways not to pay tax. Benefits in kind, whereby people find other ways to have their salary paid, are a classic example.
      Dr. Evan Harris: The Conservative spokesman described a 50 per cent. rate of tax on earnings of more than £100,000 as "obscene". Does the Paymaster General think it is obscene? If so, is that why she opposes it, or is she just frightened of the possibility of avoidance or evasion? This morning we heard that the Government are to clamp down on benefits scroungers—the poorest people who cheat the system. Why are they not equally committed to dealing with the best-off people who cheat the system through evasion?
      Dawn Primarolo: That is a very poor intervention; I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. This is not a sixth-form debating society, but the House of Commons. I have explained patiently and carefully why the Liberal Democrat amendments would not deliver more resources for the health service and why they are not progressive. In fact, they have all the characteristics of stealth, in that the hon. Gentleman claims he is trying to advance one principle but his amendments relate to another. He claims, in his party's name, that what he proposes is fairer.
      Fortunately, I do not have to account for the views of the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I am sure that he is eternally grateful for that. He will advance his party's views. Equally, I can say without fear of contradiction that I have never flinched from advancing the views that I believe to be right, either in the House or anywhere else.
      The principles of the Bill represent the fairest way to build on the Beveridge principles and to guarantee the extra resources that are necessary for the NHS. I look forward to the next group of amendments and to debating the reasons why it is right and proper that employers should make their contribution. I ask my hon. Friends to reject these

      623
      amendments because they are incompetent, they would cut money from the health service, they are unfair and they reveal the Liberals undertaking a stealth tax.
      Matthew Taylor: I shall respond briefly to the key points made in the debate.
      Once again, we have heard the Conservatives advance the argument for not imposing tax increases while they remain unprepared to defend the logical consequence of that argument, which is that they believe the NHS should get less resources than the Government plan. That would mean patients not getting the doctors and nurses they desperately need. In that respect, there is nothing between us and the Government: we both believe that the NHS desperately needs that money. We have been arguing so for many years and we at least explained at the general election that we would raise taxes accordingly as we could see no other way of achieving that end. It is a pity that Labour did not do the same, but we are glad that it has now accepted that argument. People outside the House must understand that the Conservatives are hiding a stealth cut that would deny the NHS the doctors and nurses that it desperately needs to treat patients.
      5.15 pm
      We thank the Minister for her response, but let us be clear about the proposal. First, the contributions are a stealth tax because Labour did not present a case for them at the general election. We regret that, not simply because they should have been debated properly and democratically, but because there is public cynicism about politicians' promises—and that affects all political parties, not just the Labour party. The proposal has simply reinforced people's belief that they cannot trust politicians when it comes to getting votes at the ballot box, as what they do afterwards bears little relation to what they say in their manifesto.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: First, I am not quite sure how one hides a stealth tax. Secondly, the Liberal Democrats have set out plans for tax increases for those earning more than £100,000, and taxation for pensioners. Will "Focus" go through people's letterboxes in the next few weeks saying that the Liberals will put up taxes for those people?
      Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman asked how an increase in national insurance can be hidden. The answer is that one does not tell people about it before the election, which is how the Labour party behaved; that is what was stealthy. Everyone can see that now, but they do not have a chance to vote on it.
      As for whether we would campaign on the tax rises, we did campaign on them at the last general election. We issued leaflets saying that taxes would have to rise and that ordinary taxpayers would have to pay an extra penny on their income tax, which is more than Labour Members did. However, they have effectively replicated our plans in their proposals for national insurance. We also spelled out the need for an extra increase for people on high earnings. Although some people agreed, others attacked
      624
      our proposals, but at least there was a chance for them to do so, which is not what happened with the Labour party's hidden policies.
      Mr. Jones: So, "Focus" will go out in the leafy suburbs of constituencies in the south-east, saying that there will be an increase in income tax for pensioners.
      Matthew Taylor: We told people that before they voted, not after. The hon. Gentleman has no grounds on which to criticise us. Our strategy may have been foolhardy and risky and may even have lost us some votes, but we made sure that people knew where we stood before the election, which is more than the hon. Gentleman's party did.
      The Minister said that our proposal would not raise as much money as the Government's, which is true. We made it clear before tabling our amendments that we would use the income tax route, which is broader based than national insurance and does not suffer from the problem of evasion that she raised. The only reason that the amendments did not include that proposal is that it would not be in order in our debate. To be honest, any Front Bencher will always criticise details of their opponents' proposals, which may even include a drafting error. However, we have made clear the principle of our amendments—there cannot be a Member in the Committee who misunderstands it—and we hope that it will be accepted.
      Mr. Michael Weir: By and large, we are inclined to support the income tax route rather than the national insurance one. However, will the hon. Gentleman comment on the Government's point that there is a gap in the upper earnings limit of £100,000, which would mean that people earning substantial sums, like ourselves, would not pay increased national insurance, which is hardly fair?
      Matthew Taylor: That is not right, because the hon. Gentleman would pay extra national insurance, as would everyone else. However, it is true that we would not extend the limit on national insurance from £40,000 to £100,000. That replicates our policy at the last election and, I think, the Conservative party's policy. We argued for an increase in the basic rate, which is roughly what the national insurance increase, as is, replicates. We argued also for an extra tax rate on those earning more than £100,000.
      Dawn Primarolo: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what his amendments would do. Those who earn £100,000 would pay 11 per cent. on the first slice of their income—that is, up to the upper earnings limit. They would pay nothing on the second slice of their income up to £100,000. They would then pay 10 per cent. on everything above £100,000. A zero rate would be interposed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of what his amendments would do. Perhaps he will explain why that is progressive.
      Matthew Taylor: The hon. Lady will find that that is the present position. The difference is that we are asking people on more than £100,000 to pay more. We believe that at that level people can afford to pay more. If she believes that people can afford to pay more at a lower level than that, she is welcome to argue accordingly.

      625
      That is our view, and it was our view at the general election. We believe that very wealthy people can afford to pay substantially more as a contribution towards the NHS. Crucially, that is a better route than that of imposing an increase in tax on employers.
      We know that manufacturing industry particularly, and other industries in internationally exposed sectors—farming is another good example—are suffering hugely because of the exchange rate. Industries such as car manufacturing are withdrawing from the United Kingdom: Ford cars are no longer produced in the UK; there has been a major closure of a Vauxhall plant; and BMW is pulling out of Rover, for example. These moves will all be made worse by the Government's decision to choose to increase employers' contributions. That is the tax on jobs, the very tax that the Government argued should be cut on the basis of their pollution taxes. They said, "Let's cut the tax on jobs and tax pollution instead." Now they are to increase the tax on jobs as if the previous arguments never existed. It is the Liberal Democrats who are following through on the argument against the tax on jobs.
      Mr. Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman mentioned public cynicism. Does he recall the campaigning leaflet—in fact, it was a guide—that the Liberal Democrats produced a few months ago, which was leaked? On these types of issue, it said, "Be shameless. You don't have the responsibility of administration. You do not have to worry about how things actually work. Agitate; cause trouble." Are not the Liberal Democrats' amendments a classic example of a lack of responsibility?
      Matthew Taylor: Only the Conservatives have been shameless. They say that they want more money for health services, but they always vote against extra spending. The direct result of the policies that the hon. Gentleman supports would be fewer doctors and nurses treating patients. That would mean ever longer waiting lists under the Tories, and we know why—it is because Conservatives do not believe in the NHS. They want to get rid of it.
      No doubt the hon. Gentleman will support amendments introduced by those on the Opposition Front Bench that would subsidise by tax breaks those who take up and can afford private insurance at the expense of investment in the NHS for the great majority.
      Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Matthew Taylor: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman and to debate his point. If the Conservative party is opposed to increases in employers' national insurance but is in favour of extra money for health services, how would it raise the extra money?
      Mr. Bercow: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would follow the logic of the argument and—[Interruption.] It is no good Liberal Democrat Members chuntering from a sedentary position, in evident ignorance of the progression of the amendments to which my hon. Friends and I will shortly be speaking. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the late Harold Macmillan famously and wisely said that the Liberals had some good ideas and some original ideas. He added that unfortunately their good ideas were
      626
      not original and their original ideas were not any good. Today, they have produced ideas that are neither good nor original. They really have surpassed themselves.
      Matthew Taylor: The difference is that the Conservative Front Bench has no answers at all and no ideas. It was, after all, Harold Macmillan who criticised the Conservative party in the 1980s for selling the family silver, and part of that sale was the rundown of investment in the health service to pay for tax cuts. This debate is, in part, about how we can raise money to rectify a decades-long underinvestment that has left patients suffering, and doctors and nurses struggling to cope in under-equipped and worn-out wards.
      The hon. Gentleman must recognise this. It is perfectly legitimate for him to say that he does not want investment in the national health service—that he does not even want the national health service, and would not spend money on it but would cut taxes instead. It is not legitimate for him to argue against a way of funding NHS improvements, while pretending that the Conservatives nevertheless support those improvements. The improvements cannot be made unless the money is found.
      The Conservatives' position is wholly illegitimate. They try to pander to those who want tax cuts—and of course we all want tax cuts if we can get them—without admitting that the cuts will be made at the expense of the national health service. That is the effect of the amendments for which the hon. Gentleman will presumably attempt to argue later, although so far he has presented no arguments, just a bit of bile. That is the stock in trade of the Conservative Front Bench at present, because it has no arguments.
      I hope that the Committee will divide on the principle, but I think we would best do that by voting on amendment No. 2.
      Dr. Evan Harris: I endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor). I said at the outset that we would try to press amendment No. 2 to a Division. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 1.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: No. 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out "1 per cent." and insert—
      '10 per cent. on earnings over £100,000'.—[Dr. Evan Harris.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee proceeded to a Division.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the No Lobby?
      The Committee having divided: Ayes 43, Noes 384.

      Division No. 254]

      [5.27 pm

      AYES

      Baker, Norman

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Barrett, John

      Chidgey, David

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cotter, Brian

      Breed, Colin

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Doughty, Sue

      Burnett, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burstow, Paul

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Gidley, Sandra

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hancock, Mike

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      627

      Harvey, Nick

      Rendel, David

      Heath, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Holmes, Paul

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tyler, Paul

      Lamb, Norman

      Webb, Steve

      Laws, David

      Willis, Phil

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Moore, Michael

      Oaten, Mark

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pugh, Dr John

      Tom Brake and

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Sir Robert Smith.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Clelland, David

      Ainger, Nick

      Clwyd, Ann

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Allen, Graham

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Amess, David

      Coleman, Iain

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Conway, Derek

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Austin, John

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bacon, Richard

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Baird, Vera

      Corston, Jean

      Barker, Gregory

      Cox, Tom

      Barnes, Harry

      Cran, James

      Barron, Kevin

      Cranston, Ross

      Battle, John

      Cruddas, Jon

      Beard, Nigel

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cummings, John

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Benton, Joe

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Bercow, John

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Dalyell, Tam

      Betts, Clive

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blackman, Liz

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Brady, Graham

      Dobbin, Jim

      Brazier, Julian

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Brennan, Kevin

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Doran, Frank

      Dowd, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Drew, David

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Bryant, Chris

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Burden, Richard

      Edwards, Huw

      Burnham, Andy

      Efford, Clive

      Burns, Simon

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Cairns, David

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Cameron, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fallon, Michael

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Casale, Roger

      Fisher, Mark

      Caton, Martin

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Cawsey, Ian

      Flight, Howard

      Challen, Colin

      Flint, Caroline

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Flook, Adrian

      Chope, Christopher

      Flynn, Paul

      Clapham, Michael

      Follett, Barbara

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Foulkes, George

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      628

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Francois, Mark

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Galloway, George

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Gapes, Mike

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lansley, Andrew

      Garnier, Edward

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Leigh, Edward

      Gerrard, Neil

      Levitt, Tom

      Gibb, Nick

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Gilroy, Linda

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lidington, David

      Goodman, Paul

      Linton, Martin

      Gray, James

      Lloyd, Tony

      Grayling, Chris

      Loughton, Tim

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Love, Andrew

      Greenway, John

      Lucas, Ian

      Grieve, Dominic

      Luff, Peter

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Luke, Iain

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Grogan, John

      McCafferty, Chris

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McFall, John

      Hammond, Philip

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hanson, David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hayes, John

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Healey, John

      McKechin, Ann

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hendry, Charles

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Heppell, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hill, Keith

      MacShane, Denis

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hoban, Mark

      McWalter, Tony

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hoey, Kate

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hood, Jimmy

      Malins, Humfrey

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Horam, John

      Mann, John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Maples, John

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Marris, Rob

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Martlew, Eric

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mates, Michael

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Hunter, Andrew

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Hurst, Alan

      Mercer, Patrick

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Miliband, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Miller, Andrew

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Moffatt, Laura

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Mole, Chris

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Jenkins, Brian

      Moran, Margaret

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Mountford, Kali

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Mudie, George

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Joyce, Eric

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Kelly, Ruth

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Kemp, Fraser

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Key, Robert

      O'Neill, Martin

      Khabra, Piara S

      Organ, Diana

      Kidney, David

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Page, Richard

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Pearson, Ian

      629

      Perham, Linda

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pickthall, Colin

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Pike, Peter

      Stringer, Graham

      Plaskitt, James

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pollard, Kerry

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pond, Chris

      Swayne, Desmond

      Pope, Greg

      Swire, Hugo

      Pound, Stephen

      Syms, Robert

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Price, Adam

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Prisk, Mark

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Timms, Stephen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rammell, Bill

      Todd, Mark

      Randall, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Rapson, Syd

      Trickett, Jon

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Truswell, Paul

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Rooney, Terry

      Vaz, Keith

      Ross, Ernie

      Viggers, Peter

      Roy, Frank

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Ruddock, Joan

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ruffley, David

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Ryan, Joan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Salter, Martin

      Waterson, Nigel

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Watkinson, Angela

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Watts, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Weir, Michael

      Selous, Andrew

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Whittingdale, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Simmonds, Mark

      Wiggin, Bill

      Simon, Siôn

      Willetts, David

      Singh, Marsha

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Wills, Michael

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Wilshire, David

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Soley, Clive

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Southworth, Helen

      Wishart, Pete

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Woodward, Shaun

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Woolas, Phil

      Spring, Richard

      Wray, James

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Steen, Anthony

      Wyatt, Derek

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Yeo, Tim

      Stevenson, George

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Angela Smith and

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Jim Fitzpatrick.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Sir Michael. You will be aware that great difficulties were encountered by many hon. Members from both sides of the House in getting into the No Lobby. In fact, many hon. Members who were here in time to vote could not do so because of the numbers voting. Happily, the numbers were great because the Government and Her Majesty's Opposition were voting together, which shows that this House can occasionally work together. This matter should be looked into. The numbers coming in from behind the Speaker's Chair into the Lobby were so great that many Members who would normally have had their names registered as voting will not have
      630
      their names registered. Sadly, they were unable to get in to the Division Lobby in time to vote. Would you look into this matter?
      Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Sir Michael. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has drawn your attention to one problem and I wish to draw it to another. The Division bell did not ring on my corridor and I did not know that the Division was on until I happened to look up at the Annunciator. I am sorry to say—and I confess to the Whips accordingly—that I could not vote, and I would therefore be grateful if you could have the functioning of the bells investigated.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I have heard both points of order. They will be recorded in the Official Report and I am sure that they will both be investigated.
      5.45 pm
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Chope: Clause 1 goes to the heart of the Bill. We are against the Bill and against clause 1 in particular because it will effectively raise the rate of income tax on everybody, even those with very modest incomes. People on just £4,615 a year will have a marginal rate of tax next year of 21 per cent., instead of 20 per cent. The clause is in breach of the Government's promises made before the general election. It will provide more money for the health service but without the reforms that we see as an essential part of any extra funding.
      Dawn Primarolo: Clause 1 provides the changes to the class 1 primary contributions paid by employees and lays out the increase to 11 per cent. up to the upper earnings limit and then the 1 per cent. beyond. The people of Britain have clearly stated that they wish the health service in the UK to be the best in the world. They also recognise that to have the best health service in the world, the resources need to be made available. They have also stated loudly and clearly that they believe that they should pay to ensure that that first-class health service is delivered fairly, based on the Beveridge principles. That funding will ensure that we can correct the underinvestment over which the Conservatives presided in their terms of office. It will ensure that the NHS is available comprehensively and on the basis of need, not ability to pay. I commend clause 1 to the Committee.
      Dr. Evan Harris: I rise briefly to express my astonishment that the Conservatives can oppose a clause standing part without saying what they would put in its place. Clause 1 will provide significant additional funding for health services, and the Conservatives oppose the raising of those resources. However, they are unwilling to state which hospitals they would close, which health service staff they would not employ, which drugs would not be provided or what other taxes they would raise. That is not responsible opposition and it is certainly not effective opposition. Because we need the resources for the health service, the Liberal Democrats will support clause 1 standing part of the Bill.
      John Mann: The Sunday Telegraph, which is known as a reputable newspaper that takes a wonderful

      631
      array of polls—doubtless with extreme accuracy—managed to come up with a figure of 76 per cent. of the public approving of the 1 per cent. increase in national increase contributions to fund the health service. That is certainly mirrored in my postbag.
      I recall challenging the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) to put a question about national insurance contributions on his excellent website, alongside those on immigration and asylum. Indeed, I offered the services of my webmaster to assist with framing such a question. Unfortunately, my kind offer was rebuffed, so we still do not have the definitive view from Aylesbury. However, the view from Bassetlaw, as I know from visiting the Bassetlaw district general hospital and talking to patients and staff, has been unanimous. A cross-section of 60 staff held a unanimous view. Indeed, not one was interested in talking about the 1 per cent. increase coming out of their salary.
      Patients were also unanimous in their view. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health kindly accompanied me on the visit. Every patient whom she and I saw in a visit lasting two and a half hours was asked his or her view, and it was unanimous. I do not expect the unanimity felt in Bassetlaw, which has an excellent hospital and a tradition of good NHS provision, to be mirrored 100 per cent. in every corner of the United Kingdom. However, a figure of 76 per cent. across the country is reasonable.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We first jousted in 1986 and carried on doing so on Lambeth council until 1990. As I told him then, I thought that he was a peculiar individual, and nothing in the intervening 16 years has caused me to revise that opinion. Does he accept that people are likely to be anxious about a tax when they pay it and not before? Does he appreciate that, faced with the prospect of giving modest and gentle assent to his arguments or being embroiled in a lengthy and anorakish exchange in the middle of a hospital, some of his constituents might have decided that it was easier and less painful to ignore him?
      John Mann: The pain is greatly reduced by the fact that we were celebrating the first anniversary of the day care centre at Bassetlaw district general hospital, which, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, is the best facility that she has ever seen anywhere in the national health service.
      The hon. Gentleman refers back to May 1986, when he and I were both elected to Lambeth council. That was just when the Conservative increases in employers' national insurance contributions kicked in. I do not recall him hiding away in horror because of that during our successful campaign to get elected, or, indeed, the electorate raising the issue at all, let alone with any great ferocity. The issue throughout our campaign was the health service and how to fund it.
      Finally, there is obviously a great air of anticipation about the World cup. I commend Radio 5 Live for its superb coverage; I have listened to it at every opportunity when travelling in my constituency over the past two weeks. On 31 May, two hours before the World cup was about to kick off, it took its road show to Ashford in
      632
      Kent, where it had a large screen. It asked French business people why they were doing business in Ashford. One after the other, they stated that France was a high-tax economy in which to do business while Britain was at the moment a low-tax economy, and that that was why they had relocated from France to Britain, under this Government. I rest my case.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 315, Noes 125.

      Division No. 255]

      [5.55 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Coleman, Iain

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Allen, Graham

      Cooper, Yvette

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Corston, Jean

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cotter, Brian

      Austin, John

      Cox, Tom

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cranston, Ross

      Baird, Vera

      Cruddas, Jon

      Baker, Norman

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Banks, Tony

      Cummings, John

      Barnes, Harry

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Barrett, John

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Barron, Kevin

      Dalyell, Tam

      Beard, Nigel

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Benn, Hilary

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Dawson, Hilton

      Benton, Joe

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Betts, Clive

      Dismore, Andrew

      Blackman, Liz

      Dobbin, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Blizzard, Bob

      Doran, Frank

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Doughty, Sue

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dowd, Jim

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Drew, David

      Brake, Tom

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Breed, Colin

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Edwards, Huw

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Efford, Clive

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bryant, Chris

      Fisher, Mark

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burden, Richard

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Burnham, Andy

      Flint, Caroline

      Burstow, Paul

      Flynn, Paul

      Cairns, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Caplin, Ivor

      Galloway, George

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Gapes, Mike

      Casale, Roger

      Gardiner, Barry

      Caton, Martin

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Cawsey, Ian

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Challen, Colin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Chidgey, David

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clapham, Michael

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Goggins, Paul

      Green, Matlhew (Ludlow)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clelland, David

      Grogan, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      633

      Hancock, Mike

      Marris, Rob

      Hanson, David

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Martlew, Eric

      Harvey, Nick

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Healey, John

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Heath, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mole, Chris

      Heppell, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hill, Keith

      Moore, Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Moran, Margaret

      Holmes, Paul

      Mountford, Kali

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mudie, George

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Mullin, Chris

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Oaten, Mark

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hurst, Alan

      O'Neill, Martin

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Organ, Diana

      Illsley, Eric

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Pearson, Ian

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Perham, Linda

      Jamieson, David

      Picking, Anne

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pickthall, Colin

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Pike, Peter

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Pound, Stephen

      Joyce, Eric

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Price, Adam

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Kelly, Ruth

      Purchase, Ken

      Kemp, Fraser

      Purnell, James

      Khabra, Piara S

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Kidney, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rammell, Bill

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Rapson, Syd

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Rendel, David

      Lamb, Norman

      Rooney, Terry

      Lammy, David

      Ross, Ernie

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Roy, Frank

      Laws, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Levitt, Tom

      Ryan, Joan

      Linton, Martin

      Salmond, Alex

      Lloyd, Tony

      Sanders, Adrian

      Love, Andrew

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lucas, Ian

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Luke, Iain

      Sawford, Phil

      McCabe, Stephen

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McCafferty, Chris

      Sheridan, Jim

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Simon, Siôn

      McFall, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Singh, Marsha

      McIsaac, Shona

      Skinner, Dennis

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mallaber, Judy

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

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Soley, Clive

      Mann, John

      Southworth, Helen

      634

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stevenson, George

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Watts, David

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Webb, Steve

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Weir, Michael

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stringer, Graham

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wills, Michael

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Winnick, David

      Timms, Stephen

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wishart, Pete

      Todd, Mark

      Woodward, Shaun

      Trickett, Jon

      Woolas, Phil

      Truswell, Paul

      Wray, James

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Tyler, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Vaz, Keith

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Mr. Nick Ainger.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Hendry, Charles

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Hoban, Mark

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Horam, John

      Bacon, Richard

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Barker, Gregory

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Baron, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bellingham, Henry

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Bercow, John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Key, Robert

      Blunt, Crispin

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Boswell, Tim

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Brady, Graham

      Lansley, Andrew

      Brazier, Julian

      Leigh, Edward

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Burns, Simon

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Burnside, David

      Lidington, David

      Cameron, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Chope, Christopher

      Luff, Peter

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Collins, Tim

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cran, James

      Malins, Humfrey

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Maples, John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Mates, Michael

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Fabricant, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fallon, Michael

      Mercer, Patrick

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Flight, Howard

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Flook, Adrian

      Norman, Archie

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Francois, Mark

      Page, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Paice, James

      Gibb, Nick

      Pickles, Eric

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Prisk, Mark

      Goodman, Paul

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gray, James

      Robathan, Andrew

      Grayling, Chris

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Greenway, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Grieve, Dominic

      Ruffley, David

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hammond, Philip

      Selous, Andrew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hayes, John

      Simmonds, Mark

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      635

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Watkinson, Angela

      Spring, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Steen, Anthony

      Wiggin, Bill

      Swire, Hugo

      Willetts, David

      Syms, Robert

      Wilshire, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Yeo, Tim

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Viggers, Peter

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Walter, Robert

      Mr. John Randall

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 2

      SECONDARY CLASS 1 CONTRIBUTIONS
      Mr. Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 and insert—
      '(2) For the purposes of this Act the secondary percentage is

      (a) 12.8 per cent. the "full percentage", for all employers who do not provide health insurance;

      (b) 11.8 per cent., the "reduced percentage", for employers who do provide health insurance in respect of those employees for whom they provide health insurance.'.

      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 3, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 and insert—
      '(2) For the purposes of this Act the secondary percentage is

      (c) 12.8 per cent., the "full percentage", for all employers who are not themselves subject to Class 4 contributions, as set out in section 3 below;

      (d) 11.8 per cent., the "reduced percentage", for employers who are self employed, meet the conditions of subsection (3) below, and are, themselves subject to Class 4 contributions, as set out in section 3 below.

      (3) The reduced percentage is available to employers that have business turnover less than £1,000,000 per annum.
      (4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, the business turnover of all persons in partnership with the employer is taken in aggregate. The reduced percentage is available only if the aggregate meets the conditions of subsection (3).'.
      No. 12, in page 3, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 and insert—
      '(2) For the purposes of this Act the secondary percentage is

      (a) 11.8 per cent., the "reduced percentage", on the costs of employment, on which Class 1 Secondary National Insurance Contributions are levied, of employees who meet the conditions set out in subsection (3) below;

      (b) 12.8 per cent., the "full percentage", on the employment costs of all other employees.

      (3) For the purposes of this Act, the reduced percentage is payable on the costs of employment of an employee, on whom Class 1 Secondary National Insurance Contributions are levied, where the employee is employed by a service company, which has turnover less than £1,000,000, of which the employee is also the main shareholder. For these purposes, main shareholder means that the employee owns more than 75 per cent. of the ordinary share capital of the service company that employs him.'.
      636
      No. 15, in page 3, line 1, at end insert—
      'except for employers contributions in the public sector which will remain at 11.8 per cent.'.
      No. 8, in page 3, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert—
      '(2) For the purposes of this Act the secondary percentage is

      (a) 12.8 per cent. the "full percentage", for all employers who do not provide health insurance;

      (b) 11.8 per cent., the "reduced percentage", for employers who do provide health insurance in respect of those employees for whom they provide health insurance.'.

      No. 9, in page 3, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert—
      '(2) For the purposes of this Act the secondary percentage is

      (c) 12.8 per cent., the "full percentage", for all employers who are not themselves subject to Class 4 contributions, as set out in section 3 below;

      (d) 11.8 per cent., the "reduced percentage", for employers who are self employed, meet the conditions of subsection (3) below, and are, themselves subject to Class 4 contributions, as set out in section 3 below.

      (3) The reduced percentage is available to employers that have business turnover less than £1,000,000 per annum.
      (4) For purpose of subsection (3) above, the business turnover of all persons in partnership with the employer is taken in aggregate. The reduced percentage is available only if the aggregate meets the conditions of subsection (3).'.
      No. 13, in page 3, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert—
      '(2) For the purposes of this Act the secondary percentage is

      (a) 11.8 per cent., the "reduced percentage", on the costs of employment, on which Class 1 Secondary National Insurance Contributions are levied, of employees who meet the conditions set out in subsection (3) below;

      (b) 12.8 per cent., the "full percentage", on the employment costs of all other employees.

      (3) For the purposes of this Act, the reduced percentage is payable on the costs of employment of an employee, on whom Class 1 Secondary National Insurance Contributions are levied, where the employee is employed by a service company, which has turnover less than £1,000,000, of which the employee is also the main shareholder. For these purposes, main shareholder means that the employee owns more than 75 per cent. of the ordinary share capital of the service company that employs him.'.
      Mr. Bercow: We move speedily on to a group of amendments that may absorb our attention for a little longer than the previous group. The amendments embody several important issues on which I want to focus in some detail.
      John Mann: Excellent.
      Mr. Bercow: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for these debates is as boundless as mine.
      I want to consider together amendments Nos. 6 and 8. The Paymaster General will be aware that the Bill as drafted imposes an increase in national insurance contributions on employers that applies universally.
      The Government have advanced the rationale that the purpose of the measure is to provide the wherewithal to finance improvements in the national health service. The gravamen of our argument on the amendments is that many businesses already provide health insurance for their employees and that it is fair in those circumstances that

      637
      they should be relieved of the additional burden that I, in my understated way, described as "brazen, brutal and a triumph of hope over reality" a few moments ago.
      It appears that the Government have no intention of providing that relief, but it seems—at any rate to Conservative Members—that there is merit in doing so. I would, therefore, like to say something in relation to amendments Nos. 6 and 8 at the outset. They would enable employers who are providing health insurance packages for their employees to be relieved of the 1 per cent. increase in the national insurance contribution. For the avoidance of doubt, if the amendment were accepted—obviously, I am keenly hopeful that the Committee will be persuaded of the merits of the arguments and will vote accordingly—employers who already provide health insurance for their employees will continue to pay what is described in the amendments as "the 'reduced percentage'" in national insurance contribution of 11.8 per cent., whereas those who provide no health insurance—
      John Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bercow: In a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself.
      Employers who provide no such insurance for their employees will be obliged to pay the increase and will therefore pay 12.8 per cent.
      I am eagerly enthusiastic to explain some of the background to, and arguments for, our proposition but I am afraid that I can resist the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) no longer.
      John Mann: Before the hon. Gentleman elucidates further, I have a question on the clarification of definitions. When he talks about employers providing for their employees, does he mean individual employees or the company? In other words, where a company only provides such insurance to a percentage of the work force, how would that affect his proposal?
      Mr. Bercow: I think that the hon. Gentleman means "provides only" rather than "only provides", but we will not quibble unduly about the semantics as the purport of his remarks is reasonably clear. He raises a fair point and my answer, which I shall try to make clear for the benefit of the Committee, is that someone would be eligible as an employer for payment of the reduced percentage as opposed to the increased percentage if, and only if, he or she as an employer were providing health insurance for a substantial majority—probably the majority, if not all—of his or her employees.
      John Mann rose—
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is a hard taskmaster and not easily pleased. I should have thought that my answer was so abundantly clear that only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to see the point, but I give way.
      John Mann: I merely seek slightly more clarification: definition of the word "substantial". The amendment is an attempt to frame legislation, so it is important for the hon. Gentleman to assist our deliberations by giving us a
      638
      definition of "substantial". Will he be precise about the basis on which an employer would pay the lower rates under his proposal?
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is a new Member but he is astute and well informed so I think that he will be aware that when one tables amendments one discusses them with the Clerks, who provide guidance on such matters. The drafting requirements of the Bill, as we have been informed, are such as not to enable us to go into the full details that we would want in due course to pursue. If the hon. Gentleman is putting it to me that, to guarantee efficacy and avoid abuse, we would need some precise definition in practice and some scheme that might require the approval of the Secretary of State, he has a fair point.
      There was a very poorly drafted amendment in the last group, on which it would be cruel to focus for too long, but in respect of which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and his sidekick, the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), observed in cavalier fashion that the fact that they had not provided for its application to Northern Ireland was a piddling point that it was pedantic of me to insist on raising. In this case, I think that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw will accept—
      John Mann rose—
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman might get a third go in due course but he must exercise what patience he can muster. The fact that I have not gone as anorakishly into the detail as his natural earnestness and curiosity demand does not of itself invalidate the purpose of the amendment.
      6.15 pm
      The hon. Gentleman would, I fear, like to take us away from the thrust of the argument, which is this: some employers are helping their employees by providing health insurance packages; under the Government's Bill, those employers—despite their forward-looking and employee-friendly policies—will be obliged to pay the tax hike in respect of care for which they are already privately making provision for most of, or even all, their employees. We are suggesting—
      Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bercow: I am always happy to give way, but the hon. Gentleman must be patient. He is doing considerable damage to the leather of his Bench by the frequency of his springing up and down from it—not something that I have ever done, as he will readily testify.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends and I think that it is unfair that employers should be obliged to pay twice. We can dilate on that matter. Indeed, I have a suspicion that, subject to your patience and restriction Sir Alan, we might be in for something of a dilation on the subject in the period ahead. However, I do not want in any way—
      Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bercow: In a moment. I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall give way to him. I am always intoxicated by his interventions—there is no reason why tonight should be different.

      639
      We must not leave the central argument. Is it fair that employers pay twice, or is it unfair? If hon. Members believe that it is fair that employers should have to pay twice, they will support the party of iniquity and vote with the Government. If they believe that it is unfair—if they have a social conscience and favour a progressive approach—they will support the Conservatives. That is the thrust of the choice that lies before us.
      John Mann rose—
      Mr. Hendrick rose—
      Mr. Bercow: I shall in due course give way again to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw if he is patient, but meanwhile I must give way to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick).
      Mr. Hendrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I hope that I can intoxicate him to a level at which he feels satisfied.
      Given his concern for responsible employers who want to provide private health packages for their employees and his concern that some employers might, as a result of this debate and the subsequent vote, end up having to pay twice, is he in favour of making all employers provide private packages so that no individual in any company in the land is without private health insurance, thereby removing the need for the extra 1 per cent. that the Government are adding?
      Mr. Bercow: No. I applaud the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity. I do not want to get too personal, because I like him very much and enjoy jousting with him, but it is unfair—purely, of course, in the context of the amendments on which we are narrowly focusing—that his efforts have not been rewarded so far. I shall have a private chat with him, but in view of how hard he is trying he is suffering cruel and inhumane treatment by having to sit on the Back Benches and not on the Treasury Bench.
      The hon. Gentleman is ingenious, but the answer is no, we are not advancing the proposition that all employers should have to provide health insurance. We are not arguing for the privatisation of the system. On previous occasions, he has discussed with us precisely what our health proposals will be. It is to his credit that he tries to establish the answer through both the back door and the front door, through punching above our heads and punching below our feet. He goes hither and thither, this way and that but as yet he has been disappointed, because we are not prepared to provide him with the answer that he would find convenient for his purposes.
      However, so that we can be clear and so that it will not be necessary for the hon. Member for Bassetlaw to intervene in a similar way—although he may use different devices in due course—I make the argument explicitly. We are looking at our health care policy. We are doing so with an open mind, in contrast to the closed minds of Labour Members.
      The Government's position is clear—it is not in any sense stealthy—and it is honest. Their position is to say that they have learned nothing over the past five years from the countries of continental Europe which translate
      640
      care more effectively from a word to a deed than they do, and they do not think that they have anything to learn from them in the next five years either.
      Mr. Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman does not enjoy the truth being blurted out, but I am afraid that he will have to suffer the results, at least for a short time.
      The position of Conservative Members is that we can learn a lot from other countries, whose records on cancer care, cardiac surgery, choice among GPs, guaranteed treatment after 28 days, and no national waiting lists, as in Germany, show that they do things better than we do. We want to look open-mindedly and in detail at those countries. We will consider all the different systems, establish what is best practice, discover what is in patients' interests and, as I have said before, make a judgment.
      I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Preston heard me at lunchtime yesterday—it would probably have spoiled his digestion if he had. I do not blame him, hut I made the point yesterday—I have to repeat it now—that the Conservatives will consider what needs to be done in the health service, what reforms are required for the purpose, how much those reforms will cost and in what way they should be financed. When we have gone through that considered and logical process of study, we will produce a conclusion. It will be a detailed, credible, costed and attractive alternative to this Government's persistent and disappointing failures in health policy. In due course, that policy will be unveiled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, and I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) will not be disappointed with the results.
      John Mann rose—
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has had several goes. He favours equity of treatment, so he will expect me to give way first to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart.
      Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman claims that the Government have not learned from the experience of others. May I suggest that they have learned a great deal from the experience of 18 years of Conservative Government, and so have the electorate? That is why a huge investment in the NHS has been planned, in complete contrast to what the Conservative Government did in those 18 years.
      Mr. Bercow: That is a disappointing intervention. I have listened many times during the past 12 months since the hon. Gentleman was elected, and I have been impressed by what I have heard. He is capable of so much better than what he has just delivered, so I am sorry that he delivered it. I say that in relation to the arguments that we shall enunciate for assistance for employers who provide health care insurance for their staff, and I do so conscious of some of the facts in Scotland.
      I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, of all people, would be well informed about the position in Scotland. If he is as well informed as I thought that he

      641
      was and as I know that he should be, he will be aware of the extraordinary combination of facts on health care provision in Scotland. On the one hand, since his party took office in 1997, there has been a 28 per cent. real-terms increase in expenditure on health but on the other, concurrent with that increase in expenditure, there has been an average increase of 25 per cent. in the waiting time for treatment.
      That emphasises the patently true fact that, in health care, it is not simply a matter of increasing spending. Sadly, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) is not in his place today, as he had some difficulty grasping that point when I explained it to him. Manifestly, if expenditure is increased without an accompanying reform, we will not achieve the improvement in performance that we all want. We know in relation to many aspects of health delivery in Scotland that there is more money, but there is not a better performance.
      I have already been in danger of straying from the narrow course of the amendment, which I want to commend to the Committee. That is ultimately my responsibility, but because of my natural generosity of spirit, I wanted to give way to Labour Members to allow them to release their frustrations.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will realise that the more he dilates, the more he attracts interventions. If he were to return more to the detail of the amendment, the Committee would benefit.
      Mr. Bercow: You are always fair, Sir Alan. You are right to castigate me in your gentlemanly fashion, and I shall do exactly as you say. I am very grateful to you for providing me with the protection of the Chair from the needless dilations suggested by right hon. and hon. Members.
      Dr. Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bercow: I shall give way once more, on the explicit understanding that the hon. Gentleman intends to focus his remarks very specifically on the purport and contents of the amendment.
      Dr. Harris: The amendment deserves careful scrutiny because it raises important issues. If the increase in national insurance contributions is used to pay for improvements in the health service or extra resources not only for elective surgery, but for primary and emergency care, and given that most people with private health insurance use their insurance to pay for elective surgical care and a few other things, but generally not for primary or emergency care, is it reasonable to say that they are paying twice for emergency and primary care when, in fact, most of them use the NHS for those services? Should not the hon. Gentleman be talking about—not that I support this—a third relief, not a full relief in this measure?
      Mr. Bercow: The answer is no. [Interruption.] A couple of my hon. Friends generously observe from sedentary positions that the hon. Gentleman alludes to the third way. I am not sure whether it is the third way, the second way, the first way or the fourth way, but it is a characteristically confusing and muddle-headed Liberal Democrat way, which I do not intend to follow. I want
      642
      specifically to deal with the unfairness—possibly even the incongruity—of employers financing packages that their employees will use while being obliged to pay in full the increase that the Government are demanding to provide for the NHS.
      If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with me, he will no doubt have the opportunity to catch your eye, Sir Alan. However, I have a little sheaf of material on such matters through which I should like briefly to canter before proceeding to other amendments. The Committee will be relieved if I resist the temptation to refer to any hon. Member's intervention before those arguments have been reasonably aired.
      We are talking about employers providing private medical insurance. It is important to place this debate in the context of subscriber numbers. The Committee will be very familiar—if it is not, it should be—with "Laing's Healthcare Market Review 2001–2002". [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) rightly observes, I am sure that his constituents speak of little else. He will probably be very familiar with paragraph 3.2 on the demand for private medical insurance and, indeed, some of the subsidiary paragraphs. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that it is the best paragraph. I am not sure about that; it is a copious document that contains many good nuggets, and I would not want to discriminate between them, except inasmuch as time requires me to focus on only a part of the report.
      Paragraph 3.2 states:
      "Demand for PMI, in terms of subscriber numbers, picked up in 2000 with the highest annual growth rate since 1990."
      The significance of that is that, between 1991 and 1999, the growth trend in demand was fairly flat. Subscribers rose by 3.6 per cent. in 2000, following a fall of just under 1 per cent. in 1999. The important point is that the private health insurance market has struggled in relative terms—to some degree, it has struggled absolutely—in relation to individual subscribers.
      We have witnessed strong growth in corporate business since 1997. That is relevant in the context of arguing for a modicum of tax relief in the corporate sector. There has been a substantial increase in the quantity of private medical insurance provided by the corporate sector. For example, since 1990—this has happened over a substantial period—the number of company-paid subscribers has grown by an estimated 23 per cent. A number of factors are commonly cited to explain that trend: the underlying strength of corporate economic performance; high employment and low unemployment; and strategic price discounting.
      Mr. Stephen Pound: And the Labour Government.
      Mr. Bercow: No, I want to focus in particular on the factor of strategic price discounting, which is important and of which the hon. Gentleman will have a full and impressive grasp. The other factors include the increased concentration of marketing and, indeed, changing employers' attitudes to private medical insurance. We are talking about the use of strategic price discounting—in which I am encouraged to hear that the hon. Gentleman

      643
      has a substantial interest—in the context of an increasingly competitive marketplace. That is what we now see. The review observes:
      "Attitudes to PMI from employers may also be slowly changing as more employers are valuing employment benefits in general"—
      of which I know that the hon. Gentleman will approve—
      "and are recognising the potential risks of losing employees for long absences through accident or sickness."
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Francois: My hon. Friend makes the point that growth in private medical insurance has often been because of group schemes, which he is talking about in the context of employers who have participated in such schemes for their employees. It is also interesting that several trade unions, including those that oppose bringing further private capital into the health service, have private medical schemes of which they encourage their members to take advantage. Is that not a curious dilemma from the point of view of some Labour Members?
      Mr. Bercow: As so often over the years, my hon. Friend anticipates me. We have known each other as long as I have known the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. I shall not bore the House excessively on this matter, Sir Alan, as you would not allow me to do so, but I have jousted with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw since we joined Lambeth council together in 1986. It is fair to observe, however, in the context of the important point made by my hon. Friend, that he and I have also been jousting against each other—although we now do so together—since 1986, when we competed for the chairmanship of the Federation of Conservative Students. He was always more quick-witted than me at the time, and he clearly remains so now.
      My hon. Friend alludes to an important point about the use of private health care by trade unions on behalf of their members and employees. I was tempted to focus for a little longer on "Laing's Healthcare Market Review 2001–2002", but the central point will be clear to the House: a substantial number of companies provide private medical insurance for their employees, and there is merit in the argument that, if they are doing that, they should not also be burdened with the tax hike that the Government wish to foist on them. My hon. Friend gently prods me to remember the importance and perhaps even the curious tension and inconsistency on the part of trade unions in relation to this matter. He has effectively fed me a bone, and he would be disappointed if I did not choose to chew on it. We know that trade unionists who are publicly critical of private health care have benefited from health care themselves or led unions that offer forms of private health care insurance. That is the point that he keenly picked up. In the context of the advocacy of relief for employers spending money on these matters, it is notable.
      The Conservative party agrees with the Government that more money needs to be spent on health, but we disagree with their view that the NHS is the only
      644
      mechanism by which to deliver that health care. That is why we have looked around Europe at alternative social insurance schemes.
      John Mann rose—
      Mr. Bercow: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman just yet, Sir Alan, as I have had an instalment from him. It was stimulating, and I should like to store him up. It would be unfair to squander him at this relatively early stage, so if he can be patient I shall return to him in due course.
      We have looked around Europe at alternative social insurance schemes and the work of a range of for-profit, not-for-profit and voluntary health care providers. In that context, it is interesting to focus, as I shall in a moment, on the attitude of trade unions to this important subject.
      Mr. Weir: I was under the impression that most of these schemes also had an employee contribution. Nothing in the amendments affects employees who contribute to these schemes; only employers' contributions are involved. Is that deliberate or an oversight? Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he has gone down this route?
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. As he will be aware, the bulk of the cost of the schemes in question is borne by the employer providing those schemes for the employee. The relief was therefore intended to be targeted on the employer providing the scheme and footing the bulk of the bill. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether it is a fair point and factually correct that the employee bears some costs as well, the answer is yes. Our amendments, however, are focused on assistance in terms of national insurance contribution relief on the employer.
      The Chairman: Order. So is the clause.
      Mr. Bercow: So is the clause, as you rightly observe, Sir Alan. I must therefore not digress, despite the temptations of the hon. Gentleman, who I know will have read the clause in detail. He is probably able to recite it word for word, unscripted, for the benefit of the House.
      It is important to be specific, and I am keen to be so, if only hon. Members will allow me that opportunity, Sir Alan. Unison, for example, promotes its own health care scheme entitled Medicash. That does not win any prizes for originality but it does help members buy treatment outside the national health service. Specifically—this is interesting from the apotheosis of egalitarianism as represented by Unison—the Medicash scheme offers no fewer than three levels of cover: bronze, silver and gold. Members are offered a broad range of services and everything apart from overnight stays in hospitals can be bought from the private sector. Unison claims that Medicash—it is important to represent it fairly—
      The Chairman: Order. I am not at all clear that it is important that we should discuss in detail trade union arrangements. That seems to be outwith the scope of the amendment that the hon. Gentleman seeks to explain to the House.
      Mr. Bercow: I am always grateful to be guided by you, Sir Alan. If I am not entitled to develop the argument in

      645
      detail in relation to the arrangements of particular unions, I shall refrain from doing so. I was enjoying developing the point, but I shall desist.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bercow: Not for the moment. Suffice it to say that if a union is providing such a valuable benefit for employees, notwithstanding what it might say in excoriation of private health insurance and denunciations of those who support it, it seems fair that that union should be aware that it would benefit from the relief that the Conservative amendments would provide. I can summarise the point neatly, I hope, by saying that supporters in practice—whether or not in principle—in the trade union movement, as employers, of the provision of private health insurance, as represented by Unison and others, can rest assured that the Conservative Opposition see the merit of what they are doing for their employees. We would want, courtesy of these amendments, to provide relief from the damage and pain that the Labour Government's policy would inflict on them.
      John Mann rose—
      Mr. Kevan Jones rose—
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Bassetlaw has been very greedy, and I can indulge his greedy instincts not a moment longer. I shall give way, however, to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones).
      Mr. Kevan Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I shall contact the general secretary of Unison about the hon. Gentleman's advocacy of that great union. Do not the schemes of Unison and many other trade unions cover dental care and other aspects of health care that are not necessarily covered by the NHS? As for what Unison and other trade unions such as mine—the GMB—advocate, the difference is that they do not favour a system whereby those in work pay through a national insurance contribution but if they fall out of work, they fall out of the system. They support a system in which delivery of health care is free at the point of need. Is the Conservative party now saying that it is against health care that is free at the point of need?
      The Chairman: Order. I listened to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), but I feared that he would tempt the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) away from the straight and narrow. He did so, and I hope that the temptation will be resisted.
      Mr. Bercow: I am obliged to you, Sir Alan. As you know, there is no more partisan enthusiast for straightness and narrowness than I, especially when the gentle tickle of the rod of the Chair is felt on my back. I am very grateful to you, Sir Alan, and I will not misbehave a moment longer, despite the cheeky temptations of the hon. Member for North Durham.
      I will now move at a modest pace to amendments Nos. 7 and 9, and I know that you, Sir Alan, will be excited, not to say delighted, at the prospect. Intellectually, these amendments can be grouped together.
      646
      The arguments for amendments Nos. 6 and 8 are clear. The attempt has been made, with a good deal of wriggling and scraping of the bottom of barrels, to defend the unions, but we see the merits of the arguments in favour of those amendments even if Labour Members do not.
      I wish to turn the Committee's attention to the Conservative party's desire—it is certainly not the desire of the Liberal Democrats—to support the self-employed. Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are designed to do that by relieving the self-employed of the burden of the Bill's provisions that will increase costs. Specifically, we propose in amendment No. 7—amendment No. 9 is similar—that employers, when facing the secondary percentage, should pay the full percentage if they are not themselves subject to class 4 contributions. We specify that the 11.8 per cent.—the reduced percentage for employers who are self-employed—should be provided, and the proposed subsections (3) and (4) in amendment No. 7 make it clear that the reduced percentage that we are proposing would be available to employers who have a business turnover of less than £1 million per annum.
      Labour and Conservative Members will realise that the proposal would cover a great many businesses with relatively modest turnover which will be hit if the Government get their way but to whose rescue the Conservative party is trying to come. The amendment would be of particular benefit to a number of unincorporated businesses, because it would offer the reduced rate of employers' national insurance contributions to employers who are themselves self-employed and hence subject to an increase in their class 4 NICs as well as in their employers' NICs. Subsections (3) and (4) in the amendment would target the relief at small, unincorporated businesses as an incentive to their continuing to employ people.
      The case for our proposals is powerful and we have received considerable support from outside organisations that are shocked and infuriated by the provisions in the Bill and by much of the content of the Chancellor's Budget. When a small, unincorporated business has employees, the self-employed business person will be hit twice. It is interesting for my hon. Friends to note that, as I make the point that that self-employed business person will be hit twice, the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury—whom I warmly complimented on his justified and long overdue promotion—has slunk out of the Chamber. Well might he slink, because he is an extremely talented defender of his case—and no more obviously so than when the case that he has to defend is an extremely poor one. The track record speaks for itself, and I am not surprised that he has preferred other attractions to attending a debate that describes the damaging policies that it will now be his doubtful privilege to defend.
      We are talking about self-employed business people hit twice by the NIC increases proposed by the Chancellor—first, on the costs of employing staff and, secondly, on their own income. As is perfectly proper in parliamentary debates, Labour Members very often cite cases from their constituencies to support their arguments. For example, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw—I must be careful not to provoke him unduly for fear of the consequences in terms of further dilations from him—will refer to people in his constituency who think that everything is absolutely magnificent. That will leave the rest of us to wonder what is in the water in Bassetlaw.

      647
      6.45 pm
      I think that it is right to deal with practicalities and to consider the specifics and details. An unincorporated business person who employs two staff each with an annual salary of £15,000 and whose own income after expenses is £17,500 will be personally £262 a year worse off because of the changes to national insurance contributions and other tax imposts contained separately in the Budget measures.
      John Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman must restrain himself, then I will give way.
      I compare the figures that I have just cited with those for an employee who earns £17,500 a year and who will be £158 a year worse off, or a self-employed person with no employees and an income of £17,500 who will be £100 worse off in 2002–04. I am itching to return to the thrust of my argument, but the House wants to hear the hon. Member for Bassetlaw.
      John Mann: I refer to the figures in the hon. Gentleman's first example, and ask him what the costs would be should that employer choose to go forward with private health insurance. Should the hon. Gentleman not have those figures to hand? Would it not be right to suggest that, according to BUPA's statistics, the minimum cost would be about £800 a year? That would be four times more than the employer will pay in national insurance contributions.
      Mr. Bercow: If I can put it in the vernacular, I fear that the hon. Gentleman is spouting off the top of his head, with modest regard, if any, for the accuracy of what he described.
      John Mann rose—
      Mr. Bercow: No, I will not give way, and I make that clear beyond doubt. I always enjoying the inquisition of the hon. Gentleman, but focusing on the specific costs of a scheme that has not yet been introduced and for which approval from the Secretary of State has not yet been sought let alone provided is a trifle illusory on the hon. Gentleman's part. Depending on one's preference, the extremely detailed interest that he takes in the subject is either a tribute to his parliamentarianism or a commentary on what a sad anorak he is. I do not know the answer to that, but the Committee will form its view on the dilemma that I have just unveiled.
      John Mann rose—
      Mr. Bercow: I admire the hon. Gentleman's diligence and I am impressed by the exercise that he is giving to his knee muscles, but I wish to make progress. There are other amendments to consider and other right hon. and hon. Members might wish to speak if any time is left. Massively though I enjoy my periodic skirmishes with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, we should not be so self-indulgent as to imagine that the House of Commons consists of the hon. Members for Bassetlaw and for Buckingham alone. The hon. Gentleman must not forget constituencies beginning with the letter A—or indeed those beginning with the letters C to Z.
      648
      The Government's proposal is clearly a tax on jobs and an attack on the most vulnerable members of the business community. My hon. Friends and I have focused much in recent times on our championship of the vulnerable. The crusading theme of the leadership of the Conservative party by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is the absolute determination that a one nation Tory party should identify with, and champion the cause of, the vulnerable, the oppressed, the downtrodden and those who have been consistently let down and betrayed by the Government—who have been treated with indifference, disdain and contempt by a Government who fondly imagine that everyone in business and employing others is somehow wealthy and undeserving of the concern of a modern Government.
      Our position is this. We are arguing for the relief for unincorporated businesses proposed in amendments Nos. 7 and 9 because 3 million self-employed business people have average incomes that are significantly lower than the average salaries of employees, yet the Bill effectively forces them to pay the NICs increase twice. We are trying to offer some relief and succour to the self-employed by exempting small unincorporated businesses—defined in the amendments as those with a business turnover of less than £1 million—from the increase in employers' NICs. That would help the self-employed—market traders, household decorators, builders, retailers and a plethora of others—to employ more staff, to keep the staff that they have, and to stay afloat despite the competitive pressures and Government imposts that rain down upon them. My hon. Friends and I are concerned about those people because we know what tough times they face and how difficult the climate is.
      I remind Labour Members that our arguments enjoy the support of an organisation that toils effectively and creditably on behalf of the self-employed—the Federation of Small Businesses—and refer them to the comments of John Walker, its policy chairman, about the increased national insurance contributions that are expected from the self-employed.
      Mr. Pound: The policy chairman?
      Mr. Bercow: Yes, the hon. Gentleman will find that that is accurate. I know that—I would have a problem with my short-term memory if I did not—because I met the good Mr. Walker this morning. He explained to me, eloquently and in detail, the damaging effects of the Government's policy and the helpfulness of the amendments in offering relief to benighted businesses the length and breadth of the land.
      Mr. Walker said:
      "It is a tragedy that the Chancellor has decided that the self employed will also pay higher National Insurance Contributions. The average income from self employment is just £13,890 compared to an average income from employment of £21,842 per annum. This undermines any attempts the Chancellor has made to help the low paid."
      If Labour Members do not see that as a faithful reflection of the legitimate worry of a representative of business who is concerned not with politics, but with the impact of policy on businesses and their staff, I do not know what

      649
      will cause to be opened minds that are closed. I hope that the hon. Member for Preston is about to show me that his mind has opened.
      Mr. Hendrick: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to give way to me again. Does he agree that the figure of around £13,000 that he quoted is most likely to be the amount that many self-employed people are advised to pay themselves by accountants who look after their best interests, especially as regards income tax?
      Mr. Bercow: That is an interesting intervention, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to develop the point further. It is probably relevant, but it does not have a great impact on the thrust of the amendments.
      This morning, I visited a business that would benefit from the amendments—the appropriately named Buckingham Coffee Lounge. It is appropriately named not only because it is near to Buckingham gate—it is situated at 19–21 Palace street, SW1, a short canter from the Palace of Westminster—but because I visited it as the interested Member of Parliament for Buckingham as well as in my capacity as a Treasury spokesman. I met Mr. Jose Pose-Silva, who is a member of the Federation of Small Businesses. He explained that the impact of the Government's NIC increase on an unincorporated business such as his will be to raise costs by about £500 a year. He faces paying £500 a year extra unless the Government are prepared to provide some relief. That is a regrettable state of affairs, and I should like it to be changed.
      Mr. Mark Field: My hon. Friend may be feeling some trepidation about having visited a business in my constituency without my consent. I hope that he took advantage of all that the Buckingham Coffee Lounge could give him not only in economic matters but in relation to its no doubt excellent products.
      Is not the real concern that the measure will force many businesses that are happy to remain small and flexible as unincorporated businesses to incorporate in order to avoid such punitive taxes? Does not that go against the alleged highbrow pro-enterprise instincts of the Government? Under the current arrangements, companies can choose to avoid national insurance contributions by paying in the form of dividends instead of salaries. This is an absurd measure that will bring in no additional revenue to the Treasury.
      Mr. Bercow: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for providing that welcome and timely in-flight refuelling. I hope that he accepts my personal apology for having failed to inform him of my intended visit in advance, in accordance with parliamentary convention. I am grovelling to him, and I hope that he will excuse me.
      As always, my hon. Friend makes a compelling point. The Buckingham Coffee Lounge is a small unincorporated business that is struggling to make its way, providing a decent service and trying to prosper. As such, it should be helped, not hindered, by Government. The best way to do so is to provide it with better tax treatment than it presently enjoys. Labour Members should go to the Buckingham Coffee Lounge. It provides an excellent service, and the gentleman who runs it would benefit from
      650
      our policies and suffer from theirs. If they do not want to support policies that would help it, they should at least have the decency to patronise it.
      Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are designed to help personal service companies. Hon. Members will be familiar with the lengthy and detailed debates about IR35 that we enjoyed—if enjoyed be the word—during the previous Parliament.
      Mr. Pound: Oh God!
      Mr. Bercow: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman's reaction to my reference to IR35 is to say, in an extremely distasteful and impolite fashion, "Oh God!" because these matters are of the gravest concern to many thousands of small independent contractors who have been hammered by this Administration. There may not be many such businesses in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but if that is his attitude to them, I can only say that I have a more accommodating and respectful attitude to the businesses of Buckingham than he has to those of Ealing, North.
      Mr. Pound: I was not speaking from any blasphemous origins, but merely out of deep regret and sadness. I was calling on the deity to intervene and redirect the hon. and bumptious Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) back to the subject under discussion because his tour d'horizon of every health care provider in Europe and every coffee house in Westminster is exhausting the legendary patience of hon. Members.
      7 pm
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman must speak for himself. I happen to think that the impact of increased national insurance contributions is important and will be damaging. I am concerned that people who provide health care packages for their employees, people whose businesses are unincorporated and, indeed, people who are involved in personal service companies should be offered a ray of light at the end of the tunnel. The fact that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to compound and exacerbate the depredations that they have suffered from five years of a Labour Government, with further imposts contained in the Bill, does not surprise or impress me. Like my hon. Friends, I want to ease the plight of vulnerable businesses that create the wealth that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have an insatiable and legendary appetite to spend. I want those companies to have some hope.
      We are not proposing to remove IR35. That would not be within the scope of the Bill and would not be permitted. The Professional Contractors Group is principally and legitimately concerned with that agenda. However, we are proposing to provide relief on the increase in national insurance contributions to benefit personal service companies. That is sensible. The amendments would exempt individuals who are involved in personal service companies from the increase in employers' NICs. They would still pay increased NICs as employees, but would not be penalised twice. That is fair, decent, right, proper and, if we persuade Labour Members to support us in the Lobby, will be effective.
      Let us be clear about what will happen to personal service companies if they are not given the relief that we advocate: they will face big increases in costs. The cost

      651
      of the Budget changes to a personal service company with an annual income of £100,000 will be £1,865. That is a big deal. It is an important subject and should not exhaust the self-proclaimed legendary patience of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) or any other hon. Member. That is what we are here to debate. I look forward to hearing his well-informed, erudite and scintillating contribution.
      Our amendments are good. We intend to press them to a vote. We look forward to hearing whether anyone from another political party supports them. I commend them to the Committee.
      John Mann: Having failed to intervene as many times as I wanted, I have several points to make. The blusterer from Buckingham masked the vagueness of his proposal while he meandered through alternative models of health care provision in Europe. We all know, however, that Germany takes a slightly higher percentage of gross domestic product in taxation than we do, and that in France it is 8 per cent. higher. The low taxation regime in this country and the reduction in the take from taxation contrasts with those western European models and, indeed, with the model when the Conservative party was in power from 1979 to 1997, when the percentage take increased by one third.
      The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) described me as an anorak—and it strikes me that anorak manufacturing might be a good small business for him to go into. While he was a special adviser—which I am sure has a lot to do with small business—some of us were taking risks in the business community, so we can speak with a modicum of knowledge. Ironically, and unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, the first example that he gave—a three-person company—was precisely the type of company with which I was involved. Mine had similar salary levels and was set up in a similar way.
      Had the hon. Gentleman bothered to listen to previous contributions or to read Hansard assiduously, he would know that the BUPA example that I used relates to a quote for the minimum cost that that organisation gave me three or four weeks ago. On average, private health insurance would impose on business a burden five times greater than the increase imposed by the change in national insurance contributions. The argument that the increase in national insurance contributions is a burden on business whereas private health care insurance would not be, is a fallacy that needs exposing. That is the American model rather than the continental model.
      The hon. Gentleman used the words "pay twice". I was unable to intervene to demonstrate conclusively that the proposal is so vague that it is a case not of paying twice, but of paying somewhere between one and two times. I may be a new and inexperienced Member, but I know that the amendments that he has tabled to this important Bill are vague. They give no idea of what the payment will be, and we cannot judge what their impact on employers would be.
      The hon. Gentleman compared his proposal with Liberal Democrat policies, but that raises the question: who are the official Opposition, with the Short money to do the necessary research? His flabby explanations show the paucity of his argument—and the vagueness goes even further.
      652
      When he was talking about the definition of health insurance the hon. Gentleman referred to trade unions, but he failed to explain that with most trade union health assurance policies the member pays a small amount to receive income when he is incapacitated, and in particular, when he is in hospital. Trade union policies are not about paying for private health care, but about getting payments into people's pockets when their wages are not being paid in full, or at all, by the employer.
      Mr. Tom Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) failed to mention that, in contrast to the spirit expressed in his amendments, even trade unions that offer private insurance do not come cap in hand to the Government for tax relief?
      John Mann: Indeed, I accept that point. However, the key issue is that the health assurance whereby individuals pay a premium to get income into their pockets when they are ill has nothing to do with private health insurance. The flabbiness of the definition—by the hon. Gentleman's own admission, it incorporates all the trade union schemes—leads to this question: what is the minimum level of private health insurance that would qualify?
      As we all know, there is a wide range of types of health insurance. There are some whereby health care is paid for, with various exceptions. I was reading about an example of insurance under which one third of the cost is paid, and this morning I challenged a GP in my constituency who had a leaflet about that sort of insurance in his surgery. Not all the cost is paid, and the insurance is a halfway house—or we might call it a "third way" house. It, too, would qualify. Even worse, there are policies such as the trade union assurance schemes, under which nothing is paid. The service is provided by the national health service, but the tiny amount that somebody could have in their pocket when they were incapacitated in hospital would also qualify. It seems to me that there is a potential for scam in the system.
      How do we define the percentage of employers who are involved? While the hon. Gentleman was a special adviser, I found in my dealings with employers, and in industrial relations, that the vast majority of schemes were for a section of the work force, not for everyone. Indeed, it was very rare for all the work force to be covered, although the senior management were usually covered. Sometimes, as quickly happened after privatisation of the utilities, the senior management and some of the middle management were given private health insurance as a so-called perk. The question of what qualifies cannot, therefore, be dismissed by saying, "This is like the Liberal Democrats ignoring Northern Ireland, and we can get away with it because the good ladies and gentlemen from the Clerk's Department have allowed it." This should be about policy making.
      Mr. Hendrick: My hon. Friend is making an important point, which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) seemed to sidestep when I intervened. If the Opposition were keen for employers to take up private health insurance for all employees, and wanted all the firms in Britain to take it up, I could see some justification for the proposed exemption from the extra 1 per cent. charge. However, the hon. Gentleman is not saying that. He is saying that just because some employers look after

      653
      some employees, it is a good idea for the Government not to ask them to make any further contributions in respect of other employees, and to encourage other companies to do the same. Does my hon. Friend not think that that is a dishonourable position?
      John Mann: I think that it is a muddled and confused hedge of a position. It is an attempt to give some spin to the outside world, the business community and the financial pages of certain newspapers, but the substance is missing.
      Mr. Bercow: I assure the hon. Gentleman that our position is not muddled, but his is assuredly disingenuous. Will he not honestly admit that he opposes any reduction in the national insurance burden borne by employers in respect of their employees if they choose to provide private health insurance? Can he not get his mind around the notion that, in respect of employees for whom an employer provides private health insurance, a respectable argument for a reduction in the NIC burden can be, and has been, advanced?
      7.15 pm
      John Mann: Like the president of the Bassetlaw chamber of commerce, I should say that I am no longer an active director or participant in my company. I am merely a shareholder, so the so-called burden on business has only one direct impact on me: a potential minimal reduction in dividends year on year. As someone who has been prepared to take forward the entrepreneurial challenge of creating 1.5 million new jobs since Labour came to power in 1997, I have no problem with helping business. From a business point of view, however, the option of private health insurance is not financially prudent. As a shareholder, rather than an active participant or director, I will press my directors never to have the poor business acumen to throw money away precisely when this Government are building up the national health service, which is growing in exactly the way that any good business would wish it to grow—so as to give us a work force who are protected in sickness and a community and future work force who are healthier overall. That is exactly the politics of this debate.
      I shall finish on the precise point about national insurance contributions with which the amendment deals. It is woolly and weak. It panders to posturing politics instead of providing an alternative. I think that it is disgraceful, as was the hon. Gentleman's contribution, because it failed to address any of the specifics. The difference between paying one or two times is a grey area, where we can pick and choose in any way we want. That is a bad way of making policy and legislating, and it is a shame that the official Opposition are reduced to taking such an approach instead of making a substantive proposal.
      Adam Price: I shall confine my comments to amendment No. 15, which is tabled in my name alone but enjoys considerable support from Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will be relieved to know that I aim to make my comments a good deal more succinct than those of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), whose speech was not so much exhaustive
      654
      as exhausting. Nevertheless, we shall continue to support amendments Nos. 7, 9, 12 and 13, which support small business.
      Our position in Plaid Cymru and the SNP has been consistent with what has been—certainly for the past hour—a long and arduous debate about the Bill. We believe that the provisions are necessary, but insufficient to meet the challenge that we face in revitalising our public services. The underlying motives are correct, but the means of the achieving those aims are not necessarily provided.
      Our principal concern is enshrined in amendment No. 15. The use of employers' contributions as a mechanism for delivering new investment in public services is fundamentally flawed. As the Bill introduces a payroll tax, and as the public sector is the biggest employer in many—if not all—of our constituencies, it will reduce the positive impact of the extra resources going into health and social services. It will also exert additional strain on other parts of the public sector that have so far received no definite promise of extra funds.
      As has been said on many occasions, the Government are giving to the cash-starved public services with one hand, but taking with the other. That is greatly to be regretted, especially in the context of what is already a difficult financial environment for public services. It is difficult for two reasons. First, there is the growing doubt about whether the Chancellor will achieve his forecasts for economic growth. We discovered during the recess, in figures from the Office for National Statistics, that the economy has been at a standstill since autumn last year, and is therefore teetering on the brink of recession. We now have the slowest economic growth in the G7.
      Secondly, while economic growth has ground to a halt, which will have an obvious impact on the ability to deliver extra resources for the public sector, inflation in the public sector is also increasing apace. As we have heard from city analysts, including Michael Saunders of Schroder Salomon Smith Barney, public sector pay and input costs are increasing faster than those in the private sector because of pent-up demand. The worry is that the extra investment promised and so badly needed will be dissipated by a combination of lower economic growth and higher costs.
      I mention in parenthesis that Wales and Scotland face the additional pressures of the Barnett squeeze, of which the Committee might not be aware. That means that the rates of increase in health expenditure will be lower in our two countries than in England. The figure for England will be 7.5 per cent., whereas for Wales it will be 6.8 per cent. and for Scotland 6.3 per cent.
      It is in that context of doubts about the impact on public expenditure of lower economic growth and higher public sector inflation that we have to consider the proposal to increase public sector employer contributions. Our amendment is designed to ensure that we get the full benefit of the extra resources, that we get the full force of that benefit in years to come, and that we get the resources in early. In health, for example, we are aware that it takes time to train new nurses, doctors and consultants.
      It is vital that we do not impose any impediment or additional constraint through the public sector employer contribution. In previous debates, for obvious reasons, we focused on additional costs to the health service resulting from the measure. The Library estimates a cost to the

      655
      NHS in Wales and Scotland of an extra £37 million a year, and that money will come out of the NHS budget in Wales and Scotland. The cost to the NHS in England is estimated to be £205 million a year.
      As a result of the Bill, that outcome will be replicated in other sectors that will not receive additional hypothecated funds, and as an internationalist I should point out that it will be replicated in England as well. For example, next year the further education sector in England will probably receive an additional £85 million, which is similar to this year's funding increase and represents about 2.5 per cent. extra in its annual budget allocation. However, according to the Department for Education and Skills, £25 million of that £85 million will be eaten up by the national insurance employer contribution increase, and because of additional charges for utilities and various other equipment costs, a further £25 million to £30 million will be needed simply to achieve a real-terms standstill.
      That will leave a maximum of £35 million to cover pay increases, which will mean a pay award in the sector of only slightly more than 1.25 per cent. That is less than the headline inflation rate, for which the latest figure is 1.5 per cent., and far less than the average wage increase throughout the economy as a whole, which is about 4 per cent.
      That will happen in a sector that is already experiencing considerable difficulties with pay agreements and pay differentials with teachers—and the problems in further education will be mirrored in secondary and higher education. Local government is experiencing similar problems: the Labour chair of the Local Government Association, Jeremy Beecham, has said that 80 per cent. of the additional money going into local government for social services will be eaten up by the increase in local government employer contributions alone.
      That is why we, through our amendment, are attempting to provide some insulation for the public sector at a difficult time. We acknowledge and welcome the fact that in the Bill the Government have taken two steps forward, by recognising the need for extra investment and the need for taxation to fund it. Unfortunately, for two small steps forward they have taken one step back—or, as the accident and emergency consultant Peta Longstaff said during the post-Budget photo-opportunity for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, the Government have scored an own goal by providing additional resources with one hand, but taking a substantial amount back with the other.
      Unfortunately, by raising national insurance contributions as they have chosen to do, the Government have raised expectations but simultaneously limited the ability to deliver on them. Despite the long debate that we have had, it is inevitable that we will have to revisit the subject because of the hole in the Government's finances and the inconsistency in their thinking. We will have to continue this debate until we get an adequate solution for the public sector—one that does not give with one hand and take with the other.
      Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is a pleasant and eloquent man, but it is a pity when he speaks as he did when moving the amendment, because to speak at such length causes us to have a far more diffuse debate than we might otherwise
      656
      have had about issues that are worthy of punchier debate. Sometimes, unfortunately, he wastes his eloquence. By contrast, the hon. Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) made speeches that were clear and to the point.
      The hon. Member for Buckingham made significant points about his concern for certain businesses, and there are points of principle that should be addressed, especially those that relate to tax relief for businesses that pay for private health insurance. I hope that he will respond to some of the points that I make in that respect. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw raised some practical issues that make it difficult to see how such a system could work, but it is worth exploring the matters of principle as well.
      If their amendment reflects the approach that the Conservatives have chosen to adopt, they have to say where it will end. It is reasonable to ask whether, if an employer decided that to attract highly sought-after staff who are often highly paid they would offer a contribution toward fees for private sector education, the hon. Member for Buckingham would advocate that there should be some remission of or exemption from income tax or corporation tax, which comprise the general pot out of which education funds are paid. Similarly, if an employer decided to give sick pay provision that was more generous than the basic statutory package, would he say that the employer should benefit from a reduction in tax on the ground that they should not pay twice for statutory sick pay provision that is paid for by the state through taxation? If a person did not use local schools or had long-term care insurance, should that person receive a deduction or relief on their council tax payments?
      I contend that it would be difficult to argue both that the answer to those questions is yes and that we would still have a fair system wherein the better-off are engaged in state provision of a welfare safety net. If one believes that people should not pay twice, the better-off will be even more reluctant to pay tax at all and might be tempted to plough their own furrow, and that will undermine the tax base for important public services. That is an issue of principle, and it is important that the Conservatives make it clear whether that is to be their general approach.
      In a similar vein, if a company did not provide a benefit—private health insurance—from its receipts, it may well be that it would pay tax on the money it used to do so. Therefore—I do not mean this in a derogatory way—the company might use the Conservatives' proposal as a way of avoiding paying a different tax. A relief on such a use of employers' funds might amount to a relief that is sought—or already achieved—by not paying a certain amount on profits or dividend payments.
      As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said, the extent of insurance is variable. In an intervention when the hon. Member for Buckingham was in full-on mode, I tried to make the point that—to use his terms—an employer pays private health insurance to ensure that their employee is available to work and doing so therefore contributes to their business. However, people who are off work sick often use primary health care provision or emergency provision, which are never covered by private health insurance schemes, or they may suffer from chronic illness, which is often not covered by private health insurance schemes. In that case, why should there be full relief?

      657
      Imagine two employees who are using an emergency service—an NHS intensive care unit or ambulance provision. One does not benefit from private health insurance, the other benefits from private health insurance outwith the particular health incident that has caused them to use the emergency service. If both employees are using the national health service, why should only the latter's employer receive some benefit? There is therefore a problem with this approach.
      There is also an issue about fairness. Some firms provide private health insurance for all their employees from the cleaners upwards, but generally speaking, the hon. Gentleman will accept, private health insurance is a perk for the better-paid. He is therefore proposing a subsidy for people who are better-paid; it would not be directed at people on average pay or those who are less well-paid.
      7.30 pm
      The hon. Gentleman may argue that his amendment provides an incentive that would encourage people to take out private health insurance; they would get the benefit of tax relief so, in some way, the amendment may reduce the pressure on the NHS. He did not make that point, but a similar point was made earlier about tax relief for better-off pensioners. However, he will know that elasticity in demand for private health insurance has not been demonstrated. Between 1990 and 1997, when tax relief for private health insurance for better-off pensioners operated, there was not a significant increase in the take-up of private health insurance so, if that was one of the aims of the hon. Gentleman's policy, it will not be delivered. He must deal with significant issues of principle; it is unfortunate that during such a long speech we were not able to intervene and invite him to comment on them.
      The hon. Gentleman made some valid points about the burden of taxation on small businesses in amendments Nos. 7 and 9. He knows that I share his concern, which is why I should have preferred a tax rise for high earners with an income of more than £100,000 to a tax on employers, especially in small businesses, where the average take-home pay is £13,000 after, as he almost conceded, accountants' adjustments—that may not be a genuine figure for take-home pay. Nevertheless, I share his concern and I cannot understand why he does not feel that it is fairer to ask wealthy people earning more than £100,000 to pay more.
      The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), described 50 per cent. tax rates on income over £100,000 as obscene, which was the strongest term used by Conservative Front Benchers today and shows an imbalance in priorities; they are seeking to defend the better-off from what the hon. Member for Christchurch described as an obscenity rather than seeking to defend people who cannot get the health service that they need because of lack of funding. I return to the point that I made at the beginning of this afternoon's debate; the hon. Member for Buckingham is effectively offering tax cuts in his amendment to various parts of the business community. He did not say how he would pay for them, although he tried to explain why he did not do so; as yet, he does not have a policy to put before the electorate.
      658
      However, it is not responsible politics to salami-slice the provision on tax-cuts, even in deserving cases, without explaining the way in which that would be paid for.
      Mr. Hendrick: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Conservative position. However, does he not agree that his own policies of clobbering people on more than £100,000 with a 10 per cent. increase—
      The Chairman: Order. We cannot go back to that as we are not on that amendment.
      Dr. Harris: The Conservatives must explain how they will pay for their proposal. In the previous group of amendments, we made clear the way in which we would have preferred to raise the money. However, having failed in our attempt to achieve that fairer method, we now face the question of whether the money should go to the health service or whether there should be tax relief for businesses. While we sympathise with businesses which have problems—the hon. Member for Buckingham knows that we share his view about the iniquity of IR35, on which our Treasury spokespeople have campaigned alongside his colleagues—funding has to go to the health service, which is why we cannot support his suggested tax reliefs.
      Finally, the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr made some good points when speaking to his amendment. To a certain extent, using employers' national insurance contributions is self-defeating, particularly when social services departments have to pay more than they may get from the Government's disbursement of the receipts, which is why on Second Reading we said that it is vital that more of the money raised by the Bill goes to social services than is planned by the Government, otherwise they may not get any benefit and, indeed, are in danger of getting a net disbenefit. That situation has been created by the underfunding of other public services; we are robbing further education and police authorities, for example, to pay for the health service, which cannot be right. The Government should not look at each public service in isolation, but should recognise that there is still underfunding across the board. They should raise their ambitions for getting resources into public services fairly and announce changes, preferably before an election, to income tax. We therefore share the view of members of Plaid Cymru that income tax is the best way to pay for increased funding. The Government have missed the opportunity to tackle all those services, but it is not appropriate to go into that now. However, we cannot support the Conservative amendment.
      Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) took 55 minutes to introduce his amendments. While they are important, I hope to be a little briefer in my response to them and amendment No. 15, which was tabled by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price).
      I shall deal with the amendments in the order in which the hon. Member for Buckingham introduced them. Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 cover private health care. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) made some good observations about the

      659
      problems of funding that, and the treatment that private medical insurance may or may not provide for, as opposed to the NHS funding that our arrangements seek to secure, such as the funding of primary care and emergency treatment.
      The amendments are interesting, as was our debate and the enthusiasm with which the hon. Member for Buckingham introduced them. The House will realise that they provide the first hint of the Conservatives' intentions for the NHS and propose little more than a thinly-veiled subsidy for companies offering private medical insurance to their employees. That is not the most efficient way of trying to support the NHS indirectly, and it is certainly expensive. As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said, when the Conservatives introduced relief on private medical insurance for people over 60, between 1990 and 1997, there was precious little growth in the number of people who took out such insurance, although it cost the Exchequer £650 million. If we look carefully at the way in which companies operate, we see that private medical insurance is provided as a benefit; the company pays for a company policy, which usually means that large employers can negotiate such policies for groups of employees at a discount, whereas smaller companies cannot. The amendment would therefore help some, but not all, employers.
      The Government reject the basic proposition that companies should receive payment for providing private health care. If companies decide to provide private medical insurance for their employees that is up to them, but the Government do not believe that the taxpayer should subsidise them for providing such insurance. We remain convinced that the best way to use the resources available is to provide for the health care of all residents in the United Kingdom by funding the NHS directly.
      About 120,000 employers are already providing private medical insurance to about 1.9 million employees. They do that in the knowledge that they are still making as well a contribution to the NHS through employers' national insurance contributions. They have never suggested that because they are providing private medical insurance there should be a reduction in national insurance contributions. We know, because employers have repeatedly made the case, that they have a strong interest in a healthy labour work force. The CBI has made it clear that it is important to companies that they have an efficiently funded NHS to which their employees have access, a service that is comprehensive and available on the basis of need.
      The hon. Member for Buckingham referred also to fairness. He talked about costs to employers. Let us take employer contributions to health care benefits for the year 2000–01. In France, an average employer will contribute about £58 a week. In the United States, it is £37.50. In Germany, it is £31, and in Britain, it is £9. Nine pounds contribute to a comprehensively available health service on the basis of need. The system ensures that employers get an extremely good deal.
      The hon. Gentleman moved on to the self-employed when dealing with amendments Nos. 7 and 9. They are designed to help small unincorporated businesses. My problems with the amendments is not necessarily the intention that lies behind them, but the suggestion that contributions would not be made to the health service.
      660
      The Government have demonstrated time and again their ability to assist these very businesses, whether it be through reductions in the threshold for the reduced rate of national insurance or in helping the self-employed and service companies in taking forward their business. However, the amendments would give the self-employed further benefits in a system that would cost the taxpayer £450 million, and would give self-employed companies a greater benefit than they already have.
      If we compare the national insurance contributions paid by the self-employed with those paid by employees and employers, it is estimated that the self-employed already under-contribute by about £2.4 billion. That figure takes into account the fact that the self-employed would have a reduced benefit position. The self-employed are already getting an extremely good deal from the national insurance fund. The hon. Member for Buckingham seeks to make everyone else pay for the service while suggesting that the self-employed should not.
      7.45 pm
      The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that overall the self-employed continue to get an extremely good deal. How much would they pay in national insurance contributions on profits of £30,000 a year, and how much would an employee pay on earning that amount? The hon. Gentleman also overlooks the fact that the national insurance contributions of an employer who is self-employed are deductible from his profits and gains. That deduction reduces their class 4 liability. Such employers already have an advantageous position in the national insurance system. Through the amendment the hon. Gentleman seeks to reject the basic principle that all of us should contribute something to assisting growth and investment in the NHS.
      I move on to the amendments that relate to service companies. These amendments seek to ensure that a one-person service company with a turnover of less than £1 million should pay employers' national insurance contributions at the old rate of 11.8 per cent. rather than the proposed new rate of 12.8 per cent. The amendments may be intended to apply only to those service companies that come within the legislation on service companies that is commonly referred to as IR35. However, the hon. Gentleman does not define the term "service company". There is not such a definition in legislation. The amendments as drafted would allow a huge number of firms that he would not intend to have relief to have access to it. Drafting problems aside, we do not believe that the intended objective is appropriate, and I shall briefly explain why.
      We introduced the service company legislation to address a specific unfairness in the tax system. Put broadly, the legislation ensures that someone who works through a service company or for an intermediary, such as a partnership, but who is otherwise no different from a conventional employee, pays broadly the same tax and national insurance contributions as an employee. That means that anyone choosing to work through a service company, but otherwise working in a way that makes them no different from a directly employed employee, will pay essentially the same tax and national insurance contributions as a direct employee.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon went on about fairness, equity and progression. Yet he objects to the idea that people in the workplace who are in exactly

      661
      the same working position as others should be able to play with the tax rules to ensure that they pay less than somebody working alongside them.
      It is important to recognise that in the working arrangements in service companies, there are two separate and distinct legal bodies. There is the service company as the employer and the person employed by it who is on PAYE. Each is a separate body and each has their own rights and responsibilities and access to different parts of the tax system.
      Where someone chooses to be employed in a service company, that company will have full employer responsibilities, and that includes the 1 per cent. increase. I do not believe that it is fair or appropriate to say that those service companies as employers will not be expected to discharge their responsibilities. The amendments are a sop to try to find as many Trojan horses as possible to come into tax legislation so that employers in future will not have to pay their contributions. That is not acceptable. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the amendments. They are about breaking the principle that all of us, employers and employees, should make a contribution to the NHS.
      The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr talked about the public sector. Amendment No. 13 provides that we excuse public sector employers from paying the 1 per cent. national insurance contribution increase on employee class 1 secondary NICs. I will not detain the House because I know that the hon. Gentleman spoke specifically about the principle for the public sector. That being so, I will not go into the fact that the amendment does not cover Northern Ireland, for instance. There are other rather important points. Effectively, however, the amendment suggests that we should excuse the Government and other public bodies from making their own employer contributions.
      Although the Government believe firmly in the public sector, we do not think it should be treated as a special case in terms of national insurance contributions. We believe that public and private sectors should be on a level playing field. Let me add that trying to agree on a definition of a public-sector company could lead us down some difficult and complex routes.
      It would be strange to suggest that public-sector employers should not be subject to the same requirements as all other employers, but I think that the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr made a genuine point about future investment in all our public sectors. Let me say this to him. The increases in national insurance contributions must be set against a background of high levels of growth in spending on key services. Spending on services will be £19.5 billion higher in 2003–04 than in 2002–03, which is itself a substantial increase.
      I think it entirely wrong, in terms of principle, to try to distinguish the responsibilities of employers by virtue of whether they belong to the public or the private sector. Whichever sector they are in, employers have responsibilities in regard to their employees, not just in national insurance but across the board. It is dangerous to suggest that we can somehow make an exception in the case of national insurance contributions.
      662
      We are discussing a proposal in the context of wider spending on public services. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will want to pursue his point in the future—indeed, he said that he would—but if he presses his amendment I will have to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose it. I hope that, as the principle has been given a good airing, he will decide not to do so.
      If any of the amendments are put to the vote, I shall ask my colleagues to oppose them.
      Mr. Bercow: I am mortified that the Paymaster General has not been persuaded by the quality of the amendments.
      Dawn Primarolo: Nearly.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for that, but apparently she was not quite persuaded. Methinks, Sir Alan, that she doth protest too much.
      When there was some incentive for the provision of private medical insurance for pensioners, there was also some increase in take-up. Since the vicious and unnecessary removal of that tax incentive, we have seen the damage that has been done: people who benefited from the provision and afforded the insurance have since been unable to do so. We were offering some encouragement to employers providing private medical insurance packages for their staff. As Labour Members know, the atavistic hostility to that incentive was plain for all to see.
      We were in favour of helping unincorporated businesses suffering under the heavy, and increasingly heavy, burden of taxation imposed by this Government. The Paymaster General made it abundantly clear that she did not sympathise, that she thought that those businesses already had it very easy, and that she did not want to assist them. We wanted to help personal service companies, but she did not.
      I am very disappointed, and we intend to press our amendment to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 126, Noes 338.

      Division No. 256]

      [7.54 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Bacon, Richard

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Barker, Gregory

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Baron, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fallon, Michael

      Bercow, John

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Flight, Howard

      Blunt, Crispin

      Flook, Adrian

      Boswell, Tim

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Francois, Mark

      Brady, Graham

      Garnier, Edward

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gibb, Nick

      Burns, Simon

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Burnside, David

      Goodman, Paul

      Cameron, David

      Gray, James

      Chope, Christopher

      Grayling, Chris

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Collins, Tim

      Greenway, John

      Conway, Derek

      Grieve, Dominic

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Cran, James

      Hammond, Philip

      663

      Hawkins, Nick

      Randall, John

      Hayes, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hendry, Charles

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Hoban, Mark

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Horam, John

      Ruffley, David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Selous, Andrew

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Key, Robert

      Soames, Nicholas

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spring, Richard

      Lansley, Andrew

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Leigh, Edward

      Steen, Anthony

      Letwin, Oliver

      Streeter, Gary

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Swire, Hugo

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Syms, Robert

      Lidington, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Loughton, Tim

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Luff, Peter

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Tredinnick, David

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Viggers, Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Walter, Robert

      Maples, John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      Watkinson, Angela

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Whittingdale, John

      Mercer, Patrick

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Moss, Malcolm

      Willetts, David

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Norman, Archie

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Yeo, Tim

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pickles, Eric

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Prisk, Mark

      Mr. Julian Brazier.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Ainger, Nick

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Allen, Graham

      Bryant, Chris

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Burden, Richard

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Burnham, Andy

      Austin, John

      Burstow, Paul

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Baird, Vera

      Cairns, David

      Baker, Norman

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Banks, Tony

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Barrett, John

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Barron, Kevin

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Beard, Nigel

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Casale, Roger

      Benn, Hilary

      Caton, Martin

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cawsey, Ian

      Benton, Joe

      Challen, Colin

      Betts, Clive

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Blackman, Liz

      Chidgey, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clapham, Michael

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Brake, Tom

      Clelland, David

      Breed, Colin

      Clwyd, Ann

      Brennan, Kevin

      Coaker, Vernon

      664

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cohen, Harry

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coleman, Iain

      Heppell, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Heyes, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hill, Keith

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hodge, Margaret

      Corston, Jean

      Holmes, Paul

      Cotter, Brian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cox, Tom

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hope, Phil

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cummings, John

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hurst, Alan

      Davidson, Ian

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Illsley, Eric

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Dawson, Hilton

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Jamieson, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dobbin, Jim

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Doughty, Sue

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Drew, David

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Joyce, Eric

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Edwards, Huw

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Efford, Clive

      Kemp, Fraser

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Khabra, Piara S

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Kidney, David

      Farrelly, Paul

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Fisher, Mark

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Flint, Caroline

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Flynn, Paul

      Lamb, Norman

      Follett, Barbara

      Lammy, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Laws, David

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foulkes, George

      Levitt, Tom

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Galloway, George

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Gapes, Mike

      Linton, Martin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lloyd, Tony

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Love, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lucas, Ian

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Luke, Iain

      Gidley, Sandra

      Lyons, John

      Gilroy, Linda

      McCabe, Stephen

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCafferty, Chris

      Goggins, Paul

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McFall, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Grogan, John

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McKechin, Ann

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hancock, Mike

      McNulty, Tony

      Hanson, David

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      McWalter, Tony

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Harvey, Nick

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Healey, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Heath, David

      Mann, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marris, Rob

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      665

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Skinner, Dennis

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Miliband, David

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Moffatt, Laura

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

      Mole, Chris

      Soley, Clive

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Southworth, Helen

      Moore, Michael

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moran, Margaret

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mountford, Kali

      Stevenson, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Oaten, Mark

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Organ, Diana

      Stunell, Andrew

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Perham, Linda

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Picking, Anne

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pike, Peter

      Thurso, John

      Plaskitt, James

      Timms, Stephen

      Pollard, Kerry

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pond, Chris

      Todd, Mark

      Pope, Greg

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pound, Stephen

      Trickett, Jon

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Truswell, Paul

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Price, Adam

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Purchase, Ken

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Purnell, James

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Wareing, Robert N

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Watts, David

      Rammell, Bill

      Webb, Steve

      Rapson, Syd

      Weir, Michael

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Rendel, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Rooney, Terry

      Willis, Phil

      Ross, Ernie

      Wills, Michael

      Roy, Frank

      Winnick, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wishart, Pete

      Ryan, Joan

      Wood, Mike

      Salmond, Alex

      Woodward, Shaun

      Salter, Martin

      Woolas, Phil

      Sanders, Adrian

      Worthington, Tony

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wray, James

      Sawford, Phil

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Simon, Siôn

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and

      Singh, Marsha

      Jim Fitzpatrick.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 3, at end insert—
      'provided that, in respect of employees of pension age or over at the beginning of the year of assessment, the secondary percentage shall be 11.8 per cent.'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—
      'provided that, in respect of employees of pension age or over at the beginning of the year of assessment, the secondary percentage shall be 11.8 per cent.'.
      Mr. Chope: During the earlier part of the debate, the Government said that it would not be fair if pensioners were penalised as a result of the Bill. The amendment would ensure that pensioners would not by being employed attract an additional 1 per cent. levy for their employers. It would also—I hope hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will support this—give a modest but important encouragement to employers to employ people of pensionable age.
      There is an increasing feeling that age discrimination operates in the employment market. We know that those who are of pensionable age wish—[Interruption.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. There are general conversations throughout the Chamber. It is important that the Committee listens to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Chope: Thank you, Sir Michael.
      It is important that the Committee should address seriously discrimination in the employment market. It is increasingly necessary for many pensioners to try to obtain employment to make ends meet. It is a separate hobby horse of mine, but as a result of successive increases in council tax far in excess of inflation, an increasing number of pensioner households are in financial difficulties. To an extent, people below pensionable age who are in financial difficulties can use the labour market and change jobs, or at least get themselves in employment, but that option is not so easily available to pensioners. The amendment would give a modest incentive to employers to take on people of pensionable age.
      In the past, when this issue has been raised the Government have been dismissive. They have argued that the income from employers' national insurance contributions pays for many other services, including—but not exclusively—pensions. They have also argued that the principle that people who are self-employed or not employed should not have to pay class 1 and class 2 contributions after they reach pensionable age should not be extended to their employers.
      The Bill hypothecates the proceeds of such charges to the national health service, but elsewhere in the Bill the Government have accepted the argument that it would be unreasonable to expect pensioners to contribute to additional costs in respect of the health service. That is why the hon. Lady rejected the argument advanced by the Liberal Democrats, who wanted to raise the money through income tax—a move that would clearly affect pensioner income from investments. Such income is exempted under the terms of the Bill, because the insurance charge falls only on the earnings of employees below pensionable age.

      667
      When, on behalf of a constituent, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) raised the issue in correspondence with the Paymaster General last year, she replied:
      "The National Insurance scheme is a social scheme. Amongst other things, its purpose is to fund the payments of contributory benefits such as Retirement Pensions, widows' benefit and incapacity benefit."
      However, the provisions in the Bill are designed expressly to fund the health service. We have argued that the amount that the Bill will yield will greatly exceed the additional sum that the Government say they will give to the health service, but be that as it may. In my submission, the Paymaster General's argument against exempting men over the age of 65 from having to suffer employees' contributions does not wash in the case of a specific policy that is designed to fund the health service.
      In the letter to which I have referred, the Paymaster General says:
      "there is no comparable age restriction on employers contributions and the liability continues whilst the employee is working and earning over the threshold for paying contributions. I must point out that if the liability were removed, then younger people could be discriminated against and it could result in a situation whereby some employers may actively seek to recruit employees in this category."
      However, the amendment presents a useful opportunity to give a modest but significant incentive to employers to take on senior citizens as employees. By so doing, they would save themselves 1 per cent. of the employer's costs.
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) could be employed as a Minister.
      Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend mentions a Member of the House who is of retirement age, and who could be employed by the Government. The provision could indeed provide a modest saving for the Government and the parliamentary authorities, but, with respect to my hon. Friend, that is not the strongest argument for it. Many pensioners would like to have jobs but cannot get them. The amendment would enable them to say to an employer, "If you take me on your books, you will save 1 per cent. of payroll." It is a modest measure, and I hope that it will find favour with the Government and with the House.
      8.15 pm
      Dawn Primarolo: It seems that the Conservative party's clarion call at the next general election will be, "Force pensioners to work after 65 by making them cheaper to employ than anyone else in the labour force." That is the only point that we could possibly glean from that rather potty introduction to the amendments.
      The national insurance increases proposed in the Bill spread the burden of paying for the improvements in the health service that we all—or most of us—want as widely and fairly as possible across employees, employers and the self-employed. The amendments deal specifically with the contribution of employers, and propose that they pay a different national insurance contribution—even though the level of earnings is exactly the same—by using a definition of age. That proposal is made by a party that normally complains about increased complexities, form filling and difficulties in policing the borderline.
      668
      Under the proposal, an employer would pay a national insurance contribution of 12.8 per cent. on the earnings of a male employee aged 64, but in respect of a male employee aged, say, 65, the same employer would pay an 11.8 per cent. contribution on the same earnings. That appears neither logical nor fair, even when measured against the Opposition's apparent new objective of dealing with labour shortages in the British economy by forcing pensioners back into the labour market, even if they do not want to go.
      Mr. Chope: The Paymaster General thinks that the proposition is unfair, but in what way is it fair to require an employee aged 64 to pay the additional contribution, but not an employee aged 65?
      Dawn Primarolo: If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about the national insurance fund and the decisions that his Government took in 1995 on the movement in retirement ages and the complex link with the contributory system, he would understand exactly why such measures were introduced. If he was so concerned about the issue, why did he not deal with it when in government? Indeed, I think that he was even a Minister at one stage. As he well knows, under the agreement to phase in equality of age of retirement, the particular point that he identifies will move out of the system in respect of employees. However, he is in fact proposing that we add an extra layer of complexity to employers' national insurance rates.
      The amount of secondary class 1 national insurance that employers are liable to pay is based on the level of their employees' earnings. Introducing a different secondary rate that depends not only on employees' level of earnings but on their age adds a complexity that simply is not necessary. It does not follow that excluding pensioners from paying national insurance means that employers should not pay their extra 1 per cent. national insurance on the earnings.
      Under the existing structure of the national insurance fund, employers contribute at the same rate for all of their employees. The Bill maintains that principle. Employers recognise that it is in the interests of employers to have a healthy labour supply. They do not say, "Except when the person who is employed gets to 65, when we do not need to contribute to the health service through the national insurance system." Employers recognise that all their work force will benefit from the additional investment in the NHS.
      I do not believe that the amendments would make pensioners more attractive to recruit. Even after the 1 per cent. increase in employers' national insurance, employers in the UK will still be paying less than employers in France and Germany towards their employees' health needs. Pensioners have demonstrated that they can, when they choose to and want to, compete in the labour market on equal terms and be judged on their skills and the experience that they offer the employer.
      There is absolutely no basis in logic for saying that the employer has a lesser obligation to the contributions to the national insurance system simply because of the age of the employee. I ask the House to reject the amendment, not only because it would introduce complexity for employers, but simply because it is extraordinarily naive and wrong in the distinction it seeks to make about the obligations that employers have to employees, regardless of their age.
      Matthew Taylor: These amendments are possibly the most bizarre of the evening. It is unclear why they have been tabled. Probably the original thought was that pensioners were exempted from national insurance, so perhaps employees should not pay for pensioners. However, the employer is getting the benefit of the financial contribution that the pensioner makes. It is frankly insulting if the implication is that someone who happens to be of pensionable age is making less of a contribution to the employer and that, therefore, in effect, a subsidy has to be paid for their employment.
      Mr. Bercow: That is wrong-headed nonsense.
      Matthew Taylor: It is the only possible implication of the policy. Why else should there be such a differential?
      Alternatively, it may be that the Opposition believe that, in some sense, there is a need to pay a cash incentive to employers to seek to employ or to keep in employment pensioners. But that is also extraordinary; again, why should businesses not wish to employ pensioners if they can make a good contribution and wish to work with them? The only possible conclusion is that, in some sense, the Conservative party believes that pensioners are less able, simply because of their age, to make a good contribution to business. The Conservative party has failed to think it through, and the uncertainty with which the argument was advanced from the Conservative Front Bench rather reinforces me in that view.
      As we have made clear, Liberal Democrats would not have chosen employers' national insurance as our route for raising money for the NHS and we have explained the alternative mechanism. The amendment is an entirely unthought-through salami-slicer. It does not make sense, it does not add up, it is not helpful and I would be surprised were the Conservative party to press it to a vote.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way.
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has only just wandered in.
      Mr. Hancock: No, I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman for the last two hours on television, and riveting stuff it was. I ask my hon. Friend to allow Tory Front Benchers to intervene on him to clarify their position, or maybe to help them out of the hole into which they have dug themselves.
      Matthew Taylor: Conservative Front Benchers have popped up and down this evening with their usual gusto, but not on this issue. I did not intend to argue on this case for long, as it is poverty-stricken.
      On reflection, the Conservatives will regret tabling an amendment from which the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is that they believe that pensioners have to be subsidised to work in business. In the process, once again, they are denying the NHS an unquantified amount of money for doctors and nurses that those pensioners and everyone else in the country desperately want to see in the NHS.
      Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman says that he wishes to remove totally this new impost on employers. I have
      670
      tabled an amendment that would remove it from employers of people who are over pensionable age. He argues that those employers should have that impost. There is nothing consistent about his argument.
      I wish to refer to a letter that I received from an individual. It says:
      "My wife and I are still very busy with our little travel agency which is run as a limited company with our owning 100 per cent. of the shares. Although I am now 81 years old, I still work full-time as a director of the company. Unfortunately, I find that the company is paying an NHS surcharge on my salary which is a burden in these difficult trading times."
      The surcharge at the moment is 10 per cent.; under the Bill, it will go up to 11 per cent. That individual is aged 81 and his wife is of a similar age. As the company is 100 per cent. owned, he finds that the additional burden will be borne by him, as the owner of a company, in circumstances where, were he an employee, he would not have to pay the new contribution. That is the principle.
      Once again, we on the Conservative Benches are arguing for the small business person who is working and serving this country by working beyond pensionable age. The Government have made the spurious argument that the amendment will introduce extra complexity. However, the amendment seeks not to extend that complexity to those who are employed beyond the age of 65.
      The amendment is a modest measure and I am disappointed by the Paymaster General's negative response. The weakness of her argument has reconfirmed for me the strength of the message that we are sending. I am sure that we will wish to return to this as an increasing number of pensioners ask why employers should be penalised for the fact that they are on the books of employers and are of pensionable age. Should they not have a similar benefit to those who are employees of pensionable age?
      This is an important issue of principle that is well worth putting to the vote and testing the mood of the House on. I hope that the Government will, in due course, accept our arguments even though they have not done so this evening. Certainly nothing in this amendment will try to force people to work after the age of 65, although as a result of the increases in council tax, an increasing number of pensioners are finding that they do have to work after 65 to pay those taxes.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 123, Noes 337.

      Division No. 257]

      [8.29 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Collins, Tim

      Bacon, Richard

      Conway, Derek

      Barker, Gregory

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Baron, John

      Cran, James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Bercow, John

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Blunt, Crispin

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Boswell, Tim

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Fallon, Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Flook, Adrian

      Burns, Simon

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Burnside, David

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Cameron, David

      Francois, Mark

      Chope, Christopher

      Garnier, Edward

      671

      Gibb, Nick

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Goodman, Paul

      Page, Richard

      Gray, James

      Paice, James

      Grayling, Chris

      Pickles, Eric

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Prisk, Mark

      Greenway, John

      Randall, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hammond, Philip

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hayes, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Ruffley, David

      Hendry, Charles

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hoban, Mark

      Selous, Andrew

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Simmonds, Mark

      Horam, John

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Key, Robert

      Spring, Richard

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Steen, Anthony

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Streeter, Gary

      Lansley, Andrew

      Swire, Hugo

      Letwin, Oliver

      Syms, Robert

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Tredinnick, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Luff, Peter

      Tyrie, Andrew

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Walter, Robert

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Watkinson, Angela

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Whittingdale, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Maples, John

      Wiggin, Bill

      Mates, Michael

      Willetts, David

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Yeo, Tim

      Mercer, Patrick

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Norman, Archie

      Mr. Julian Brazier.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ainger, Nick

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Brake, Tom

      Allen, Graham

      Breed, Colin

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Austin, John

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Bailey, Adrian

      Bryant, Chris

      Baird, Vera

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Baker, Norman

      Burden, Richard

      Banks, Tony

      Burnett, John

      Barnes, Harry

      Burnham, Andy

      Barrett, John

      Burstow, Paul

      Barron, Kevin

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Battle, John

      Cairns, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Benn, Hilary

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Benton, Joe

      Betts, Clive

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Blackman, Liz

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Casale, Roger

      Blizzard, Bob

      Caton, Martin

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Cawsey, Ian

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Challen, Colin

      672

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Chidgey, David

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hancock, Mike

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Harvey, Nick

      Clelland, David

      Healey, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Heath, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hendrick, Mark

      Coleman, Iain

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Connarty, Michael

      Heppell, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Heyes, David

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hill, Keith

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corston, Jean

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cotter, Brian

      Hoey, Kate

      Cox, Tom

      Holmes, Paul

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hope, Phil

      Cummings, John

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davidson, Ian

      Hurst, Alan

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Illsley, Eric

      Dawson, Hilton

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jamieson, David

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Doran, Frank

      Doughty, Sue

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Drew, David

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Joyce, Eric

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Edwards, Huw

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Efford, Clive

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kemp, Fraser

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Khabra, Piara S

      Farrelly, Paul

      Kidney, David

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fisher, Mark

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Flint, Caroline

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Flynn, Paul

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Follett, Barbara

      Lamb, Norman

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lammy, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Laws, David

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foulkes, George

      Levitt, Tom

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Galloway, George

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Gapes, Mike

      Lloyd, Tony

      Gardiner, Barry

      Love, Andrew

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Lucas, Ian

      Gerrard, Neil

      Luke, Iain

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Lyons, John

      Gidley, Sandra

      McCabe, Stephen

      Gilroy, Linda

      McCafferty, Chris

      Godsiff, Roger

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Goggins, Paul

      McFall, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Grogan, John

      McKechin, Ann

      673

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sheridan, Jim

      McNulty, Tony

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      MacShane, Denis

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Simon, Siôn

      McWalter, Tony

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Singh, Marsha

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mann, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marris, Rob

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

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

      Martlew, Eric

      Soley, Clive

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Southworth, Helen

      Miliband, David

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Miller, Andrew

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stevenson, George

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Moore, Michael

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Moran, Margaret

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mountford, Kali

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mullin, Chris

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Oaten, Mark

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Organ, Diana

      Thurso, John

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Timms, Stephen

      Pearson, Ian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Perham, Linda

      Todd, Mark

      Picking, Anne

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pickthall, Colin

      Trickett, Jon

      Pike, Peter

      Truswell, Paul

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pond, Chris

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pope, Greg

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pound, Stephen

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Wareing, Robert N

      Price, Adam

      Watts, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Webb, Steve

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Weir, Michael

      Pugh, Dr John

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Purchase, Ken

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Purnell, James

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Rammell, Bill

      Willis, Phil

      Rapson, Syd

      Wills, Michael

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Winnick, David

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Rendel, David

      Wishart, Pete

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wood, Mike

      Rooney, Terry

      Woodward, Shaun

      Ross, Ernie

      Woolas, Phil

      Roy, Frank

      Worthington, Tony

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wray, James

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Ryan, Joan

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Salmond, Alex

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Salter, Martin

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and

      Sawford, Phil

      Jim Fitzpatrick.

      Question according negatived.
      It being after 8.30 pm, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order [13 May], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Clauses 2 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 1

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 14, in page 11, line 43, at end insert—
      '(4) In subsection (6), for "subsection (5)" substitute "subsections (5) and (5A)".'.—[Dawn Primarolo.]
      Schedule 1, as amended, ordered to be the First schedule to the Bill.
      Schedule 2 ordered to be the Second schedule to the Bill.
      Bill reported, with amendments.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      8.44 pm
      Dawn Primarolo: We have had a very good, interesting debate in which the House has explored in detail the Government's plans to use the national insurance fund to raise additional resources for the health service. In one way, the Bill is unprecedented, unlike previous changes to national insurance contributions, which have been linked to changes in the state of the national insurance fund. This Bill increases contributions for the other great pillar of the welfare state—the national health service. In another way, however, it is not new at all. Ever since the post-war Labour Government introduced the national insurance system and the national health service, part of the funding for the NHS has come from national insurance contributions.
      National insurance contributions are paid by those who work and by their employers. Everyone who has a stake in the national health service will contribute while they are in work, when they can best afford it, and everyone has an interest in the improvements in the health service that this extra money for investment will deliver.
      Let me remind the House of the scale of new investment that we have promised. The plans announced in the Budget represented the biggest ever increase in investment in the national health service, raising spending on average by 7.4 per cent. in real terms in each of the next five years. United Kingdom health spending will grow from £65.4 billion this year to £105.6 billion in 2007–08. Since 1997, health service investment has already doubled in real terms, and it will increase as a share of national income from 6.7 per cent. in 1997 and 7.7 per cent this year to 9.4 per cent. in 2007–08. That will mean 35,000 more nurses, midwives and health visitors, 15,000 more doctors and consultants and 42 major hospital schemes—real changes and improvements, giving the people of this country a standard of health care that they can be proud of.
      The Government have also published plans to ensure that the public and the House can judge whether those improvements are being delivered. There will be independent audit, inspection and scrutiny of patient complaints, with a duty to account for money spent and standards achieved and to report to the public.
      In future, an annual report to Parliament will be prepared by the new independent auditor, accounting for the money allocated to the national health service, stating where it has been spent and the results that have been achieved. There will also be local reports from every primary care trust that will spell out to each household in its locality the services available and the value for money that is being achieved.

      675
      The Bill is simple and transparent. We have increased the rates of national insurance contributions for employers, employees and the self-employed by one percentage point. For employers and the self-employed, whose contributions are currently limited by the upper earnings limit and the upper profits limit, we have ensured that the burden is spread fairly, by applying the additional 1 per cent. to all earnings, including those above the limit.
      We have also ensured that the national health service gets the benefit of the additional revenue by increasing the proportion of the national insurance contributions earmarked for the NHS by an equivalent amount. The Bill ensures that none of the changes will disturb existing arrangements for determining entitlement to contributory benefits or for the financing of contracted out, personal or occupational pension schemes.
      Much of the debate that we have had on the Bill would have sounded familiar to those involved in the introduction of national insurance in the 1940s. We have heard a lot about the supposed unfairness of making employers pay a share of the cost of improving the health service. In response, the Government have quoted the CBI, which said that time off for sickness costs British industry some £10 billion a year.
      We might as well have also quoted the Beveridge report, which said in 1942:
      "Disease and accidents must be paid for in any case, in lessened power of production and in idleness, if not direct by insurance benefits."
      I certainly echo the words of the then Minister of National Insurance, James Griffiths, who said during the debates on the National Insurance Bill:
      "I have no hesitation in saying—I have said it before outside and I will say it now in the House—this scheme"—
      the national insurance scheme—
      "is the best and cheapest insurance policy ever offered to the British people, or to any people anywhere".—[Official Report, 6 February 1946; Vol. 418, c. 1751.]
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer made similar comments during his Budget speech when he introduced the principle of using national insurance contributions as a way of raising money for the national health service.
      The Bill shows that the Government are not afraid to be honest about what needs to be done to improve the health service and about the need to pay for it. The public appreciate that and have shown by their reactions to my right hon. Friend's Budget that they are willing to trust us to do what we have promised. The Bill is the first step and I commend it to the House.
      8.51 pm
      Mr. Chope: The Bill has been debated in the House on repeated occasions during the past few weeks. It appears to be almost a dialogue of the deaf. On the Opposition Benches, we are alone in saying that throwing more money at the national health service is no guarantee that there will be a better service. The Government have said on other occasions that they would put extra taxpayers' money into public services and that there would be public service agreements to ensure that that expenditure was worth while, yet they have not fulfilled those promises.
      676
      In 1999, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, now the Secretary of State for Health—I congratulate the new Chief Secretary on his elevation to the Cabinet—said:
      "We have fulfilled our commitment to publish Public Service Agreements covering all the public services. They set out the concrete improvements to be delivered in return for the extra investment we are making."—[Official Report, 24 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 458W.]
      However, the Paymaster General has just told us that we are starting again. We are forgetting about the three years that have passed since that commitment was made and there will be a fresh start. The Government tell us that—after more legislation—a fresh monitoring process will be set up and that in a few years we shall be able to see whether it has delivered any benefits in terms of better health care for the people of our nation.
      We know that many of the new improvements—the extra nurses, doctors, hospitals and primary care centres about which the Secretary of State for Health tells us—are not even expected until 2008. We know that the Secretary of State merely hopes that legislation to establish the commissions for health care, audit and inspection will be introduced during the next Session, and that the first inspection report is unlikely to materialise before 2005. That is before we shall even know whether the extra billions of pounds taken in the higher taxes that the Government said they would never introduce have been well invested.
      The Government, far from being unafraid to be honest about what must be done, as the Paymaster General claimed in her speech, failed to face up to the truth at the general election. They realised that they would have to put up taxes. They needed to put up taxes but denied that they would do so, and they specifically denied that they would increase national insurance contributions.
      We shall continue to cite against the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry her comments on the "Powerhouse" programme on 29 May 2001. She said:
      "We've got no plans at all to raise that ceiling on National Insurance contributions."
      We have not received an apology for that gross inaccuracy from a senior member of the Government who was trying to persuade people to vote for her party during the general election campaign. The Paymaster General has the gall to tell the House that the Government are not afraid to be honest about what has to be done. That is just laughable. The Government disguised the truth from the electorate at the general election. We tried to expose the fallacy in the Government's thinking. Sadly, the people did not realise that our predictions were correct. We are now landed with what is, in effect, emergency legislation, introduced to raise national insurance contributions to fund the health service and to try to make improvements.
      A host of Audit Commission reports, all of which are set out on the internet—some 10 or 12 of them have been issued in the past 18 months—contain recommendations on what should be done to improve the efficiency of our health service. What has been done to implement those recommendations? Of course the Government may be embarrassed by the fact that the Audit Commission has been so effective in probing in the past, but the trouble is that the Government have not followed those recommendations.
      What prospect is there that some new commission will investigate all these things and that somehow everything will be better in future? The Government do not even

      677
      apply the recommendations proposed by their own audit body, and we have many examples of that. A new development since Second Reading is the Bank of England's May 2002 inflation report, page 28 of which states:
      "the cost of higher employer and employee contributions will ultimately be borne by employees."
      That is very different from the story that the Government have put about that the burden will be shared by employers and employees, as though they can be separated. The national insurance increase represents an additional impost on the British economy and our competitiveness. As a result, it will damage our economy.
      As the Bank of England says, if the burden were not ultimately borne by employees,
      "firms would reduce their demand for labour in the face of a higher real product wage, leading to a temporarily lower level of employment and downward pressure on wage growth until equilibrium was restored. In the shorter term, however, the impact will depend on whether and the degree to which employees resist lower growth in their take-home pay."
      The Bank of England says in its report that it is too early to say what the effects will be because we will have to see what happens in the marketplace, but it is obviously anxious that there will be inflationary pressure in the economy, fuelled by the increase in national insurance contributions for employers and employees.
      I certainly have not seen any evidence in recent weeks that employees are saying, "Yes, I don't mind taking a cut in my take-home pay so money can go to the health service." I have not heard people who work in the NHS, the social services or the police, or head teachers say, "I'm looking forward to a reduction in my take-home pay, so more can be put into the health service."
      People, especially those in the public sector, seem to be telling the Government, "Give us some extra money to compensate us for the additional national insurance tax, and we'll be content." Indeed, pay demands in the public sector are escalating frighteningly. Obviously, the demands from the fire service are the most prominent at the moment. The Government are fuelling that inflationary pressure by their actions in the Bill. That is why the Bank of England reported as it did in May. I hope that the Paymaster General will say in winding up the debate what she and the Government think of the Bank of England's observations. What the Bank of England has said is echoed by employers and employers' organisations up and down the land.
      People working in the public sector and local authorities, as employers, are saying that they will have to pay extra because of the Bill. Will they be compensated? The only way that they can be compensated is with extra public money, again raised from taxes. So we have the spiral that we have seen so often under Labour Governments of increasing taxes to fund public sector organisations, which, in turn, have to spend a lot of money on additional employer costs rather than being able to put that money into better-quality services.
      We are therefore extremely sceptical about the value of this Bill. The evidence of the Government's own experts is that, in England alone, waste and fraud in the national health service is of the order of £7 billion to £10 billion every year. We are amazed at the arrogance of a Government who, when faced with that evidence, rather than sort out that fraud and waste and improve the health
      678
      service, come along to the taxpayer and the person paying national insurance contributions and say, "We are not going to sort out the fraud and waste, but we do expect you to make an additional contribution, and it will be all right in the end." That is not the way to run a Government in the thriving, competitive economy inherited from the Conservative Government. The Bank of England report makes the position clear:
      "In the shorter term…the impact will depend on whether and the degree to which employees resist lower growth in their take-home pay."
      In the longer term, however, the damage to the competitiveness of this country will be obvious. That is why people who are concerned about the future of our country are worried about this Bill and the additional taxation that it involves.
      The Government did not go into the last general election saying, "We are going to increase taxes. These are the arguments for increasing them. Although we said in 1997 that there are only 24 hours to save the national health service, and we can save it without increasing taxes, we now realise, after four years, that we got it all wrong." What they are saying is, "Oh, now that the general election is behind us, we will increase taxes by stealth as much as we can. People will now have to see those tax rises." The Paymaster General has not heard the last of this. Next year, when people see the impact of this Bill in their pay packets, they will say, "What have we got in return? The health service has not been reformed, and the Government have once again broken their promises. They have put forward a proposition that has not been borne out in reality." That is why experts from the left and the right, from employers' and employees' organisations, are very worried about the Bill.
      The Bill is best summed up as having been born out of a broken general election promise. The Government went back on what they said during the climate change levy debate—that imposing increases in employers' national insurance contributions was bad, which is why they made a virtue of reducing the burden on employers' national insurance. They have now abandoned that argument altogether. They have broken their promises and they are facing the country with additional taxes that we can ill afford.
      That is why we shall vote against the Bill this evening—it will not deliver the improvements in the health service that we want, it will damage the economy, and it will raise taxes from people who are already being put under severe pressure as a result of stealth taxes introduced by the Government.
      Mr. Pound: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand me when I say that I do not mean to be presumptuous, but to my mind his dire prognostications for the United Kingdom economy echo precisely the comments that were made from the Conservative Benches about the national minimum wage. The Conservative party was wrong then. Why should we believe it tonight?
      Mr. Chope: I am not making any dire prognostications about the economy. All I am saying is that, each time the Government increase the burden of taxation, they make our economy less competitive. The process occurs gradually—a point that is flagged up in the inflation report produced by the Bank of England. I do not know whether

      679
      the hon. Gentleman had the chance to read the Bank of England's inflation report of May 2002 during his recent two-week break in his constituency, but I commend it to him. It shows that the Bank of England is on the ball and realises what is happening, even if the Government are not prepared to face up to its criticism.
      We will see the consequences over a period of time. We will not see much immediately, because the national insurance contribution increases will not come in until next year. However, when people get their pay packets next year, they will see exactly the high costs that they are paying and, over time after that we will see the damage that the Government have done to the economy.
      9.5 pm
      Dr. Evan Harris: The Liberal Democrats' support for the Bill is based on reasons opposite to the Conservative party's reasons for opposing it: we support the increase in funding for the health service. The health service and social services desperately need extra funding, and that has to be welcomed.
      We are not entirely happy with the precise way in which the funding is to be raised. For the reasons that have been outlined in the debate, we have made it clear that we would rather have an increase in the top rate of income tax on incomes of more than £100,000 and not an increase in employers' national insurance contributions. Such an increase will impose a burden on businesses that are struggling to cope with a strong pound and the difficulties of exporting.
      The Government have previously recognised that taxing employers for employment is a negative approach. As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, when we debated the climate change levy in 1999, the Government said that they wanted to reduce tax on good things such as employment. Although we support the extra funding and support raising the extra money through taxation on income, we are not happy about raising the money from businesses. However, the NHS is so desperate for the increase that we will not take the position that it should not receive any extra funding at all. Unlike the Conservatives, we do not want to defend a view that means that there would be no extra money, or a cut in the growth in funding. We are therefore prepared for the money to be raised in the way suggested in the Bill.
      Mr. Bercow: Goodness gracious. I never thought I could be taken aback by a contribution from a Liberal Democrat Member. However, on this occasion, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has confounded me. In the light of what he has just said about how the Liberal Democrats opposed the increase in national insurance contributions, did not want it to happen and tried to stop it but are prepared to support a Bill whose principal element is such an increase, is he surprised that the Liberal Democrats are regarded as two-timing, fence-sitting, unprincipled political chameleons?
      Dr. Harris: When the hon. Gentleman grows up, he will know that grown-up politics is about making choices that are not necessarily in one's hands. He must understand that a mature attitude to politics involves saying that this is what we would like to happen, but that
      680
      we have a second-best option if it cannot happen. For us, the second-best option is to raise money partly through employers' national insurance contributions even though we are concerned about that.
      Our top priority—the hon. Gentleman will rue the fact that the Conservative party does not recognise this—is public investment in the public services. Although we accept that they need changes and reform, they fundamentally need resources, and we are prepared to accept tax changes that we would not otherwise have supported because that is such an important priority. That is nothing new and, if the hon. Gentleman is dumbfounded by that approach, he will have a dumbfounded political career.
      We are critical of the way in which the Government have governed the health service and their history of investment in it. The investment has arrived five years later than it should have done under a Labour Government and five years later than people expected when they voted in 1997 for a party that said that it would save the NHS as soon as it was elected.
      Let us consider how much the Labour party has put into the health service in those years and compare that with what the Government are proposing now. On Second Reading, I invited the Paymaster General to specify by how much social services spending—adjusted for special transitional grant, community care arrangements and population changes—had increased between 1997 and 1999, because the figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are missing from the Wanless report. She did not answer that question, but a Library paper clearly states the percentage changes. In 1995–96, under the Tories, it was minus 2.9 per cent.—a real terms cut in funding to social services for the vulnerable. In 1996–97, again under the Conservatives, it was minus 1.8 per cent. In 1997–98, under Labour—despite "24 hours to save the NHS"—the change in real-terms spending, adjusted for special transitional grant and population changes, was minus 2.7 per cent. In 1998–99, it was minus 2 per cent.
      So after years of Tory underfunding, when many social services departments could not take any more, they got another hit from the Labour Government from which many, including the social services department in Oxfordshire, have not recovered. Five years later, we have the opportunity to give social services departments, as well as the health service, the funding that they need. However, we do not believe that the Government will adequately allocate the funding provided by the Bill into social services. It is clear from returns from social services departments around the country that they are more than £200 million overspent on their budgets. The Government may say that that is tough and that they should simply cut £200 million from caring for the elderly, the mentally ill, the disabled or the vulnerable young and children in care. Many are having to do that. However, as the bulk of their funding comes from central Government, central Government will have to account for that.
      On top of that, there is a £1 billion gap between what the Government say social services departments should be spending—the standard spending assessment—and what they are spending. That is £1 billion taken from other services and from steep rises in council tax, which is a more regressive tax than that proposed in the Bill. Before considering tackling the problems of delayed discharges and the underprovision of funding to deal with the crisis in care for the elderly and for children, the Government

      681
      should deal with the £218 million overspend and the £1 billion reality gap between what social services departments are having to pay and what the Government say they should be spending. The Government are giving a welcome few hundred million pounds to tackle the issue of delayed discharges, but that in itself will not be enough.
      As the hon. Member for Christchurch said, there are questions to be asked about how well funding for the health service is being spent, and it is right that we should ask those questions. There are false economies in three areas, for which the Government must take some responsibility. I hope that the new Chief Secretary, who is in charge of public service agreements for spending Departments, will ask the Department of Health to explain how huge amounts of NHS capacity can be lost because of delayed discharges. If funding was made available to social services departments and, indirectly, to the private health care sector, we could at a stroke release significant amounts of capacity—much more quickly than by training more nurses to open more beds, as we need to do and are doing.
      John Mann: The hon. Gentleman may care to visit my constituency to see what a Labour county council can do. I am perplexed by his prognosis on cuts. Where does the money come from for the 20 brand new intermediate care beds that were opened last year in my constituency? Where does the money come from for the 20 or more additional intermediate care beds at an alternative site that is being developed in my constituency? Is that the difference between the prioritising of a Labour county council and that of his county council?
      Dr. Harris: Oxfordshire county council has been subject to cuts under Liberal Democrat-Labour administrations, Labour-Conservative administrations and Conservative-Liberal Democrat administrations. I have never criticised those administrations in the House, even when my party was not involved. All local politicians recognise that without central funding to ensure that services grow, let alone remain the same, we let down the most vulnerable in society.
      The hon. Gentleman should look at the figures on delayed discharges, especially for areas outside his constituency, with its ministerial visits. I am delighted that a few more beds have been provided in his area. I suspect, however, that he does not issue a press release every time a private care home bed closes there. What we have is closure by stealth and announcements by acclamation. I am happy to visit Bassetlaw to see what is happening there, and I urge him to come to Oxfordshire where councillors of all parties are in despair at the cuts. I suspect he does not want to come—see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Nevertheless, the cuts are taking place in many authorities, including some that are Labour run.
      The second false economy is the cost of employing agency staff. The Chief Secretary and I know that the problems of health service staffing, including under-recruitment and under-training, are predominantly the fault of Conservative Administrations and have been inherited. None the less, the fact that the investment was not provided as early as it should have been has meant that the problem of paying agency staff over the odds remains because of a shortage of established posts in the NHS. That has cost a huge amount of money that need not have been spent. Indeed, we could he five years into a significant increase in funding.
      682
      The third false economy is the use of the private sector as a short-term measure. Some people are getting their operations quicker than would otherwise be the case, but in terms of value for money, the Chief Secretary must understand that it is highly likely that spot contracts, the costs of which are usually kept secret because of commercial sensitivity, are more expensive than releasing the capacity in the health service to tackle delayed discharges. We have to consider whether the money raised from an increase in NICs will simply be chucked away as we pay over the odds in secret contracts with the private sector. Even when private firms bid for contracts, they do not bear the same overheads as the NHS, which provides almost all the training and research. It is the only market for contracts in which one competitor trains the staff of its leading competitor, which has to bear none of the overheads. The time must come when we impose a training levy on private sector employers to pay back the costs to the NHS of training those staff.
      The Government did not announce before the election that the increase would be needed. To some extent, I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch on this. He said that the Labour party failed at the election to recognise the truth that taxes would have to rise to pay for the health service. On that basis, the Conservatives also failed to recognise the truth, although they would say that taxes do not need to rise to pay for the health service, and we discussed how they would pay for everything that is needed.
      On Second Reading, I asked the Chief Secretary's predecessor why, as No. 2 to the Chancellor, he could not forecast that a year after the election he would be raising taxes in such a significant way through national insurance contributions. He did not answer, but the hon. Member for Christchurch kindly put the point to him again in summation, for which I am grateful. He said:
      "At that time"—
      during the general election—
      "no one was much closer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer than the Chief Secretary. Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) challenged the Chief Secretary to deny that he knew a year ago that national insurance would have to be raised."—[Official Report, 13 May 2002; Vol. 388, c. 603.]
      The right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said that he had no such knowledge.
      The right hon. Gentleman is a man of his word—he is an hon. Member—and I am sure that that is true, but it worries me, as it should all hon. Members, that the second-in-command at the Treasury had such a poor grasp of the economic outlook and of Government receipts for public spending that he could not predict at the general election a year ago that taxes would have to increase in this way. I think that that is either frightening or that he was mistaken. I would be interested to know whether the post's current incumbent believes that it was reasonable for his predecessor to be out by a factor of a few billion pounds and in terms of significant tax changes within one year. Can he not look a year ahead?
      One aspect that has not been covered in our short debate is the complexity that the Bill produces in the tax regime. In an ideal world, we would have a simplified tax system that would make things more transparent, keep money from accountants and leave more money in taxpayers' pockets. We have a very complex tax system.

      683
      My hon. Friends have been proposing that simplification should be one of the Government's priorities. It is sad that the welcome resources that are to be raised by the measure are to be raised in such a complex way.
      We must consider how the Government will face the next election in terms of delivery. What worries me is that it will take a long time for the health service to produce the changes. I am worried for the patients who have to lie in pain awaiting their surgery, and I also worry that people will think that the extra resources that are going in so late were not sufficient to do the trick. Hon. Members should realise that even the resources that are going in now will take some time to work through to increased capacity. I am worried that the Government have been five years late, so that people will think in the next few years that the money is going in and will not allow enough time for improvement. In that respect, the Government are hoist with their own petard. They announced huge increases in 1997 and 1998, but the significant increases that we have seen recently were not made at that time. I think that the health service as a national service is more under threat now than at any other time as a result of the Government's complacency in terms of giving it the resources and reform that it needs.
      I fear that the Government will seek to blame anyone but themselves for their slowness to deliver. They will blame the hard-working staff in the health service, scapegoat a few hospitals that do not have sufficient capacity and seek to pick fights with the unions for opposing untested and unreasonable reforms, As we have heard, they will also seek to blame patients for not turning up. The reason why many patients do not turn up for appointments is that they are either already dead or in hospital. The idea of fine collectors wandering around cemeteries to try to fine patients for not turning up to appointments is beyond the pale.
      I hope that the Government will accept in humility some responsibility for the delay in delivery that their lateness in putting in the resources has caused. In supporting the Bill on Third Reading, it is right to let the Government know that the resources are welcome but that to date their record on managing the health service has not been good.
      9.23 pm
      Mr. Peter Luff: May I say what a privilege it is to see the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury in his place? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be as robust in dealing with his colleagues in spending Departments as he is in dealing with sloppy arguments in Committee or on the Floor of the House. I wish his colleagues in those spending Departments well in their negotiations during the coming weeks and months.
      There are at least five reasons why the Bill should be resisted with absolute clarity and certainty. The first is the impact on the business sector. The second is the cost to the public sector. Thirdly, there is the cost to individual voters, who will pay the taxes directly or indirectly. Fourthly—this is very important—the Bill represents a massive broken promise by the Government. It should be a matter of considerable concern to the House that they have broken their promises as spectacularly as they have done by introducing the Bill. Finally, the Government are
      684
      simply proposing to pour money into the existing health system without seeking the reform of that system that is essential to ensure that it will use those additional resources effectively.
      To put it simply, in the past five years taxes have gone up and up, but as we all know, public services have got worse. The country deserves a great deal better, not more of the same. The Government have increased taxes with great abandon, but they are not addressing the problems in our health service with the open mind that they should have in dealing with such an important matter. I am particularly concerned that the Government seem so unprepared to learn lessons from other countries—lessons that Her Majesty's official Opposition are most anxious to learn.
      Let us look at the first of the reasons why the Bill should be resisted: the impact on businesses. Under the Labour Government businesses have been hit by higher taxes, and in particular by increased red tape and regulatory burdens. In my discussions with the south Worcestershire council of the Hereford and Worcester chamber of commerce shortly after the Budget, I learned just how concerned businesses were about the Bill, coming as it does on top of all the other burdens that they now have to bear.
      John Mann: What is those people's view on the reduction in corporation tax, and what is the hon. Gentleman's?
      Mr. Luff: As far as I know, they have no view on that matter—but in inviting me to express mine, the hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next remarks. In that tantalising intervention he alluded to the fact that the Chancellor claims to have cut business tax. He has announced—I think I have the litany right, but I am sure that the Chief Secretary will correct me if I get it wrong—a cut in small companies corporation tax rate from 20 to 19 per cent.; the exemption of companies from corporation tax on sales of substantial shareholdings; a reduction in the starting rate of corporation tax from 10 per cent. to zero; and a cut in capital gains tax to 20 per cent. for business assets held for one year and more, and to 10 per cent. for assets held for two years and more. Is that the sort of list that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) sought? [Interruption.] Obviously, the hon. Gentleman broadly agrees.
      That is all very well, but it is more of the smoke and mirrors—the spin—that we are used to from the Government, because the Chancellor's changes to employers' national insurance contributions will raise as much as a 3 per cent. rise in corporation tax. He gives a little with one hand and takes a great deal more back with the other. That is the fundamental point.
      Employers who pay national insurance contributions on all earnings above the threshold—that is frozen at £89 a week—face a rise from 11.8 to 12.8 per cent. That is a big increase, which more than makes up for all the good things in the Budget. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw is right—there were good things in the Budget.
      John Mann: Is it not the case that the main rate of corporation tax has been reduced by 3 per cent. and the rate for small companies by 4 per cent., which, with the changes in capital gains tax for any entrepreneur who sells

      685
      his business, will mean that the overall benefit for any small business will be 10, 20, 30 or 40 times the increase in national insurance?
      Mr. Luff: I am glad to have flushed the hon. Gentleman out. He appears to be greatly concerned about that point. I could not persuade him with my previous argument, but perhaps I can persuade him with this one.
      When the Chancellor announced his business tax cuts, of which the hon. Gentleman is so proud—it gives me great pleasure to hear Opposition Members—[Interruption.] I am sorry; they will be Opposition Members again soon, but I meant to say that it gives me great pleasure to hear Government Members boast about their desire to cut the rate of business taxation. Even if they are not succeeding in doing so, I am glad that at least they seem to want to try. When the Chancellor announced his so-called business tax cuts, he did not mention—
      John Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Luff: I will deal with one intervention at a time. If when I have finished, the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with my answer, I shall happily give way to him a third time.
      Let me make this point: a company that does not make a profit does not pay corporation tax, but it does pay national insurance contributions. That is tremendously important. For struggling businesses, new businesses, or businesses facing short-term difficulties, the national insurance contributions increases are far more damaging than any corporation tax increase, and any NIC cut would be far more beneficial than any corporation tax cut. The hon. Gentleman should remember that even in the brave new world created by the Chancellor, many businesses find life tough. That is why the national insurance contributions increases are so serious for business.
      John Mann: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the cuts in corporation tax are illusory. They are real cuts that any business person can see—real cuts, year on year, for anyone who runs a business. That is why there are so many more successful businesses, and 1.5 million people back in work. For anyone running a business, the key issue of certainty centres on interest rates. Are not current interest rates the lowest since the 1960s? Is not the cost of borrowing money for a business, small or large, lower than ever? Is that not the reason for the increased profitability in the small business sector in the past five years?
      Mr. Luff: I ought to invite the hon. Gentleman to make his own speech, because that was a long intervention. I suspect that you would rule out a discussion on interest rates policy, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am glad to see you nod in agreement, Sir.
      I agree that not everything is a problem in the modern British economy. I am glad that not everything that the last Conservative Administration put in place has been squandered by the incoming Labour Government. I fully agree that we have enjoyed a sustained period of growth over many years—much longer than the Government have been in office. That is excellent news, but it does not justify swingeing increases in business taxation, which are disguised in the Bill and have been condemned by the business sector.
      686
      I am worried that the Government are not prepared to assess the implications of the changes for employment. They were happy to boast about the impact of reductions in national insurance contributions accompanying the climate change levy, and their beneficial effect on employment, but now they are increasing national insurance contributions, that willingness to calculate has disappeared entirely. The CBI estimates that companies will pay £4 billion more in tax because of the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance from next April, which comes on top of the additional £6 billion a year net in extra taxes that has been imposed on the business sector and the £5 billion-worth a year of extra red tape. Those burdens are beginning seriously to impede companies' ability to win orders and create jobs.
      John Mann indicated dissent.
      Mr. Luff: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head in disbelief. Ernst and Young, in its ITEM—independent Treasury economic model—club report for spring 2002, said:
      "Many companies will be taking another look at headcount before the increase in payroll tax comes in next April".
      The report also said:
      "The risk is that employers, already under pressure from high labour costs, and in many cases unable to pass costs on to the consumer"—
      the hon. Gentleman needs to bear that important point in mind—
      "will take another look at staffing levels before next April. An extra 1 per cent. on the wage bill may not seem much but it adds up to £3.9 billion in a full year, 12 per cent. of the corporation tax bill. For many companies, an extra 1 per cent. on labour costs may prove to be the last straw".
      I do not share the hon. Gentleman's optimism about the Bill's impact on the business sector; far from it—the impact could be serious.
      The Bill's impact on the public sector concerns the whole House. There are, for example, about 1 million NHS workers in England alone; the 1 per cent. rise in employers' national insurance contributions will increase the cost of employing them by about £200 million. In my constituency, that is of particular concern to general practitioners. In south Worcestershire, the settlement for our primary care trust was not generous, as the area was split up to form the new trusts that replaced the old primary care groups.
      Pay settlements for ancillary workers in surgeries impose a burden on GPs' budgets, and on top of that, those doctors have to pay a 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions. Local GPs are wondering what economies they will have to make in the running of their surgeries and what reductions in service they will offer my constituents—their patients—as a direct result of the increase in national insurance contributions and other factors of the Government's making. There are therefore genuine concerns about the Bill's impact on the quality of the service provided by the NHS in my constituency.
      The police are another interesting example. Today the Home Office announced that three constabularies in the west midlands, including West Mercia police, would get an extra £900,000 to help in the fight against terrorism, which would mean an extra £300,000 each. I am sure that that figure will be dwarfed by the increase in the national

      687
      insurance bill for the West Mercia constabulary alone; the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. It was ever thus, I suppose, but the impact is serious and will impose a further burden on a service that had to raise its council tax precept by 33 per cent. to achieve an acceptable level of policing in my constituency.
      Those changes, coupled with the changes in income tax, will have a direct impact on ordinary people—the voters themselves—not just the businesses or public sector services that employ them. A nurse consultant on £34,000 a year will be £26 a month worse off from next year, a police inspector on £37,000 a year will be £30 a month worse off, and an employee earning £20,000 a year will be £15 a month worse off. Those increases in personal taxation directly break the Government's promises to the people of Britain in the election campaign. That is an important point. For a Government, within a year of an election, to bring forward legislation that directly contradicts the promises that they gave to the people at that election should he a cause for shame, not for pride. However, that is what this Government have done.
      On 22 May 2001 the Prime Minister was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman, who asked him:
      "I am merely asking why you could give this guarantee"—
      not to abolish the national insurance ceiling—
      "last time but you can't give it this time and whether any reasonable person wouldn't suppose that you therefore propose to increase national insurance contributions."
      I agree that that is rather a convoluted question, but the Prime Minister's reply was, "They shouldn't." He said that people should not make that supposition. However, a year later legislation is introduced to do precisely what the Prime Minister clearly implied would not happen.
      The previous Chief Secretary, who is now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, was asked on the Dimbleby programme:
      "You say that you won't rule it out because you can't afford to. Do you also accept that as far as voters are concerned, National Insurance is regarded as a tax on income?"
      This is the nearest that we get to an honest answer from a Minister to such a question. The right hon. Gentleman said:
      "Well, certainly it comes out of the wage packet."
      It certainly does, and people will feel it next year.
      I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), the Government Deputy Chief Whip, is in his place. On "Your Call" on Sky News on 4 June 2001, he said:
      "We have no plans to raise any kind of so-called stealth taxes. Gordon Brown has made it perfectly clear that we have absolutely no plans to raise the ceiling on National Insurance."
      You know now, Mr. Speaker, that if Ministers or their representatives say that they have absolutely no such plans, you should start reaching for your wallet as a matter of urgency, because plans certainly exist.
      I should add that I have great affection for the Government Deputy Chief Whip, who made possible an important bypass in my constituency, for which I shall always be in his debt, as will the people of Wyre Piddle—but I will not labour that point for fear of upsetting the hon. Gentleman any further.
      688
      Then there is the reform of the health service itself. The Government are effectively hypothecating their national insurance increases for the health service. I have said already that they have had a closed mind about the reforms that are necessary in the health service to make sure that it can use the moneys effectively.
      I now have four questions for whichever Minister will wind up the debate. I am not entirely sure which of the two present that will be, but I am sure that whoever it is will do it extremely well. By the time of the next election, spending on the NHS will have increased by 70 per cent. in real terms since 1997. Does the Minister think that the NHS will have improved by 70 per cent. in that period? When patients in Britain are dying of diseases that they would not die of if they lived in other European countries, why did the Chancellor tell Mr. Wanless not to consider any of the ways of administering health care that have proved more successful elsewhere?
      Next, can the Minister explain why despite the fact that NHS spending has increased by nearly one third since the Government came to office, the number of people waiting to get on the NHS waiting list has increased by 113,000? During Prime Minister's questions my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked:
      "By the time of the next general election when health spending in Britain has reached the European average, will we have European standards of health care?"—[Official Report, 24 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 328.]
      The Prime Minister refused to say that we would. Why did he refuse to answer that question? These are important questions that the Government need to answer.
      I remain unconvinced by my experience that the Government are making effective use of the spare resources that exist in the private health sector in my constituency. I remain concerned that some of the problems of the health service have been created directly by the policies introduced by the Government. The question of social services beds, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), is crucial. The burdens imposed on the caring sector have been huge, and have contributed directly to delayed discharges from hospitals in Worcestershire. Those problems could have been avoided not by spending money but by having a more friendly and sensible regulatory regime.
      The Bill should be resisted, for the five reasons that I have set out. There is the impact on business, the cost to the public sector, the cost to voters, the broken promises and the Government's failure to reform the health service appropriately to ensure that money is spent appropriately. I am sad that the Government have not seen the error of their ways, and I hope that the House will vote to oppose the Bill on Third Reading in a few minutes' time.
      9.39 pm
      Mr. Chope: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on an excellent speech, and hope that the Government will respond to his powerful comments. Let me make a few more points, very briefly.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made an important observation when he said that throwing more money at the NHS would not produce quick results. I think that if the Government deployed

      689
      their resources in tackling existing inefficiencies immediately, they would secure much quicker results. Only last month, an Audit Commission report suggested that inefficiency in the NHS was costing the equivalent of 150,000 operations a year—the number of operations that the NHS plans to buy from the private sector this year. Think of the enormous sums that could be saved if the existing system were reformed.
      We still feel that the Government have gone for the easy socialist option of increasing taxes and throwing more money at the public service, when what we really need to do is make the public service better. That can be achieved only through proper, substantial reform.
      9.41 pm
      Dawn Primarolo: There are now more than 107,000 fewer people on NHS waiting lists. No one is waiting more than 15 months for operations, whereas nearly 60,000 were doing so in March 1997. There are 6,000 fewer people waiting more than 12 months for operations, and we are on course to eliminate that figure by the end of next year. Just 500 people—500 too many, admittedly—have been waiting more than six months to see consultants, compared with more than 70,000 in March 1997.
      There are now 25 per cent. more heart operations—some 10,000—every year. There are 171 more cardiologists, an increase of over 40 per cent. More than 95 per cent. of people urgently referred by their general practitioners with suspected cancer now see consultants within two weeks, compared with 63 per cent. in 1997. There are 566 more cancer consultants, an increase of 18 per cent. There are 50 per cent. more computerised tomography scans, and 86 per cent. more magnetic resonance imaging scans. An additional 500,000 operations are performed in the NHS every year, an increase of 10 per cent.
      Last year there were 700 more general and acute beds in the NHS—the first increase in bed numbers for 30 years. NHS Direct has been rolled out across the country. The number of delayed discharges has been reduced; 4,700 such people now occupy acute hospital beds. Of course we desperately need to ensure that those people have appropriate care and support, but that compares with 6,800 delayed discharges in 1997.
      Twelve major hospital schemes have been completed, and a further 15 are under construction. Every accident and emergency department that needed modernisation has now been modernised. Moreover, there are now 31,000 more nurses and 9,500 more doctors, including 2,000 new, modern matrons.
      Despite all that, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has the cheek to suggest that nothing has changed and that the Government have not been investing more money in the health service and ensuring that it grows. I must tell him that his constant parroting of "We, the Liberal Democrats, will cost you 1p," or "We, the Liberal Democrats, would raise the money in a different way," is no substitute for hard policies and delivery of services in the NHS. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear, the Bill sets out plans for an unprecedented increase in spending in the NHS, together with responsibility for proposals for financing that increased spending.
      What of the Tories? We have gone through yet another debate on national insurance, but are we any the wiser about their policy? No. The Tories are still thinking
      690
      about it—open-minded and empty-headed. There are no proposals from them. They are so empty-headed that they cannot even make it clear on the Floor of the House that they are committed to a comprehensive health service available on the basis of need, not ability to pay. Have we heard one of them utter that principle? No.
      What we have heard the Tories say is why we should use taxpayers' money to subsidise private medical health care, why they believe that employers should not meet their obligations in contributing to a fine and first-class NHS, and why they believe that there is a magic formula out there to produce a health service that will respond to people's requirements and needs but will not require any extra resources. If they had learned anything from their defeats in 1997 and 2001, it would have been that the British electorate rejected their policies of underfunding the public sector and the NHS, and that the British electorate want their health service to be the best in the world and are prepared to pay for that on a fair and equal basis built on the fine principles of the Beveridge proposals. Yet again, all we have heard today from the Tories is why they want to stop that happening.
      I say to the House and to the British electorate that if they had any doubts that the intention of the Conservative Opposition is to privatise the NHS, to cut it and to create a two-tier NHS, they have seen the proof of that intention in the debate tonight. This Bill guarantees, for the first time in the history of the NHS, consistent investment in the NHS: staff, beds, buildings and services to respond to the needs of the British people. I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 336, Noes 129.

      Division No. 258]

      [9.48 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Ainger, Nick

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Allen, Graham

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Browne, Desmond

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Austin, John

      Bryant, Chris

      Bailey, Adrian

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Baird, Vera

      Burden, Richard

      Baker, Norman

      Burnham, Andy

      Banks, Tony

      Burstow, Paul

      Barnes, Harry

      Cairns, David

      Barrett, John

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Beard, Nigel

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Benn, Hilary

      Caplin, Ivor

      Bennett, Andrew

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Benton, Joe

      Casale, Roger

      Betts, Clive

      Caton, Martin

      Blackman, Liz

      Cawsey, Ian

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Challen, Colin

      Blizzard, Bob

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Clapham, Michael

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Brake, Tom

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Breed, Colin

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      691

      Clelland, David

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Harvey, Nick

      Coaker, Vernon

      Healey, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hendrick, Mark

      Connarty, Michael

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Heyes, David

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hill, Keith

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corston, Jean

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cotter, Brian

      Holmes, Paul

      Cousins, Jim

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cox, Tom

      Hope, Phil

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cummings, John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hurst, Alan

      Davidson, Ian

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Dawson, Hilton

      Illsley, Eric

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Jamieson, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dobbin, Jim

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Doughty, Sue

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dowd, Jim

      Joyce, Eric

      Drew, David

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Edwards, Huw

      Kemp, Fraser

      Efford, Clive

      Khabra, Piara S

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kidney, David

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Farrelly, Paul

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Fisher, Mark

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lamb, Norman

      Flint, Caroline

      Lammy, David

      Flynn, Paul

      Laws, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Levitt, Tom

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Foulkes, George

      Linton, Martin

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Lloyd, Tony

      Gapes, Mike

      Love, Andrew

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lucas, Ian

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Luke, Iain

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lyons, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      McCafferty, Chris

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gidley, Sandra

      MacDonald, Calum

      Gilroy, Linda

      McDonnell, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      McFall, John

      Goggins, Paul

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McKechin, Ann

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Grogan, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hancock, Mike

      McWalter, Tony

      Hanson, David

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      692

      Mallaber, Judy

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mann, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marris, Rob

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Miliband, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Miller, Andrew

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

      Moffatt, Laura

      Soley, Clive

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Southworth, Helen

      Moore, Michael

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moran, Margaret

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Stevenson, George

      Mountford, Kali

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mullin, Chris

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stringer, Graham

      Oaten, Mark

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stunell, Andrew

      O'Neill, Martin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Organ, Diana

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pearson, Ian

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Perham, Linda

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Picking, Anne

      Thurso, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Timms, Stephen

      Pike, Peter

      Tipping, Paddy

      Plaskitt, James

      Todd, Mark

      Pollard, Kerry

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pond, Chris

      Trickett, Jon

      Pope, Greg

      Truswell, Paul

      Pound, Stephen

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Price, Adam

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Pugh, Dr John

      Wareing, Robert N

      Purchase, Ken

      Watts, David

      Purnell, James

      Webb, Steve

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Weir, Michael

      Rammell, Bill

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Rapson, Syd

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Willis, Phil

      Rendel, David

      Winnick, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wishart, Pete

      Rooney, Terry

      Wood, Mike

      Ross, Ernie

      Woodward, Shaun

      Roy, Frank

      Worthington, Tony

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wray, James

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Ryan, Joan

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Salter, Martin

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Sanders, Adrian

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sawford, Phil

      Mr. John Heppell and

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. Phil Woolas.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Bacon, Richard

      Brady, Graham

      Barker, Gregory

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Baron, John

      Burns, Simon

      Bellingham, Henry

      Burnside, David

      Bercow, John

      Cameron, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cash, William

      Blunt, Crispin

      Chope, Christopher

      Boswell, Tim

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      693

      Collins, Tim

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Conway, Derek

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Maples, John

      Cran, James

      Mates, Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Fallon, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Flight, Howard

      Norman, Archie

      Flook, Adrian

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Page, Richard

      Francois, Mark

      Paice, James

      Garnier, Edward

      Pickles, Eric

      Gibb, Nick

      Prisk, Mark

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Randall, John

      Goodman, Paul

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gray, James

      Robathan, Andrew

      Grayling, Chris

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Greenway, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Grieve, Dominic

      Ruffley, David

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hammond, Philip

      Selous, Andrew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Simmonds, Mark

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Hendry, Charles

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hoban, Mark

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Horam, John

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Spring, Richard

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Streeter, Gary

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Swire, Hugo

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Syms, Robert

      Key, Robert

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tredinnick, David

      Lansley, Andrew

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Leigh, Edward

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Letwin, Oliver

      Viggers, Peter

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Walter, Robert

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lidington, David

      Watkinson, Angela

      Loughton, Tim

      Whittingdale, John

      Luff, Peter

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Wiggin, Bill

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Willetts, David

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      694

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Yeo, Tim

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Mr. Julian Brazier.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

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

    INVESTIGATORY POWERS
    That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Interception of Communications: Code of Practice) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    Question agreed to.

  DEREGULATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
  DEREGULATION

    VACCINE DAMAGE PAYMENTS
    That the draft Regulatory Reform (Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 29th April, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    Question agreed to.

  NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
  Resolved,
  That—

  (1) the matter of the scope for a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;

  (2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 27th June at 2.30 p.m.; and

  (3) at the meeting—

  (a) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at 4.30 p.m.; and

  (b) at the conclusion of those proceedings a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be moved by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

  Overseas Students
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  10.4 pm
  Sue Doughty: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring a matter of great concern to me to the attention of the House. In brief, the Government promise great things to foreign students who study here, but fail spectacularly to deliver when they arrive, not in the nature of their studies—our universities and colleges do a fine job—but through a series of extraordinary hassles with their passports and visas. I have had many examples in my constituency. The immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office appears to be the main culprit. It makes Railtrack under the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) look like a shining example of efficiency by comparison. The story that I shall tell shows a saga not so much of joined-up government as of one Department frantically working to undermine the work of another.
  The background to the problem is this: British universities and further education colleges, supported by the Department for Education and Skills, have much to offer overseas students, who, at the same time benefit the economy and education funding. We hope and expect that students gain not only an excellent education but a positive impression of this country which is of benefit to international relations as well as our international trading position. We hope that they will tell their friends what a good place the United Kingdom is to study so that more will come and extend that benefit.
  Figures produced by the Higher Education Statistics Agency for the academic year 2001–02 show that nearly 240,000 overseas students were studying in the UK. In total, they represented 11 per cent. of all students in these institutions—an increase of about 17.5 per cent. above 1995–96 levels. The income to higher education institutions in 1999–2000, the most recent year for which figures are available, was £672 million—5.2 per cent. of the total income for that sector.
  The Prime Minister is aiming to increase the number of overseas students, and in June 1999 he launched a campaign to make the UK a world-class leader in international education and lifelong learning. Two key objectives were set for further education and higher education institutions—to be the first choice for quality among international students at higher education level, with an increase of 50,000 non-European Union international students by 2005, and to be the world's leading nation for international students to undertake further education, with an increase of 100 per cent. in full-time students by 2005.
  To help achieve these targets, the Government put in place a four-element package of measures, consisting of a £6 million investment in the development and three-year promotion of a new UK education brand, led by the British Council, with enhanced marketing in priority countries, including India, Pakistan and China, the streamlining of visa arrangements for students applying to study in the UK, the easing of procedures on permission for students to work part time and in vacations and the expansion of the Chevening scholarship scheme.
  International nursing students want clarification from the Minister on these improvements. They want confirmation that there is no requirement for them to
  696
  commit to leaving the UK as a condition of obtaining a visa and that they are entitled to work up to 20 hours a week during term time and for an unlimited time during vacations.
  Our further and higher education institutions have risen to the challenge that the Government have set with these new measures. The provisional data show a fall, as requested, of 6 per cent. of students from other EU countries, and an increase of 12 per cent. of students outside the EU. Moreover, there will be additional income from off-campus spending by overseas students.
  This should be a good news story. Guildford college of further and higher education and Surrey university have marketed strongly in these countries. However, what should be a purposeful and pleasant visit to the UK by overseas students has been turned into forced exile for some and misery for many.
  Like other right hon. and hon. Members who have the privilege of serving constituencies with higher and further education establishments, I regularly see cases in which an application for a student visa has resulted in an unacceptably long time before a passport is returned.
  An example lies in the events that led up to my calling for this debate. A student at Guildford college, a Hungarian national, contacted me last October. She had first applied to the Home Office for a visa in April 2000 when she came to start a course of study at Chelsea. She then applied for an extension in good faith, having gained a place at Guildford college. I know that she is studying hard: her English has come on in leaps and bounds since I first met her. She has been here quite a while now.
  The student submitted her passport and trusted that all was in order. She registered her home address as that of her English relatives, to be absolutely certain that documents would reach her. She lives in Guildford. A member of my team telephoned the Home Office on 14 November and was assured that the matter would be looked into. We made follow-up calls, and having heard nothing by December, I wrote to the then Minister, enclosing further documentation and evidence of her current course, as requested. We asked for a progress report but got no reply. A member of her family also wrote to the Home Office.
  We followed up the problem in early February, having given the Home Office the opportunity to find the file, which we were told was in Becket house. We were promised a return call but never received it. On 27 February, we followed up again and were told that the file was with the Minister's correspondence officer. Meanwhile, the student was concerned that, after all this time, with my intervention, she should get her passport back. She wanted to go home for a visit before her exams. Having originally applied in April 2000, she thought that the passport would turn up and she booked a return ticket home.
  We were told that the passport was not in the Minister's office but with the immigration control inspectorate. The student rang Lunar house and was told that the papers were there and she should go there at 6 o'clock the next morning. This is like Kafka. She duly got up at 4 o'clock, but when she got there she was told that the passport was not there and was probably in Becket house, so she came back. We followed up and the Home Office said that it had probably been lost and she should apply to the Hungarian embassy for a replacement. She was really

  697
  worried that the embassy would take a dim view of her having lost her passport, so we got a letter from the Home Office and she applied for a passport from the embassy.
  By the end of March, we had learned from the Minister's office that the entire application had been lost and the student would have to start the whole process again. By the end of April, she received a new passport from the Hungarian embassy—it was rather more efficient that the IND—and by 8 May we were following up yet again and, lo and behold, the original passport turned up in Becket house. By late May, her file was back with the Minister. I am afraid that that is my fault, because with all that was going on we had by then requested this Adjournment debate.
  Surprise, surprise, having written three letters to the then Minister with no response to any, since securing this debate I have received a response from the current Minister. It came by fax at 1.20 pm last Friday. Half the information in it is wrong. Information requested has already been supplied, and other information about the history is simply inaccurate.
  I shall not go into the detail of the letter here, and I would not have brought the matter to the House if that was the only problem, but it shows the complete lack of competence in the handling of some applications. There is a fast-track scheme, and it works brilliantly. I have a student who does some cleaning for me who is really pleased with it, but when a student application is not allowed within the scheme and has to go through the standard route, there are problems.
  The system is unacceptably slow. Delays of six months are commonplace, and Surrey university and Guildford college have examples of delays of more than a year. The standard letter of reply mentions a likely delay of nine months. To deny a person his or her passport for so long is completely unacceptable and possibly an abuse of human rights. A person cannot travel or use the passport for identification, for example to set up a bank account or get part-time employment or concessionary student cards. Students without their passport feel insecure. They are brought up to have identification and expect to have it if asked by the police. They have a constant nagging feeling that they are doing something wrong. When we raised some of those points, we were told that a student could get their passport back by withdrawing their application, but that is fatuous because the student would have to start all over again thus prolonging the delay, or return to their own country to await the renewal of their visa there, thus interrupting their studies.
  I can understand the IND's concern about citizens from certain countries of the world. Among the student population it is strongly believed that applications from Libyans, Iranians, Pakistanis and Zimbabweans will never go through the fast-track system. That can be due only to suspicions that they do not desire to return home on completion of their studies, and the IND may want to check the facts. However, to create anxiety among people does no good; it does not help relations with their countries and makes a lasting impression on those people.
  Furthermore, there is deep suspicion among many students that those from more affluent families experience longer delays because money might change hands. I cannot substantiate that suspicion as I have no evidence, but it is a common belief.
  698
  The university has regularly called on me and on my predecessor to untangle problems—as has Guildford college. I shall quickly refer to other cases, to show that the situation that I described earlier is not a one-off.
  A Libyan student wants to spend a short period at a French university, with which her department has had contact, as part of her PhD programme. Her passport has been with the IND for six months and she cannot go to France.
  Two Turkish Cypriots sent separate visa applications in October and November 2001. Despite their requests, the visa stamps were put in their passports, rather than their identity cards as required by their home country. One ID card was never returned, while the other was returned without a stamp and had to be sent back. All the documents were mislaid—they are still missing. The students experienced great problems in travelling to their home country and incurred considerable expense in obtaining replacement documents.
  An Indian who visited my surgery made an application in December 2001. He had heard nothing by May when he was anxious to return home for a family wedding. His presence was urgently required as a close relative had been involved in a car accident and was in a critical condition. I managed to get that passport returned, but it needed my intervention.
  Iranian students frequently cannot return home when they want to. A Russian submitted an application in November 2001 and is still waiting. He has to go home on a visit this summer.
  It is embarrassing to have to apologise on behalf of my country for the way that we treat people who are not only our honoured guests but are also customers of education UK, yet I have to do so regularly in my surgery. I am repeatedly told that these events occur not only to students but to others, although we do not have time to deal with those cases.
  The purpose of the debate is to find out what on earth is happening and to get to the bottom of it. Will the Minister tell me how things have got so bad? Why has it taken so long to do anything to sort out the mess? I am sure that it is not a Guildford special.
  Will the hon. Lady tell me why we are advertising courses in other countries even though we know what will happen after students arrive in the UK? Do they know the hell that they will have to go through to sort out their documentation?
  Is the Minister aware that many new students from Pakistan and India—priority countries according to the Prime Minister—who are expecting to start courses in September and October are being denied access to entry clearance services and will not be able to take up their places? We are trying to sell courses to such people.
  Is the Minister aware that, although international postgraduate students are crucial to our economy and to the academic viability of many universities, the Home Office often takes more than eight months to process applications for extensions of leave? During that time students do not have their passports and cannot go home for vacations or travel elsewhere.
  Is the Minister aware that, although China has been identified as a priority one country by the Prime Minister, the majority of Chinese students experience delays of many months in the processing of their extension applications,

  699
  because of the inefficiency of interdepartmental security checks? Is she aware that, despite the resumption of diplomatic relations with Libya in 1999, there has been no change in the way that the Home Office processes applications from Libyan students, granting them only six months leave at a time and taking months to process their applications, so that they are unable to leave the UK during their entire stay in this country?
  Is the Minister aware that, despite the Prime Minister's initiative to recruit more international students to the United Kingdom, passport stamps and vignettes have still not been amended to reflect students' rights to work as accorded as part of that initiative? Is she aware that students who succeed in appealing against the refusal of entry clearance will usually be delayed in joining their courses for the whole academic year? Is she aware that the Home Office's public inquiry office in Belfast is now closed, leaving international students studying in Northern Ireland with no way to make applications in person?
  I know of many more examples from Guildford college that relate to the IND's friendliness. Getting the IND to do something—friendly or not—would be a good thing, but being helpful to those people and making them feel good while they are here might help to sell education UK. In short, we are trying to get joined-up government, but the IND does its best to undermine education UK—the British Council and the Department for Education and Skills in their work in attracting foreign students to our country. The situation is bleak. Can the Minister give me any hope for the future?
  10.20 pm
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I congratulate the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) on securing this debate, and I do not blame her for seeking it, certainly on the basis of the case with which I am familiar and about which she has written to the Department.
  I am pleased to have the opportunity to make our position clear. I have to say that the person in the case with which I am most familiar—the one that I have investigated—was treated unacceptably. Although the hon. Lady raised several other cases, that treatment is not typical, but I want to set out our general student policy and some of the difficulties that have affected a number of people, as well as to say something about that case.
  In the time left to me, I probably cannot deal with all the questions that the hon. Lady asked me at the end of her speech, but I will write to her following the debate to deal with anything that I do not cover now. She is right to say that the United Kingdom welcomes overseas students and wants to welcome them. More than 300,000 students entered the UK in 2000, up from about 200,000, 10 years previously. So there is clearly a growing trend, which we very much welcome.
  We recognise, as does the hon. Lady, the mutual benefit of attracting overseas students to the UK. That benefit is to the students and certainly to our country. For the students, the UK can offer—as it does at the college in her constituency—high-quality and competitively priced education in a stimulating environment. Those who experience UK education and training tend to become lifelong friends of the UK, with all that that implies for
  700
  future political, trade and economic benefits in the UK. They also generate significant income for the UK and the wider economy.
  One of the aims of the Prime Minister's initiative, launched in 1999, to attract more overseas students, to which the hon. Lady referred, was to make visa and entry arrangements more user-friendly for students. After her experiences, she may think that that has a hollow ring, but that was certainly one of the intentions. We have tried to make the visa application process as simple as possible: we have produced more information for applicants; we have tried to reduce waiting times; and we have ensured that, wherever possible, leave to enter or remain is granted for the full duration of a course.
  However, I have to tell the hon. Lady that this is a question of balance. I do not say that to justify the treatment that she has described, but people have to recognise that we genuinely want to minimise inconvenience and delay to genuine students while ensuring that we have the necessary checks in place to identify and deter those people who would otherwise try to use that avenue to circumvent the controls. That could have been an issue in the case that she has raised, with which I shall deal in a moment.
  Students are free to take part-time work while studying in the UK, including during sandwich courses and internships. Those who have completed degrees here may be eligible to obtain work permits and to stay on in employment. I shall write to the hon. Lady on her specific question about nurses.
  For most of the period since the launch of the Prime Minister's initiative, the initial decisions on all applications for extensions of stay in the UK were generally made within three weeks. Of late, however, some applicants, including students, have had to wait much longer than we would have wished for a decision on their applications for further leave to remain. I assure the hon. Lady that we are doing everything possible to ensure that students can study here without encountering immigration problems.
  Many overseas students come to the United Kingdom with a student visa. That is a mandatory requirement in the immigration rules for all visa nationals wanting to come here to study. It does not, however, apply to non-visa nationals. Many come here as visitors and apply to stay on as students.
  In 2001–02, more than 370,000 general and settlement applications were made by post and in person. That was a 20 per cent. increase on the previous year and reflects the year-on-year growth that we have experienced. Of those, student applications represent the largest single category. At peak periods, they account for about 40 per cent. of all applications. The IND's target is to complete 70 per cent. of all general and settlement applications on initial consideration and within the three-week period. That target applies to all categories, including students. Because of an exceptionally high intake during the second half of 2001, however, and the implementation of a new database—[Interruption.] I hear laughter from a sedentary position, but unless we get the information technology right we will never succeed in dealing with the huge volume of applications in the kind of time scale that we want to achieve and that people expect. Those two factors therefore resulted in an increase from three weeks to eight weeks by the end of that year. That coincided with the

  701
  peak period for student applications—September and October—with the result that many student applications were affected.
  The very high intake of cases has meant that those cases that cannot be decided on initial consideration, because they are not straightforward, have taken up to nine months to consider. That was one of the cases that the hon. Lady cited, and I shall deal with the reasons in a moment.
  In connection with the Prime Minister's initiative, a batch scheme was introduced in August 2000 for universities and publicly funded colleges of higher education affiliated to the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs. Under that scheme, which has worked very successfully, applications can be submitted in batches by universities and colleges with a promise that they will be processed within two weeks if everything is straightforward. The majority of student applications are straightforward, but a number require further investigation or inquiry before a decision can be made.
  Applications are considered on their individual merits. In many cases, inquiries have to be made to establish whether the requirements of the immigration rules have been met, for example. These may be to check whether the student or the sponsor has sufficient evidence of financial support for the duration of the studies. Some applicants wait until the end of their leave to enter in some other category under the immigration rules before applying to remain as students. That has to be checked out. Inquiries need to be made to check whether the applicant is a bona fide student. For example—this was an element in the case quoted by the hon. Lady—a person can enter the UK as a visitor or, in this case, as an au pair. One of the requirements of that leave of entry is that the person will leave at the end of their permitted stay. If the person applies at the end of that period to remain as a student, further inquiries need to be taken into account.
  In some cases, the study quoted is at private education institutions. Again, that was a feature of the case cited by the hon. Lady. In fact, an investigation was under way at the particular college at which that person had proposed to study. Some colleges, we believe, are set up simply to be fronts for that kind of application route. As the college was being investigated, the person's application to study there could not proceed until the investigation had been concluded. Visits and reports by the immigration service may also be necessary. There are an increasing number of such cases so, unfortunately, the necessary inquiries mean that some applications take longer to complete than expected. However, every effort is made and will increasingly be made to keep students informed although I accept that that was not a factor in this case.
  The hon. Lady mentioned the return of passports, and I agree that it is another important issue. The applicant's passport must be included with the application so that the decision can be endorsed in it. As I am sure she will appreciate, the passport is also needed as evidence of identity. The practice of the IND is to retain the passport until the application has been decided, but if it is needed for urgent travel, arrangements will be made for it to be
  702
  returned. However, that means that the application will be deemed to have been withdrawn, and that creates a difficulty for some people who want to leave. I accept that the person in the case that the hon. Lady described was not dealt with well. The passport appears to have been mislaid by Becket house before it was refound. That should not happen, and we will have to deal with that point.
  The hon. Lady cited a number of issues in which there has been general frustration in dealings with the IND. I accept that there were problems earlier this year in contacting the immigration and nationality enquiry bureau—the INEB—but the situation is now much improved. The bureau had modern, state-of-the-art call centre equipment installed in March this year and many staff have been recruited and are now fully trained. The bureau answers more than 22,000 calls a week, and our aim is that no caller should have to try more than three times to make a successful call and be given the information that they want.
  At the moment, the bureau can provide general information but, as we develop the software and the database, it will also be able to say more precisely what stage a particular application has reached. A new computer system called the general casework information database is also being developed and installed. When it is fully operational, it will enable the bureau's agents to give much more detailed information. All those measures will help to continue the improvement that has been started. I accept that we have got nowhere near the position that we want to reach, but we are working very hard.
  The hon. Lady mentioned correspondence, and we are instituting a tracking system. My predecessor had no knowledge of the fact that the hon. Lady had written three times, because that information had not penetrated as far as his office. We need a system that will enable us to track the letters that Members have written because Ministers need to know about them.
  I am very sorry that the hon. Lady's constituent experienced difficulties. Inevitably, such cases are not always as straightforward as they appear at first sight, and I have explained some of the ways in which that case was not straightforward. I have had the position of the constituent reviewed, particularly in the light of the fresh application that she has made to study at a different college. I am pleased to say that I have instructed my officials to grant her leave to remain in the UK as a student for 12 months in the first instance as I understand that her course will last for that long.
  If the hon. Lady, has other cases that she would like me to investigate, I will certainly do so. However, I hope that she will accept that we are engaged in a big task. The volume of cases is enormous and they are sometimes complex and not straightforward. When that is the case, there will be delays. However, we are trying very hard to improve the system overall.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

WALES

  Craig Goch Reservoir
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what representations he has received regarding the proposed expansion of the Craig Goch reservoir in the Elan valley; and if he will make a statement; [58056]

  (2) what discussions he has had with members of the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government, regarding proposals for the expansion of the Craig Goch reservoir in the Elan valley; [58055]

  (3) what representations he has (a) made to and (b) received from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regarding the proposed expansion of the Craig Goch reservoir in the Elan valley. [58059]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None. I understand no proposal has been put forward by Severn Trent, or any other water company, to the Environment Agency, or the National Assembly for Wales, in relation to the enlargement of Craig Goch reservoir.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of ordinary written questions for his Department were answered within a week of tabling in each month since June 2001; and what proportion of questions for named day received a substantive answer on that day in each month since June 2001. [58985]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested is as follows.

  Written questions answered within five days of the tabled date

  Named day questions answered on that date

  Month

  Percentage

  Month

  Percentage

  June 2001

  100

  —

  —

  July 2001

  100

  —

  —

  October 2001

  63

  October

  100

  November 2001

  64

  November

  100

  December 2001

  86

  December

  89

  January 2002

  50

  January

  30

  February 2002

  29

  February

  33

  March 2002

  66

  March

  64

  April 2002

  55

  April

  93

  Departmental Sponsors
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the duties are of hon. Members appointed as sponsors to his Department; and what assistance is given by officials in his Department to them in carrying out these duties. [59985]
  722W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department has no sponsors.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which hon. Members have been appointed as sponsors to his Department since 7 June 2001; and when each of them were appointed. [59972]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department has a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59585]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office has no formal policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age.

  Since all the permanent civil servants in my Department are secondees, mainly from the National Assembly for Wales, account is taken of Assembly's retirement policy during the recruitment process; that is, staff are not employed beyond the age of 65.

  Refurbishment Projects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the refurbishment projects that(a) are in progress and (b) will start within the next six months; and what action is being taken to ensure that these will procure certified timber. [59769]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  WTO Agreement
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to discuss with EU colleagues research on the proposal to introduce a development box in the WTO agreement on agriculture. [59892]

  Clare Short
  The UK Government are due to discuss the research with EU colleagues over the coming months.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the proposal to introduce a development box in the WTO agreement on agriculture. [59893]

  Clare Short
  The UK is committed to measures aimed at helping poor countries to develop their economies and take a more active part in international trade. To this end, we are considering the special and differential treatment and development box proposals made by certain, so called "like-minded" developing countries in the WTO's Agriculture Committee. These proposals contain some interesting elements, including developing countries reducing tariffs more slowly, extension of the safeguard mechanism and maintaining the flexibilities for developing countries agreed in the Uruguay Round. We will actively consider these ideas in the context of the agriculture negotiations.
  723W
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research her Department has carried out on the proposal for introducing a development box in the WTO agreement on agriculture; and if she will make a statement. [59891]

  Clare Short
  A number of proposals have been made by developing countries in the WTO's Agriculture Special Session, to include Special and Differential Treatment or Development Box measures in the next agriculture agreement. My Department has commissioned independent analysis of these proposals. This is publicly available on the DFID website.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to discuss with EU colleagues the findings of the research paper by Oxford Policy Management, commissioned by her Department, on the proposal for introducing a development box in the WTO agreement on agriculture. [60556]

  Clare Short
  The UK Government are due to discuss the research with EU colleagues over the coming months.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research her Department has carried out on the proposal for introducing a development box in the WTO agreement on agriculture. [60557]

  Clare Short
  A number of proposals have been made by developing countries in the WTO's Agriculture Special Session, to include Special and Differential Treatment or Development Box measures in the next agriculture agreement. My Department has commissioned independent analysis of these proposals. This is publicly available on the DFID website.

  Burundi
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid her Department plans to make available to Burundi in the next five years. [60249]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not have a development programme in Burundi. We have hitherto concentrated on meeting urgent humanitarian need and on support for the peace process, including political efforts, support to the mediation efforts and the Special Protection Force, and some grass-roots peace-building efforts. We also have a programme on HIV/AIDS in Burundi.

  We will devote more attention to the needs of Burundi in coming months, with the appointment of an official in the region to cover Burundi for DFID, based either in Bujumbura or, in the first instance, in Kigali. We are also working to ensure that the EC and IFIs re-engage effectively with Burundi to provide much needed assistance.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if(a) her Department and (b) its agencies have a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59458]
  724W
  Clare Short
  My Department currently maintains a normal retiring age of 60 and it has not hitherto been the practice to recruit staff above the age at which existing staff are required to retire unless there were exceptional management reasons. However, this policy is currently under review in respect of those staff for whom DFID has delegated authority to determine the normal retiring age (that is, staff below the senior civil service).

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures have been taken to ensure that international aid is given to known MDC supporters as well as Zanu-PF supporters. [60408]

  Clare Short
  We are doing all we can to try to prevent humanitarian relief being misused for political purposes in Zimbabwe. Programmes are operating in a number of areas badly affected by food shortages that could be described as both MDC and Zanu-PF dominated. Beneficiaries are selected on the basis of their vulnerability not their political views. All programmes are delivered by non-government organisations. Selection is undertaken at the grass roots level either by NGOs alone, or in local disaster committees including ward councillors and traditional headmen together with the NGOs. All claims that vulnerable people have been excluded from receiving assistance are investigated, whether they are from Zanu-PF or MDC supporters.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimates she has made of the number of children who have been moved from primary schools in Zimbabwe. [60171]

  Clare Short
  Zimbabwe has a good record in primary school access. Between 1979 and 1996 there was a more than 100 per cent. increase in the numbers of primary schools, and a 102 per cent. expansion in enrolment figures, with 2.49 million children in school. We are concerned that food shortages and economic pressures may be eroding these gains.

  DFID has targeted school children in its supplementary feeding programmes. Since September 2001 we have provided one meal a day to over 200,000 primary school children. Monitoring shows that in the areas where our programmes are active, this has helped to increase enrolment.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds the Government have made available to the Zimbabwe Government to implement the land reform programme that complies with the principles established by the September 2001 Commonwealth Abuja Agreement and the 1998 international donors' conference on land reform. [60188]

  Clare Short
  The Government of Zimbabwe do not have a land reform programme that complies with either its undertakings given in the Abuja Agreement, or the principles agreed at the 1998 International Conference.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which organisations that assist evicted farm workers' families in Zimbabwe have(a) sought and (b) received assistance from (i) her Department and (ii) through international aid supported by Her Majesty's Government. [60170]
  725W
  Clare Short
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimates she has made of the extent to which the reported famine in Zimbabwe results(a) from natural causes and (b) from disruption of agriculture. [60172]

  Clare Short
  It is clear that drought has played a large part in the failure of the maize harvest this year. However, the Government of Zimbabwe's policy failures in mishandling food markets; agricultural prices; the exchange rate; and the chaotic land reform programme have also been much to blame, and continue to make matters worse. While it is not possible to attribute between causes with any accuracy, the UNDP estimate that maize production may have been 30 to 60 per cent. affected by land reform alone. The expected drop of at least 60 per cent. in wheat planting this season is almost entirely attributable to disruption of commercial farming activities and state control of prices and markets.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of ordinary written questions for her Department were answered within a week of tabling in each month since June 2001; and what proportion of questions for named day received a substantive answer on that day in each month since June 2001. [58981]

  Clare Short
  DFID aim to answer all written questions within a week of tabling, and all named day questions on the date specified. The information requested in the question is not easily accessible and would be available only with disproportionate effort.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was spent by her Department on paying pensions to retired employees of her Department in 2001–02; if she will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in(a) five years' time, (b) 10 years' time, (c) 20 years' time and (d) 30 years' time; if she will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (i) unfunded pension schemes and (ii) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if she will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [57362]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 561W.

  Poverty Reduction
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress of the Africa trade and poverty programme; and what the UK Government's policy aims to assist poverty reduction are. [58569]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 16 May 2002,Official Report, column 752W.

  Gujarat
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will offer assistance to the Indian Government to provide(a) general aid and (b) food supplies, to those made homeless in the recent disturbances in the Indian State of Gujarat and who are now living in refugee camps. [58383]

  Clare Short
  We continue to monitor the situation in Gujarat in co-ordination with the Government of India, international agencies and local partners.

  The State Government of Gujarat has up until now refused the assistance of the international community but talks are on-going and we are hopeful that the limited support provided by UNICEF, WHO and international NGOs will soon be increased.

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the performance targets that her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004; and if she will specify for each target(a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. [60473]

  Clare Short
  My Department's performance targets are fully set out in our PSAs for 1999–02 and 2001–04. Progress against these PSAs is reported on annually in DFID's departmental report.

  DFID is currently responsible for three non-departmental public bodies:

  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission

  Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board

  Overseas Service Pensions Scheme Advisory Board.

  As none of these bodies employs any staff or has any facilities, the only targets that they are required to meet are the Government's targets on equal opportunities for public appointments. These are set by the Cabinet Office and reported on annually. Full details can be found in "Public Bodies: Opening Up Public Appointments 2002–05" which is readily available in the Library of the House.

  Great Lakes
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what help she provides to assist the development of primary education in the Great Lakes Region. [60247]

  Clare Short
  Since 1998 we have committed over £100 million to help develop and improve the education sectors in Uganda and Rwanda, with particular emphasis on primary education. Both Uganda and Rwanda have made significant achievements and are on track to achieve the International Development Target of Universal Primary Education (UPE) by 2015.

  We do not provide direct assistance to education programmes in the other Great Lakes countries, where our main focus is on supporting the peace process and providing humanitarian aid. Full scale development efforts are impossible in countries still in conflict. As

  727W
  progress is made in resolving the conflicts in Burundi and DRC rebuilding the education system will be an important issue and we will look for early opportunities to encourage the IEIs (particularly the EU) to provide effective support for education in these countries. We will also look at the UK's bilateral role in rebuilding these countries.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding her Department has allocated in 2002–03 for projects in the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if she will list them. [60248]

  Clare Short
  My Department has allocated more than £11 million for work in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2002–03. Much of this is to meet urgent humanitarian needs and we expect to make contributions to ICRC and UN appeals. Other sums have been designated for support to different aspects of the Peace Process, including supporting the World bank regional demobilisation programme, and grassroots peace-building initiatives. Expenditure to meet humanitarian need and aspects of the peace process is incurred at very short notice and it is not possible to list projects in advance.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the President of the Council on how many occasions between 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [58727]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  During the specified period, one departmental special adviser travelled abroad in an official capacity. He went to Dublin in October 2001 to visit Dáil Éireann in order to explore their proposals for reforming their Chamber. The total cost of this visit was £348.13.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the President of the Council what proportion of ordinary written questions for his Department were answered within a week of tabling in each month since June 2001; and what proportion of questions for named day received a substantive answer on that day in each month since June 2001. [58991]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage

  Month

  Ordinary written questions answered within one week

  Named day questions answered substantively on that day

  2001

  June

  100

  1—

  July

  100

  100

  Oct

  100

  100

  November

  75

  90

  728W

  Percentage

  Month

  Ordinary written questions answered within one week

  Named day questions answered substantively on that day

  2002

  January

  58

  100

  February

  75

  100

  March

  65

  100

  April

  78

  100

  May

  100

  100

  1 None tabled

  Joint Committee on the Communications Bill
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council how many e-mail responses have been received by the mediator of the pre-legislative scrutiny regarding the Joint Committee on the Communications Bill's first session of evidence taking; how they have been acknowledged; and if he will make a statement on how successful the pilot has been. [60064]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  This is a matter for the Joint Committee, not the Government.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Sentence Referrals
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment she has made of the system for seeking to have sentences reviewed on the grounds of undue lenience. [53446]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: The Attorney-General and I have considered closely the current system and agree with the assessment of Sir Robin Auld in his "Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales" that on the whole the procedure appears to be working well. However, we will keep the system under review at all times.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Solicitor-General what steps her Department has taken to ensure that victims of crime and other interested parties are routinely informed of the procedures and timescale for requesting that a sentence be referred to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue lenience. [53395]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: Sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provide that the Law Officers may refer sentences passed in the Crown Court for a limited range of serious offences to the Court of Appeal for review if it appears to the Law Officer that the sentence passed is unduly lenient. The Law Officers must give notice to the Registrar of Criminal Appeals of an application for leave to refer within 28 days from the day on which the sentence was passed. This time limit is fixed by statute and cannot be extended.

  It is most often the relevant prosecuting authority, such as the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Serious Fraud Office, etc., that gives consideration as to whether the sentence passed in a particular case is so lenient that the matter should be brought to the attention of the Law Officers, for consideration of a referral to the Court of Appeal as an unduly lenient sentence.
  729W
  In addition, both the Law Officers and the CPS receive complaints from victims of crime, Members of Parliament, members of the public, through the media or otherwise that particular sentences passed were lenient. If, in response to such a complaint, the CPS decides that the sentence does not merit submitting the matter to the Law Officers for consideration it will write to the complainant to complain direct to the Law Officers.

  Complaints received by the Law Officers are considered in person by a Law Officer, often with advice from counsel experienced in sentencing law. A reply explaining the Law Officer's decision whether or not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal will be sent to the correspondent.

  Since 1988 the CPS, being the principal prosecuting authority in England and Wales and responsible for the vast majority of prosecutions brought before the courts, has identified a substantial number of suitable cases to submit to the Law Officers for consideration of a reference. Advocates acting for the CPS in the Crown Court are instructed to consider whether sentences passed should be submitted to the Law Officers for consideration of a reference.

  Experience suggests that victims who are at court at the time of sentencing and who are concerned about the sentence passed will express that concern to the police or prosecution representatives who would be expected to explain the options that may be available in taking those concerns forward.

  Under the victim's charter the police have a responsibility for advising victims of the outcome of cases. CPS prosecutors will often advise victims of the case outcome in cases where there is a pre-existing line of communication between the CPS and the victim.

  In addition, since 1988 there have been many references to the Court of Appeal, a large proportion of which result in sentences being increased and often receiving national and local media coverage.

DEFENCE

  Military Spectrum (Spare Capacity)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the spare capacity in the military spectrum for commercial use; and if he has valued that spare capacity. [14420]

  Mr. Ingram
  I assume that this question refers to commercial use of the electromagnetic spectrum.

  We work closely with the Radiocommunications Agency to assess continuously where spare capacity can be made available for new commercial services from within the radio spectrum that is managed by the Ministry of Defence to meet current and planned operational and training commitments.

  The Ministry is currently engaged in releasing the majority of the 410 to 430 MHz band for use by digital public mobile radio services. The value placed on the spectrum already released to the Radiocommunications Agency is £3.5 million per annum. The remainder should be released in 2003 and has a current value of £4.3 million
  730W
  per annum. About 36 MHz of currently MOD managed spectrum is also to be made available for the extension of the 800/900 MHz bands for digital mobile phones and other digital personal mobile radio services. This would be valued at £4.3 million per annum. Spectrum for fixed wireless services in the 3.4 GHz band has very recently been released, with a value of £80,000 per annum. These valuations are based on current spectrum charges that apply equally to civil and military users.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason he has not answered the question from the hon. Member for Buckingham tabled on 12 November 2001 asking what assessment he has made of the spare capacity in the military spectrum for commercial use; and if he has valued that spare capacity. [47793]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I replied to the hon. Member today.

  Defence Medical Services (Afghanistan)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which(a) regular and (b) reserve personnel of the Defence Medical Services broken down by specialty have been deployed to Afghanistan in support of (i) Operation Fingal and (ii) Operation Jacuna; what percentage of UK forces deployed on each operation this represents; and if he will make a statement. [51422]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 24 April 2002]: The details of the personnel from the Defence Medical Services (DMS) deployed in Afghanistan are contained in the table. The majority of these personnel are members of 34 Field Hospital, which serves all United Kingdom personnel in Afghanistan, although 59 are dedicated to Operation Fingal. DMS personnel account for between 6 and 7 per cent. of the total UK forces in Afghanistan.

  Specialty

  Regular

  Reserve

  Total

  Staff Officer

  6

  —

  6

  Surgeon

  4

  —

  4

  Consultant Accident and Emergency

  2

  —

  2

  Consultant Anesthetist

  4

  1

  5

  Consultant Physician

  1

  —

  1

  Medical Officer

  15

  —

  15

  Registered General Nurse

  39

  2

  41

  Combat Medical Technician

  30

  —

  30

  Medical Assistants

  19

  —

  19

  Health Care Assistant

  4

  —

  4

  Operating Department Practitioner

  10

  —

  10

  Dental Officer

  3

  —

  3

  Dental Surgery Assistant

  2

  —

  2

  Environmental Health Officer

  1

  —

  1

  Environmental Health Technician

  5

  —

  5

  Radiographer

  2

  —

  2

  Laboratory Technician

  2

  —

  2

  Pharmacy Technician

  2

  —

  2

  Physiotherapist

  2

  —

  2

  Community Psychiatric Nurse

  4

  —

  4

  Others

  11

  —

  11

  Total

  168

  3

  171

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements exist for the medical treatment of UK personnel undertaking(a) Operation Fingal and (b) Operation Jacuna, stating in each case the level of support from (i) the UK Defence Medical Services in Afghanistan, (ii) the Defence Medical Services of other

  731W
  nations deployed in Afghanistan, (iii) medical services based in the UK and (iv) medical services based in other countries; and if he will make a statement. [51423]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 24 April 2002]: There is a robust medical infrastructure in place to support United Kingdom forces in Afghanistan. Primary health care facilities are available at the unit level and are supported by 34 Field Hospital at Bagram airfield.

  Where individuals require evacuation from theatre they are moved using tactical and strategic RAF aeromedical evacuation assets to a UK field hospital in the region and then on to the Centre for Defence Medicine, in Birmingham or other specialist hospitals in the UK, as required.

  As a means of making sensible use of international medical facilities in Afghanistan, UK forces deployed in the country may also use the Czech Field Hospital. UK personnel serving with the International Security Assistance Force may additionally have access to the German Field Hospital and French Dressing Station in Kabul. German and French tactical aeromedical aircraft are also available for evacuation from Afghanistan. In certain circumstances, the United States may provide medical care or aeromedical assistance to Operation Jacana forces.

  Other nations may also make their medical facilities available to us from time to time.

  Private Sector Hospitals
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions the MOD has contracted private sector hospitals to provide medical services in each of the last 12 months; and what the total cost to the MOD budget of contracting private sector hospitals to provide medical services was in each of the last five years. [53870]

  Dr. Moonie
  Figures are not readily available which break down the numbers of referrals made to private sector health care in each of the past 12 months. The cost to the Ministry of Defence budget of contracting private sector hospitals to provide medical services in each of the last five years is as follows:

  £ million

  Financial Year

  Cost

  1997–98

  0.19

  1998–99

  0.12

  1999–2000

  0.17

  2000–01

  3.05

  2001–02

  1.88

  Total

  5.41

  Category

  Definition

  P0

  Holding category—used when the individual is either in hospital or on hospital sick leave.

  P2

  Fit for world wide service without restriction.

  P2U3

  Leadership course restriction only—otherwise fit for world wide service without restriction.

  P2L3

  Leadership course restriction only—otherwise fit for world wide service without restriction.

  P3R

  Fit for world wide service, which may include sea service, but with a specific caveat, eg no small ships due to sea sickness.

  P3P

  Fit for world wide service, which may include sea service, but with a specific caveat, eg no small ships due to sea sickness.

  P7RA

  UK service only. Ship in harbour or shore service only. Fully employable ashore or in ship in harbour in own trade/skills.

  P7RB

  UK service only. Ship in harbour or shore service only. Fully employable ashore in own trade/skills.

  P7RC

  UK service only. Ship in harbour or shore service only. Employable in restricted duty ashore or in ship in harbour in own trade/skills.

  P7RD

  UK service only. Ship in harbour or shore service only. Employable in restricted duties ashore only.

  P8

  Permanently unfit naval service.

  732W
  The referrals were made to a number of private sector health care providers, under a number of separate schemes.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 343W and 28 February 2002, Official Report, column 1462W, on correspondence, when he intends to provide a substantive reply. [56605]

  Dr. Moonie
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 15 May. A copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many letters were received by each Minister in his Department in each month since June 1997. [59316]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on the volume of Members' correspondence received by Departments. The report for 2001 was published on Friday 24 May 2002,Official Report, columns 674–76W. Copies of previous reports are available in the Library of the House.

  Details of other correspondence received by Ministers is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Medical Categories (Armed Services)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2002,Official Report, column 181W, if he will list the medical categories used by the (a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) RAF; and if he will make a statement. [56170]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 May 2002]: The medical condition of personnel in the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force is assessed on the basis of a common set of medical categories which range from P2 to P8. A holding category of P0 may also be used for individuals who are in hospital or on hospital sick leave. From this medical grading category each service applies a system of employment categorisation related to its particular operational environment to ensure that individuals are not employed on duties for which they are medically unfit. In all three tables, category refers to their medical category and PES/MES refers to their employment category.

  Royal Navy

  The main concern of the Royal Navy is to ensure that individuals are fit to deploy to sea. The following table summarises the system used:
  733W
  Categories suffixed "R" are temporary categories. Categories suffixed "P" are permanent categories.

  Personnel designated "P8" will remain on naval strength for a variable period of time following boarding depending on entitlement to leave etc.

  Category P grade

  PES

  Definition

  P2

  FE (Forward everywhere)

  Employable in full combatant duties (in any area) in any part of the world.

  P3

  LE (Lines of Communication everywhere)

  Normally employed in the line of communication in or behind A2.echelon or base in any part of the world, but may be employed in a combat zone in any role which is not primarily a fighting one. (Clearance is required from a medical officer prior to deployment to an operational area)

  P3

  RE(PP)

  Pregnant personnel.

  P7

  CPND—(Geo) (Caveated Posting Non-Deployable)

  An individual who is graded P7 and does not meet the criteria for PES LE may be posted to areas in addition to those listed against HO by the APC, having taken advice from the Army Occupational Health Physician APC, to a unit in a specified geographical area but may not deploy from that geographical area without clearance from the Army Occupational Health Physician APC. On unit moves the CO is to obtain clearance from the APC before the individual changes location.

  P7

  HO (Home Only)

  Employable in UK, Germany or Belgium or, Gurkha personnel, employable in Nepal, provided adequate and suitable medical facilities are available to treat the condition for which they have been downgraded.

  P7

  HO (UK)

  Employable in the United Kingdom only.

  P7

  HONNI

  Employable in UK, Germany or Belgium but not in Northern Ireland. Not applicable to R Irish (HS) personnel.

  P7

  HO(UK)NNI

  Employable in UK only but not in Northern Ireland. Not applicable to R Irish (HS) personnel.

  P8

  None

  Unit for military duties.

  Royal Air Force

  Although the primary role of the RAF is flying, most of its personnel are employed on non-flying duties. To indicate the duties on which an individual may be employed both in the air and on the ground, and the

  Fitness for duty in the air

  Category P grade

  MES

  Definition

  P2

  A1

  Fit for full flying duties of their branch/trade, or restricted employability only because of anthropometric limitations.

  P2

  A2

  Fit for full flying duties of their branch/trade but awarded to aircrew who would be A1 but for:

  A refractive error.

  A hearing standard reduced to H2.

  P2 or below

  A3

  Fit for limited flying duties (limitations to be stated).

  P2 or below

  A4

  Fit to fly as a passenger in a normal passenger carrying aircraft or as a patient on an aeromedical evacuation flight

  P3 or below

  A5

  Unfit to be taken in to the air.

  P8

  A5

  Unfit for service.

  Fitness for duty on the ground

  Category P grade

  MES

  Definition

  P2

  G1

  Fit for full ground duties of their branch/trade, including all general service duties and meets the minimum profile for their branch/trade.

  P2

  G2

  Fit for full ground duties of their branch/trade, including all general service duties but:

  Requires a medical marker.

  Does not meet minimum profile in their branch/trade.

  Has a limitation to non-essential duty.

  P3 or below

  G3

  Fit for full ground duties of their branch/trade but fit for limited essential general service duties only.

  Generally P7

  G4

  Fit for limited ground duties within their branch/trade.

  P8

  G5

  Unfit for service.

  Fitness to service in specific zones

  Category

  MES

  Definition

  P2

  Z1

  Fit to serve anywhere in the world with no climatic restriction

  P3

  Z2

  Fit to serve anywhere in the world except in environments of low temperature.

  734W
  Army

  In areas of active operation, the combat zone is referred to as the forward area (F). Between the forward area and the base area are the lines of communication (L). PES is PULHHEEMS employment standard.

  climates in which they are fit to service, each individual is assigned a medical employment standard (MES). The MES is indicated by the letters A, G and Z, relating to duties in the air, on the ground and in various geographical locations and climatic zones.

  Fitness to service in specific zones

  Category

  MES

  Definition

  P3

  Z3

  Fit to serve anywhere in the world except in environments of high temperature

  P3

  Z4

  Fit to serve in temperate climates only.

  P7

  Z5

  Fit to serve in UK only

  Strategic Sealift Service
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 April 2002,Official Report, column 259W, what discussions he had with ministerial colleagues regarding the financial and order book position of Cammell Laird prior to the announcement of AWSR Ltd. as preferred bidder for the Strategic Sealift Service on 26 October 2000. [56121]

  Dr. Moonie
  None.

  Terrorist Attack (Emergency Services)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) consultation he has had with and (b) guidelines he has issued to the emergency services about dealing with large-scale terrorist attacks; and if he will make a statement. [57354]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Home Office is the lead Department for dealing with terrorist attacks. The police have primacy in responding to incidents. The Ministry of Defence provides support.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many claims by ex-service men for pensions claimed as a result of ill health stemming from their service on(a) Christmas Island and (b) other nuclear test sites are outstanding; [57215]

  (2) how many appeals by ex-service men against refusals of pensions as a result of health problems claimed to result from their service on (a) Christmas Island and (b) other nuclear test sites which have been appealed to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal since 1972 have been successful; and how many such awards have included an award backdated to the original application; [57219]

  (3) how many ex-service men have been awarded pensions as a result of health problems resulting from their service on (a) Christmas Island and (b) other nuclear test sites; [57221]

  (4) how many claims by ex-service men for pensions based on health problems claimed to result from their service on (a) Christmas Island and (b) other nuclear test sites have been (i) refused and (ii) appealed to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal within the last five years; [57220]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is not possible to provide the precise information requested on claims.

  However, as at 16 May 2002, there were 21 claims to War Disablement Pension outstanding from ex-service men relating to service in the South Pacific (Christmas Island and the Malden Islands) and three from other nuclear test sites.

  Records maintained since 1998 show 299 awards of pension in relation to service in the South Pacific and 33 to other nuclear test sites.

  The information requested on appeals to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal is not available.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what target time scale he has for payment of backdated sums awarded by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal to ex-service men who have successfully appealed refusals 736W
  of pensions claimed as a result of ill health stemming from their service on (a) Christmas Island and (b) other nuclear test sites; and how many awards have been paid within the target period. [57216]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Veterans Agency has a target of 15 working days in which to implement the decision of the Pensions Appeals Tribunal (PAT).

  Statistics relating to clearance of awards following Pensions Appeal Tribunal decisions are not separately available for nuclear test veterans. However, figures are held relating to clearance of all cases following PAT decisions (successful and unsuccessful). Latest available figures show that of 3,204 cases cleared from April 2001 to December 2001, 2,679 were cleared within the 15-day target period.

  Air Transport
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how far limitations on the use of C17s have been compensated for by the lease of heavy lift civilian aircraft; and what the costs have been for operations in(a) Afghanistan and (b) the Balkans. [58080]

  Mr. Ingram
  The sheer size of the operational deployment in Afghanistan, the lack of viable surface lines of communication into a land-locked country together with a very significant sustainment package has required the use of both the heavy lift Antonov and IL-76 civilian aircraft in parallel with the C-17, so that military and political timelines could be achieved.

  The cost of heavy lift civilian aircraft for operations into Afghanistan chartered by the Ministry of Defence up to 31 May 2002 is £35 million. No such aircraft have been chartered for operations in the Balkans.

  Flying Hours
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the NATO standard of flying hours per year per pilot is. [57804]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to defence.

  HMS Albion
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Albion will enter into service with the Royal Navy. [57801]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: HMS Albion is expected to enter service in 2003. The exact date is under review with the company, BAES Marine.

  Defence Medical Services
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact on spending on the Defence Medical Services of the Chancellor's recent announcement on NHS funding. [R] [57510]

  Dr. Moonie
  The recent announcement on NHS funding will have no direct impact on spending on the Defence Medical Services.

  Land Mines
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications his Department has had with the Chemring Group in respect of the manufacture of fragmentation land mines; and if he will list the contracts with their respective values his Department has had each year since 1997 with the Chemring Group. [57980]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has not had any communications with the Chemring Group in respect of the manufacture of fragmentation land mines.

  The Chemring Group of companies includes five separate groupings (Air/Land/Sea Countermeasures, Marine Safety, Defence Pyrotechnics, PW (Australia) and Aerospace Wiring Harness). The number and annual value of contracts placed by the MOD with the Chemring Group since 1997 are as follows:

  Number of contracts

  Approximate value (£ million)

  1997

  13

  23.8

  1998

  14

  95

  1999

  13

  11.4

  2000

  8

  2.4

  2001

  13

  11.5

  Total

  61

  58.6

  The kinds of equipment these contracts relate to range from Countermeasures, Pyrotechnics, Obscurant Smokes, and Signalling/Distress Flares through to Simulators for Training.

  Former Royal Navy Vessels
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the Canadian Government on the state of purchased former RN submarines; what the cost was of estimated repairs; what the recommended cost was of maintaining these submarines in mothballs; what the actual cost was; what assessment he has made of the operational readiness of other mothballed assets; and if he will make a statement. [58771]

  Dr. Moonie
  Ministry of Defence officials have not received any representations from the Canadian Government about the condition of the two ex Upholder Class submarines handed over to Canada, and as such have no information about the cost of repairs. Mothballing is not a term that is recognised. Assets are held following decommissioning for possible sale to other friendly and allied Governments. These assets are not operationally ready and they are not declared in our declared force levels. To maintain these assets prior to sale, the minimum amount of maintenance is performed on them to keep them seaworthy and safe.

  The cost of maintaining the Upholder Class submarines before their reactivation is commercially sensitive and I am withholding the information in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to preserve serving(a) aircraft carriers and (b) landing craft platforms for the nation; and if he will establish such as the basis for a museum. [58774]
  738W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has no plans to preserve any of the current serving aircraft carriers as a museum when they are taken out of service. Similarly there are no such plans for the Landing Platform Dock (Assault) ships HMS Intrepid and HMS Fearless which were withdrawn from service in July 2001 and March 2002 respectively. As normal practice, ex-service assets are disposed of to maximise the receipt to the taxpayer. While the Ministry of Defence is supportive of work carried out by military museums, the preservation of ships is mainly carried out by charitable trusts.

  Territorial Army
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strength is of the Territorial Army in Scotland; and what the MOD is doing to recruit more soldiers into the TA. [58565]

  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to encourage recruitment to the Territorial Army. [58866]

  Dr. Moonie
  The strength of the Territorial Army (TA) in Scotland as at 30 April is as follows:

  Number

  Officers

  474

  Other ranks

  4,190

  Total

  4,664

  As I said in my answer on 9 January 2002, Official Report, column 828W, to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the current strength of the TA, including those mobilised on operations and on full-time reserve service, almost exactly matches the overall target size of the TA set as a result of the Strategic Defence Review. It is, therefore, in good shape, although there are some specific areas where numbers fall short of target, most notably the Army Medical Service (TA). The "Time to get fitTA" awareness campaign launched in December last year received a good response, although the overall effectiveness of the campaign will not be known until the new figures come out later this year. The annual National Recruiting Campaign which concluded on 18 May with TA Day, and a further Regional Recruiting Campaign to be launched in the autumn, are excellent opportunities for the general public to find out more about the TA. The aim of these campaigns is to keep the TA in its currently healthy state and under current plans they will continue to be a significant feature of the TA recruiting operation.

  Angola
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assistance his Department has(a) offered and (b) given to the Government and armed forces of Angola with regard to the planned integration of the UNITA rebel forces into the regular army; and if he will make a statement; [58907]

  (2) what assistance his Department has (a) offered and (b) given to the Government and armed forces of Angola (i) from April 2000 to April 2002 and (ii) since April 2002; and if he will make a statement. [58911]
  739W
  Mr. Ingram
  The assistance the Ministry of Defence provides to Governments and armed forces overseas is co-ordinated closely with that provided by other Government Departments. In the case of Angola, no assistance has been offered or given by MOD to the Government and armed forces, either during the time frame in question or in support of the planned integration of UNITA forces. However, Her Majesty's Government remain in close contact with the Angolan Government, the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Representative for Africa, and international partners, and have offered to the Government of Angola an opportunity to visit Sierra Leone to see at first hand the challenges of integrating ex-combatants. MOD will, of course, be involved as appropriate with this initiative, should it go ahead.

  Regional Organisation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what regional organisation his Department has; and if he will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002; [58950]

  (2) which of the agencies and NDPBs sponsored by his Department have a regional organisation; and if he will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in (a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [58951]

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

  BioReliance
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose officials from his Department visited BioReliance in Stirling at the end of 2001; what other organisations were visited on the same basis; and on what dates these visits took place. [57314]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: During November and December 2001 representatives from Dstl Porton Down and the Medical Supplies Agency visited the facilities of the following biotechnology companies to discuss the procurement of a vaccine against smallpox: Excel Biotech on 12 November 2001, Q1 Biotech on 3 December 2001, BioReliance on 4 December 2001 and Powderject on 7 December 2001. In addition to these visits they also had discussions in London with Bavarian Nordic on 30 November 2001 and Acambis on 19 December 2001.

  Press Releases
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many press releases have been issued by his Department in each month of 2002. [59486]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is in the following table:

  Month

  Year

  Press Releases

  January

  2002

  17

  February

  2002

  20

  March

  2002

  22

  April

  2002

  17

  May

  12002

  09

  1 Information to 27 May only

  740W
  The figures relate only to those Press Releases issued by the Ministry of Defence's central Press Office. In addition to these, the single Services, the regional defence press offices and Defence Agencies also issue Press Releases. They also reissue some central Press Notices for local distribution. Accurate figures on these, which take account of any "duplicate releases", could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many press releases were issued by his Department(a) in each month between May and December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [59485]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is in the following tables:

  Press releases issued from May to December 1997:

  1997

  Press releases

  May

  13

  June

  13

  July

  23

  August

  7

  September

  23

  October

  34

  November

  28

  December

  35

  Press release issued from 1998 to 2001 inclusive:

  Press releases

  19998

  202

  1999

  276

  2000

  238

  2001

  150

  These figures relate only to those press releases issued by the Ministry of Defence's central press office. In addition to these, the single services, the regional defence press offices and defence agencies issue their own press notices. They also re-issue some central press notices for local distribution. Accurate figures on these, which take account of any "duplicate releases", could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Skill Force
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the pilot Skill Force scheme. [59196]

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

  A feature of the scheme is the use of recently retired service personnel as instructors for selected children in years 10 and 11 in a number of state secondary schools; and this has proved very effective. Skill Force emphasises instruction in vocational subjects with the aim of acquiring the Award Scheme Development and Accreditation

  741W
  Network modular vocational award at bronze/silver level. Participants also take part in the Duke of Edinburgh's Award; St. John's Ambulance Young Life Saver's award and the OCR First Certificate in Preparation for Employment. The Skill Force scheme is funded by MOD, Department for Education and Skills (DfES), HM Treasury's Invest to Save Budget and local partners.

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

  The Skill Force initiative has been supported by DfES from the outset, with the Invest to Save Budget bid being made jointly by the MOD, Home Office and DfES. In response to the Government's Street Crime Initiative, Skill Force is one of the schemes 11 local education authorities have been invited to consider to help them to deliver part of DfES's Behaviour Improvement Programme. A decision from the London education authorities on whether they wish to use Skill Force is expected shortly.

  Devonport
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the Trident refit complex at Devonport, Plymouth has received all the necessary certificates from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate; [59639]

  (2) what the estimated total cost is to complete the Trident refit complex at Devonport, Plymouth. [59638]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 502W.

  Urban Warfare
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research programmes are being carried out by the Government(a) unilaterally and (b) in partnership with other Governments into the development of (i) non-lethal weapons and (ii) new techniques and equipment for use in urban warfare. [59726]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has few research programmes that specifically address non-lethal weapons. There are, however, a wider variety of research programmes that might be considered to contribute to non-lethal capabilities, details of which I am withholding under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The MOD's main non-lethal weapon is the baton round which is employed in forces world wide.

  Work into alternatives to baton rounds and a broader range of public order equipment is currently under way and is being led by the Northern Ireland Office. This is in response to recommendations in the Patten report and
  742W
  from the Association of Chief Police Officers, who are looking to enhance the police's range of less lethal weaponry.

  On the question of international partnerships, the United Kingdom does not collaborate with any Government on non-lethal technologies. However, it does have information exchange agreements with both the US and our European partners. No research programmes in the fields of non-lethal weapons or new techniques and equipment for use in urban warfare are being carried out by the Ministry of Defence in partnership with foreign Governments.

  On the development of techniques and equipment for use in urban warfare, it is not yet clear to what extent the UK will be involved in fighting in these areas in the future. We are, however, undertaking a number of studies into how existing and planned equipment and doctrine could be developed for use in an urban environment.

  Basil Hill Barracks
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to dispose of the underground facilities at Basil Hill Barracks at Corsham. [59750]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no current plans to dispose of the underground facilities at Basil Hill Barracks Corsham. However, the Ministry of Defence has commissioned an option study in connection with the landholdings, as part of the intention to rationalise site operations at Corsham.

  Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if cadets at the RMA Sandhurst are to receive the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal. [60002]

  Dr. Moonie
  In accordance with the published qualifying criteria for the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal, if cadets at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst had completed at least five years qualifying service on 6 February 2002, the date of the 50th anniversary of the Queen's accession, they will receive the medal. While those cadets who have entered the Academy direct from full-time education will not qualify, those who have had previous non-commissioned military service, either as a regular or as a member of the Volunteer Reserve Forces, prior to entering Sandhurst may have completed sufficient qualifying service to receive the medal.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what projects have been undertaken by management consultants on behalf of his Department since 1997, stating in each case(a) the title of the project, (b) the contractor, (c) the value of the contract, (d) when the project started, (e) when the project was completed and (f) the outputs received by his Department. [60011]

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

  Bullying
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many payments he has made in the past three years to members and former members of
  743W
  HM armed forces in compensation for ill-treatment, bullying or harassment experienced while serving; and what the total cost was in each year. [59694]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of claims settled and the total amounts paid in the past three years to members and former members of HM armed forces in compensation for ill-treatment, bullying or harassment experienced while serving are set out in the table:

  Bullying/ill treatment

  Sexual harassment

  Racial harassment

  Claims settled

  Paid (£)

  Claims settled

  Paid (£)

  Claims settled

  Paid (£)

  1999–2000

  9

  34,533

  6

  49,165

  17

  132,373

  2000–01

  2

  31,0000

  3

  15,000

  1

  37,500

  2001–02

  0

  0

  1

  50,000

  1

  20,000

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Special Investigation Branch investigations into bullying and harassment are in progress; and what regiments are involved. [59695]

  Mr. Ingram
  A total of six investigations, where bullying or harassment has been alleged, are in progress with the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch worldwide.

  The units that are involved are:

  School of Electrical and Aeronautical Engineering

  23 Pioneer Regiment

  Queens Royal Lancers

  28 Engineer Regiment

  26 Engineer Regiment.

  Missing Firearms
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions he has reached following the RMP investigation into the theft of an automatic pistol from Grosvenor Barracks in February; what weapons have been reported missing from the Royal Irish Regiment in the past two years; how many disciplinary actions have been taken following(a) theft and (b) loss of firearms; and what the outcome was in each case. [59698]

  Mr. Ingram
  The investigation into the loss of a pistol from Grosvenor Barracks, Enniskillen on 8 March 2002 is still going on. There are no other reports of any weapons missing from the Royal Irish Regiment armouries in Northern Ireland over the last two years. I am withholding details of the result of internal investigations or any resultant disciplinary action in accordance with Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Initiation Rites
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in halting degrading and demeaning initiation rites and ceremonies in HM armed forces; and in what regiments these practices are known to persist. [59696]
  744W
  Mr. Ingram
  If, any degrading or demeaning initiation ceremonies were found to exist they would be dealt with swiftly. It is made routinely clear to all armed forces personnel that forcing compliance with initiation rites is classed as bullying and is quite unacceptable. The new armed forces diversity policy goal will aim to achieve an environment free from harassment, intimidation and unlawful discrimination, in which all have equal opportunity and encouragement to realise their full potential. This position is reinforced through single service values and standards and equal opportunities policies, and was reflected in the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct issued to all personnel in January 2000, where clear guidance was given on what is considered inappropriate personal behaviour within the armed forces. All of these measures are, of course, regularly reviewed and reinforced as necessary.

  Royal Regiment of Fusiliers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what proportion of members of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers have applied to leave the regiment in the past two years. [59700]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not possible to provide figures for 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers only as they are not recorded separately to the 1st Battalion. The figures shown in the table, therefore, represent both the 1st and 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

  Outflow

  Financial Year

  Total

  Percentage

  Soldiers

  2000–01

  166

  14.2

  2001–02

  146

  13.4

  Total

  312

  —

  Officers

  2000–01

  2

  1.4

  2001–02

  7

  4.7

  Total

  9

  —

  Howe Barracks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints have been received concerning the conduct of off duty RIR soldiers from the Howe Barracks in Kent; how many soldiers have been arrested and charged with drug-related offences; how many disciplinary actions have been taken in the barracks in the past two years; and what the outcome was in each case. [59699]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been three cases of complaint involving off duty soldiers from the 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment (1 R Irish) at Howe Barracks in the last two years. Within the same time frame, one soldier has been charged under the military system for possession of drugs and one soldier was arrested by the civil police, also for possession of drugs. There have been a total of 35 case of disciplinary action taken in the barracks in the past two years. The particulars of the cases are detailed as follows.
  745W

  Offence

  Total return

  Action taken

  Absence without leave (AWOL)1

  21

  One reduced in ranks One fined £350 19 given military detention from 07–50 days

  Disobedience to standing order

  1

  Reprimand

  Abusive behaviour

  1

  Fined £250

  Threatening superior officer

  1

  Fined £200

  Loss of ID card

  1

  Dismissed

  Violent disorder

  1

  Referred to higher authority

  Assault

  1

  Referred to higher authority

  Drunkenness

  1

  Compensation to offended party

  Theft

  1

  Military fine £280.41

  Offering violence

  1

  Dismissed

  Using threatening language

  1

  14 days detention

  Battery

  1

  Dismissed

  Conduct prejudice to good conduct and military discipline

  2

  Dismissed

  Possession of controlled drug

  1

  42 days detention

  1 Personnel who have been absent for over 24 hours

  This does not include minor offences, such as poor turnout or inadequate fitness, which are dealt with at company level.

  Absence Without Leave
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence(a) how many and (b) what proportion of soldiers in each regiment of HM forces went absent without leave in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001; and what measures he plans to take in response. [59693]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total number of soldiers who went absent without leave (AWOL) over the last three years is as follows:

  Year

  Total

  1999

  2,077

  2000

  2,722

  2001

  2,662

  Total

  7,461

  These figures represent those AWOL cases which were reported to the Royal Military Police (RMP) and are recorded on the database. The actual number of cases may differ to those recorded as some will have been dealt with at unit level where the absence was for a short period only.

  It has not been possible to break the figures down by regiment as this information is not held centrally. The central database held by the RMP records total numbers only, therefore, a further breakdown by regiment could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In an attempt to address the AWOL issue, the Army commenced a pilot scheme in September last year in London called "Reclaim Your Life". The aim of the scheme was to provide a bridge between the absentee and the Army by using a volunteer member of a service charity as an initial point of contact. It was thought that many absentees would be more prepared to return to their unit if they were better informed of the likely disciplinary consequences. This scheme is to be relaunched with greater publicity this year.
  746W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence(a) how many and (b) what proportion of soldiers going absent without leave in the last 12 months for which figures are available have alleged that they were victims of bullying or harassment; how many of these allegations led to disciplinary action against the perpetrators; and what the penalties were in each case. [59692]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the last 12 months, taken as January to December 2001, the figures for those personnel going absent without leave (AWOL) are shown in the table:

  Number

  Total absentees

  12,662

  Total returned to unit

  1675

  Total charged with AWOL-related offences

  2129

  Total alleging bullying as contributory factor

  29

  Total alleging bullying as contributory factor

  1.3 per cent.

  Disciplinary action taken and penalties

  3Nil return

  1 Figures provided by Central Criminal Records and Intelligence Office (CCRIO) at Chichester.

  2 Figures provided by Personal Services 2 (Army) Post Trials Section. Of these there are two recorded investigations by Royal Military Police but neither allegation was substantiated following investigation and therefore no prosecutions resulted.

  3 Bullying per se is not a recorded crime and any such offence would be recorded as Assault within CCRIO. It is difficult to filter the data to determine whether a service man who had returned from AWOL had alleged harassment since these issues would be recorded separately.

  Departmental Sponsors
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which hon. Members have been appointed as sponsors to his Department since 7 June 2001; and when each of them were appointed; [59962]

  (2) what the duties are of hon. Members appointed as sponsors to his Department; and what assistance is given by officials in his Department to them in carrying out these duties. [59977]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave on 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 478W, to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

  Helicopters
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy vessels are at sea without their Lynx helicopters; and what the shortfall is in helicopters for the Royal Navy. [60018]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 23 May there are three vessels at sea not engaged on front line duties which do not have Lynx embarked (HMS Newcastle, HMS Norfolk and HMS Montrose). The Royal Navy has its full required operating fleet of 116 helicopters of various types, and the required level of spare aircraft. There is no overall shortfall.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures the Government are taking to(a) increase the lives of rotor heads for helicopters, (b) decrease the manufacturing period and (c) ensure that enough spare parts are available for the front line and reserve. [60020]

  Mr. Ingram
  A number of factors influence rotor head life including the helicopter's operational role and weight, any changes to capability during its service, the vibration environment of the helicopter and the cost and ease of maintenance. We continue to work closely with industry to improve the techniques and materials used in the manufacture of rotor heads, and gain a better understanding of the stress under which the rotor head operates. These initiatives are designed both to increase the life of the rotor heads and reduce manufacture lead times. Helicopters now entering service, for example Merlin, benefit from this work

  We are also embarking on a number of innovative partnering arrangements with industry that focus both on greater reliability and improved component performance More broadly based work to improve the responsiveness of the Defence Supply Chain will also enhance helicopter logistics, and ensure that we are better able to support front line forces.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence Indonesia what recent discussions he has had with the DLO to Israel increase helicopter performance and numbers. [60021]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions concerning a wide range of logistic support issues including helicopter performance

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the shortfall in operational helicopters has had on front-line forces; and if he will make a statement. [60022]

  Mr. Ingram
  Problems with Lynx main rotor heads have obliged the Joint Helicopter Command to review helicopter deployments, and Lynx helicopters in the rapid reaction forces not currently deployed on operations are subject to restrictions on the number of hours that can be flown. In addition, to protect front line operations and the flying training programme, some ships not on front line Slovenia service are currently at sea without an embarked Lynx helicopter.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many helicopters under the Joint Helicopter Command are grounded; and for what reason. [60019]
  748W
  Mr. Ingram
  None. The term "grounded" is normally used only when a whole fleet or mark of aircraft is identified as unsafe to fly because of specific serious engineering or airworthiness problems that call into question the safety of the aircraft type. More generally, the number of aircraft available to operational commanders can vary on a daily basis as aircraft move in and out of maintenance.

  Defence Procurement
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with which countries the Government have Memoranda of Understanding on defence procurement. [59654]

  Dr. Moonie
  The list of nations with which Government have Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) on defence procurement based on available records is shown as follows. It includes countries with which we have concluded MoUs on either defence equipment co-operation, specific equipment projects or sales of equipment.

  Australia

  Austria

  Bahrain

  Belgium

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Canada

  Chile

  Czech Republic

  Denmark

  Egypt

  Finland

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Hungary

  India

  Indonesia

  Israel

  Italy

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kuwait

  Malaysia

  Netherlands

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Philippines

  Portugal

  Qatar

  China

  Romania

  Saudi Arabia

  Slovenia

  South Africa

  South Korea

  Spain

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  749W

  Thailand

  Turkey

  United Arab Emirates

  United States of America.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what written instructions the Chief Executive of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency has given to employees of that agency on speaking to their Members of Parliament or local councillors. [60183]

  Mr. Ingram
  In December 2000, the Chief Executive issued guidance through a memorandum to his employees on contact with MPs as follows:"It is a citizen's right in the UK to write to his/her constituency MP on any subject. This absolute right never has or will be challenged in the DARA. Internal correspondence, however, must not be copied to MPs. Any communication with MPs is through Minister (Armed Forces), and via the CE of the Agency. There are no exceptions to this Ministerial direction. If any DARA employee wishes to have an issue raised with their MP, this should be communicated privately from their home address."

  No other memorandum has been sent to the workforce since that issue, and the guidance remains unchanged.

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is to QinetiQ of its sponsorship of the QinetiQ1 manned space balloon. [60614]

  Dr. Moonie
  Although QinetiQ is currently owned by the Ministry of Defence, the sponsorship of the QinetiQ1 manned balloon altitude record attempt is a commercial activity undertaken by the company, and no defence funding is committed to this venture. For commercial reasons the company has chosen not to put the cost of their participation in QinetiQ1 into the public domain, and therefore I am withholding the information requested under Exemption 13 of the code of practice on access to government information, which relates to the maintenance of commercial confidences.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if(a) his Department and (b) its agencies have a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59452]

  Dr. Moonie
  Under the Ministry of Defence's equal opportunities policy discriminatory practices, procedures, decisions or actions in recruitment based on gender, marital status, race or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, age, disability or anything else unconnected with an individual's ability to do the job are unacceptable.

  When advertising for civilian staff it is the MOD policy that age limits do not appear in adverts, except when they can be fully justified in terms of allowing the MOD time to benefit from any training investment it might need to make.

  The Armed Forces regard the ability to recruit sufficient people of the right age as critical in order to retain the correct balance of youth and experience required to maintain operational effectiveness. All three
  750W
  Services keep the age limit criteria for entry under regular review. Maximum age limits are imposed in order to maintain a balanced age/rank structure, with individuals benefiting from a visible career structure. The Services wish to recruit individuals who are operationally fit and are likely to give a good return of service. When considering upper age limits, the length and cost of training an individual is also taken into consideration.

  Armed Forces Pensions
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal advice he has sought on the administration of armed forces pensions, regarding section 315 of the Income and Corporation Tax Act 1988 and preceding laws, since 1972. [60544]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 1998, when the Ministry of Defence first recognised the current problem with the mistaken taxation of attributable service invaliding pensions, it has sought legal advice on a number of aspects of the application of the Income and Corporation Tax Act (ICTA) 1988, or preceding laws. These have centred on establishing clearly the nature and extent of our responsibilities for remedying the effects of the error, in particular in the following areas:

  Clarification of the specific application of the Act and its predecessors to those receiving a pension under the armed forces pension scheme as a result of being invalided from service.

  Clarification of the eligibility of different categories of dependant of a deceased pensioner for a refund in respect of the mistaken taxation of the deceased's pension.

  Clarification of the MOD's responsibilities for tracing surviving dependants, or estates of individuals who died before refunds of tax could be made.

  The extent of the Government's legal responsibility to backdate refunds, outside the normal Inland Revenue six-year time limit.

  Where the MOD has required more general advice on the implications of tax law for pensions paid under the AFPS, such as on the original legal basis of the tax exemption of invaliding pensions, this has been sought from the relevant Inland Revenue policy branch, who have the primary responsibility for tax law.

  Information prior to 1998 would require extensive research and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to ensure that individuals who have been identified as having been incorrectly taxed on retired pay awarded since 1952 have been correctly reimbursed in accordance with section 315 of the Income and Corporation Tax Act 1988 and preceding statutes which shared the same wording. [60545]

  Dr. Moonie
  The reimbursement of armed forces pensioners identified as having been taxed incorrectly falls to the Inland Revenue and as such, no steps of the manner the hon. Gentleman describe are taken by the Ministry of Defence. On identifying a pension that has been taxed in error, the Ministry of Defence does, however, provide full details to the Inland Revenue of the annual pension paid from the date upon which an error occurred, so that any reimbursement due can be correctly calculated and paid.

  Porton Down
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animal experiments, broken down by recorded category, were carried out at Porton Down in 2001. [59716]

  Dr. Moonie
  Dstl Porton Down submits annual returns to the Home Office detailing the number of procedures undertaken which involve the use of animals.

  In the year 2001 a total of 12,955 procedures were returned to the Home Office by Dstl Porton Down. As defined in the Home Office recorded category of primary purpose: 7,074 of these procedures were undertaken for fundamental biological research; 5,674 of the procedures for applied studies—human medicine; 108 procedures for the protection of man, animals and the environment and 99 procedures for direct diagnosis.

  Chinook ZD576
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the parameters provided to Boeing for its simulation of the final five seconds of Chinook ZD576. [60391]

  Mr. Ingram
  Boeing was provided with data extracted from navigation equipment on the aircraft, data from the report of the Air Accidents investigation Board report, and information about the aircraft and its load.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he estimates that the heading and track of Chinook ZD576 was represented with complete accuracy in the simulation conducted by Boeing; and if he will make a statement. [60503]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Boeing simulation assumed a straight flight path at an angle of 20 degrees climb and with 30 degrees nose up pitch altitude.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's estimate is of the speed and rate of climb of Chinook ZD576(a) 30 seconds prior to the initial point of impact, (b) five seconds prior to impact and (c) at the point of impact; and if he will make a statement. [60501]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Board of Inquiry considered data extracted from the aircraft's systems, the AAIB technical report, the flight path simulations from Boeing Helicopters and a separate investigation from the Defence Research Agency Bedford, together with witness evidence. The board concluded that it was most likely that while approaching the Mull of Kintyre the aircraft was established in a steady climb, with a ground speed of between 160 and 275 kts, until approximately four seconds before impact. The aircraft then flared to an attitude of 30 degrees nose up, and finally impacted with a ground speed of 147 kts.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he estimates that the all-up weight of Chinook ZD576, including variables, was represented with complete accuracy in the simulation conducted by Boeing; and if he will make a statement; [60502]

  (2) what his Department's estimate is of the all-up weight of Chinook ZD576, including variables and passengers, baggage and fuel, at (a) 30 seconds prior to
  752W
  the initial point of impact, (b) five seconds prior to impact and (c) at the point of impact; and if he will make a statement. [60504]

  Mr. Ingram
  The estimated all-up weight of Chinook ZD576 at take off was 38,720 lbs, which included fuel weighing 6,776 lbs. At impact the estimated all-up weight of the aircraft was 37,620 lbs. The weight of the aircraft at any given point during the flight reflects the amount of fuel used by that point. Boeing conducted their simulation of the last five seconds of flight against a gross aircraft weight figure of 37,700 lbs at this point.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's estimate is of the heading and track of Chinook ZD576(a) 30 seconds prior to the initial point of impact, (b) five seconds prior to impact and (c) at the point of impact; and if he will make a statement. [60500]

  Mr. Ingram
  The flight plan indicated a route to the Mull of Kintyre lighthouse and then a course change to port on a track following the western shore of the Mull. The first waypoint or landmark the pilots entered on the on-board navigation computer was the Mull of Kintyre lighthouse. At 0.95 nautical miles, or about 20 seconds from impact the crew released the computer from the fix on the lighthouse and set it to indicate the bearing and distance to the next waypoint at Conan 87 miles to the north. The preserved data held by the navigation system indicated that the aircraft was very close to the direct track from RAF Aldergrove to the lighthouse when the waypoint change was made. There is no evidence of any significant change of course before the impact.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement setting out the reasons why a simulation was commissioned for the investigation into the final flight of Chinook ZD576. [60103]

  Mr. Ingram
  As part of the investigations into the crash of Chinook ZD576, Boeing the aircraft manufacturers were asked to conduct simulations to model the likely flightpath profiles during the final seconds prior to impact. The House of Lords Select Committee was critical of certain aspects of these simulations, which did not include full FADEC parameters. As part of our promised full response to the Select Committee's report, Boeing have been tasked to revisit their original analysis to include a full FADEC simulation.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will publish the information, other than the parameters issuing from the AAIB technical report, that was provided to Boeing for the purposes of the simulation of the final seconds of the flight of ZD576; [60102]

  (2) what level of accuracy Boeing stated it achieved in its simulation of the manoeuvres of the final five seconds of flight of Chinook ZD576, in the outline report Boeing presented to his Department to accompany the simulation results; [60106]

  (3) if he will place in the Library copies of the information that was provided to Boeing by the (a) MOD, (b) RAF Board of Inquiry and (c) AAIB for the purposes of constructing a simulation of the final seconds of the flight of Chinook ZD576; [60101]
  753W
  (4) what values were used by Boeing for matching to the final aircraft attitude in its simulation of the final five seconds of the flight of Chinook ZD576; and if he will list the values established as 100 per cent. verifiable from the wreckage of the aircraft in respect of (a) rotor speed, (b) rotor torque, (c) rudder pedal and (d) initial rate of climb set by the pilots. [60105]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who commissioned the original Boeing simulation of the final seconds of the flight of ZD576. [60104]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Air Accidents Investigation Branch for the RAF Board of Inquiry.

  Canberra PR9
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the replacement of the capabilities provided by the Canberra PR9. [59791]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Canberra PR9 reconnaissance aircraft is an important element of our overall capability. We are currently looking at ways in which the aircraft's particular capabilities can be provided in the future. Our thinking will be informed by the Strategic Defence Review New Chapter work.

  Israel
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British-made military equipment has recently been supplied to Israel. [54730]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information relating to exports of new and surplus military equipment in major categories to individual countries is published in Part III of the Government's annual reports on strategic export controls, copies of which are available from the Library of the House. The 2001 report is currently being prepared.

  Afghanistan
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department received reports and representations from the International Committee of the Red Cross regarding the conditions of fighters held in Shibergan prison in Afghanistan; and what action his Department has taken. [58828]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have not received such reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross, although we understand the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have received the EU Special Representative's report on the camp. Security considerations have so far prevented British embassy staff in Kabul from visiting these prisons. But they are in contact with the International Committee of the Red Cross, which closely monitors the situation and welfare of all prisoners in Afghanistan.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether aircrew and aircraft maintenance staff on non-UK aircraft leased for the transport and supply of UK forces in Afghanistan are security-cleared. [59725]
  754W
  Mr. Hoon
  I am withholding details of security arrangements in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what acclimatisation measures are necessary for operations in mountain terrain; what acclimatisation measures were taken by Royal Marines in preparation for action in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [58865]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: Acclimatisation for operations in mountain terrain depends, in the first instance, on personal physical fitness. As the British armed forces mountain and cold climate specialists, the Royal Marines pay particular attention to this at all times. More specifically, they undertake annual mountain training in climbing, navigation and 'living' techniques, and every year a detachment spends three months training in Norway.

  It is standard requirement for units to undertake pre-operational acclimatisation training. Prior to commencing operations, personnel of 45 Commando were deployed to Afghanistan for up to 10 days. This period ended with Operation Ptarmigan, which gave our forces vital experience of operating in Afghanistan.

  As a result of this careful planning, the number of cases of ill-effects from altitude and cold reported by 45 Commando have been well within the predicted parameters.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to ensure that logistics and supply of forces in Afghanistan are not compromised by unserviceable C17 transport aircraft; what extra costs have been incurred as a result of unserviceable C17 aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [59233]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: Throughout operations in Afghanistan, C17 aircraft have flown missions continuously, performing fully up to our expectations and meeting predicted serviceability parameters. Consequently, no extra costs have been incurred as a result of unserviceable C17 aircraft.

  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians have been(a) killed and (b) injured in the military action in Afghanistan to date; how many of these have been children; and if he will make a statement. [60063]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 12 December 2002,Official Report, column 860W, to my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham).

  NLAW Programme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the decision to award the Saab Bofors Dynamics team the preferred supplier status for the NLAW programme. [59653]

  Dr. Moonie
  Saab Bofors Dynamics Ltd (SBD) was selected as the preferred bidder for the armed forces Next Generation Light Anti-Armour Weapons (NLAW) following a competition. Selection of the Saab weapon, known as MBT-LAW, presents an excellent opportunity
  755W
  for United Kingdom industry and is expected to create or sustain more than 500 jobs across the United Kingdom. The weapon also has significant export potential.

  The programme is being undertaken in collaboration with the Kingdom of Sweden, enhancing our ties with an EU partner. A memorandum of understanding between our two Governments for the development and production of MBT-LAW is due to be signed shortly.

  This competition has been an excellent example of smart acquisition and demonstrates how an effective capability can be achieved at affordable cost.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the anti-armour capability is of British Army infantry regiments. [59652]

  Mr. Ingram
  The British Army infantry's anti-armour capability is currently provided by the MILAN Anti-tank Guided Missile System and the Light Anti-Armour Weapon (LAW 94mm).

  This capability will be enhanced with the introduction of the Light Forces Anti-Tank Guided Weapon System (LF ATGWS) which will replace MILAN between 2005 and 2008 and the Next Generation Light Anti-Armour Weapon (NLAW) which will replace LAW 94mm in 2007.

  JTIDS
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which(a) present and (b) future Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm aircraft will be fitted with JTIDS; and at what cost. [59790]

  Mr. Ingram
  Joint tactical information and distribution system (JTIDS) capability is being fitted to Sea King AEW and Nimrod R and, on current plans, Eurofighter, Nimrod MRA4, ASTOR, A400M and the future strategic tanker will come into service fitted with this capability. The cost of fitting and supporting these aircraft is estimated to be of the order of £560 million. In the longer term, new aircraft types, such as the future joint combat aircraft, are expected to have this capability.

  Tornado F3 Fleet
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further upgrade work will be undertaken on the Tornado F3 fleet; and what the planned cost is of this upgrade work. [59783]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Tornado F3 fleet is currently undergoing or planned to undergo, a number of upgrade activities that will maintain the aircraft's operational capability for the remainder of its in-service life. The work comprises integration of secure communication equipment, a successor identification friend or foe system, an instrumentation enhancement to aid training and a programme to maximise the effectiveness of the advanced medium range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM).

  It is estimated that the total cost of these upgrade programmes will be approximately £125 million.

  Harrier
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the length is of the training period required for Harrier GR7 pilots to qualify for flying operations from aircraft carriers. [59786]

  Mr. Ingram
  The additional training required to qualify Harrier GR7 pilots for aircraft carriers combat ready (Day) and (Night) status has historically taken a minimum of 16 aircraft carrier based flying days during which 15 day time sorties and five night time sorties must be accrued. The night sorties must be undertaken within 72 hours of the last day time sortie. The length of time to complete this training can vary, as it is aircraft carrier availability and weather dependent. It would be rare for the training to be completed within 16 days, however, on occasions when optimum operating conditions have been experienced, some pilots have qualified in a slightly shorter time.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the maximum number of Harrier GR7 pilots is that can be trained for aircraft carrier flying operations at any one time. [59787]

  Mr. Ingram
  The maximum full front line strength of the three operational Harrier GR7 squadrons is 48 pilots and it is unlikely that there would be a requirement to train more than that number. 36 pilots are currently qualified to fly operations from aircraft carriers. Training to enable Harrier GR7 pilots to conduct aircraft carrier based operations is usually conducted as part of a Squadron's routine training programme. The maximum number of pilots that could be trained for aircraft carrier operations at any one time is dependent on a wide range of factors. These include aircraft carrier availability, operational tempo, pilot requirement for such training, weather conditions and completing training priorities, themselves dictated by anticipated operational requirement.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all new Harrier GR7 pilots will be trained for aircraft carrier flying operations. [59788]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is planned that all RAF Harrier GR7 pilots will be trained for aircraft carrier operations at some stage during their first front line tour. All RN Sea Harrier FA2 pilots migrating to the Harrier GR7 will undertake aircraft carrier based training after completing conversion and a Combat Ready work up syllabus.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Harrier GR7 pilots are trained for operations from aircraft carriers; and what plans he has to increase the numbers of Harrier GR7 pilots trained for flying operations from aircraft carriers. [59785]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is currently an established front line strength of 48 Harrier GR7 pilots, of which 75 per cent., 36 pilots, are currently qualified to fly operations from aircraft carriers. There are currently no plans to increase that ratio.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken, following the announced early retirement of the Sea Harrier FA2 from service, to ensure that the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force benefit from a common standard of upgraded engine
  757W
  across the Harrier aircraft fleet, with the objective of improving the aircraft's performance and operational efficiency and reducing its cost of ownership. [60563]

  Mr. Ingram
  We do not currently plan to upgrade the Pegasus engines of the full Harrier GR fleet, as the current partial fleet fit with the upgraded engines fulfils all our operational requirements. While there could be some operational and logistical benefits in a full Harrier fleet engine upgrade, the benefits over the partial fit would be marginal and are not sufficient to outweigh the substantial costs involved, particularly in view of the aircraft's out-of-service date. Our decision to retire the Sea Harriers from service does not alter this position.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost per aircraft is of upgrading the Harrier GR7 to GR9 standard. [59784]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 March 2002,Official Report, columns 1166–67W to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).

  We will be able to determine the cost per aircraft of the Harrier GR7 upgrade when the total programme cost is finalised.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when work to upgrade Harrier GR7 to GR9 will commence; how many aircraft are planned to be upgraded; and what the yearly delivery schedule is for the upgraded aircraft. [59789]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 168W.

  The yearly delivery schedule for the Harrier GR9 has yet to be determined.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to identify the author of the letter published in The Times on 13 May signed as from Paul Hamblin and Don Holland. [59748]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence established on the day of publication that the signed authors of the letter were not members of the armed forces. We informed The Times newspaper that day.

PRIME MINISTER

  Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister how many net additional staff his Office has recruited in each month since June 2001 at(a) executive officer and (b) administrative level. [52419]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 556W.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent by his Department on paying pensions to retired employees of his Department in 2001–02; if he will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in(a) five years' time, (b) 10 years' time, (c) 20 years' time and (d) 30 years' time; if he will estimate in each case the
  758W
  proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (i) unfunded pension schemes and (ii) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if he will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [57357]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 23 May 2002,Official Report, columns 561–63W.

  MOD Pensions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 30 April 2002,Official Report, column 658W, if MOD pensioners may continue to draw cash at post offices if they have an account with the Halifax Bank of Scotland, the Royal Bank of Scotland or Clydesdale Bank plc under the revised arrangements introduced from April. [60096]

  The Prime Minister
  The facility to draw cash at post offices for the 2 per cent. of armed forces pensioners affected by the revised arrangements does not extend currently to the accounts with any of these banks. As I stated in my answer to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on 30 April 2002,Official Report, column 658W, pensioners may continue to draw cash at post offices subject to having an account with the Alliance and Leicester, Barclays, Cahoot, Lloyds TSB, Smile or the Co-operative bank. This facility also applies to pensioners who have First Direct accounts, although restricted solely to those residing in Scotland.

  From April 2003, however, as part of the universal banking services package, all of the main United Kingdom banks, including those listed in the question, have agreed to make their basic accounts, which include the facility to draw cash, available at post offices.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister if his Office has a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59586]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, today.

TRANSPORT

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the Airline Group about the(a) technical issues at and (b) the financing of NATS. [60298]

  Mr. Jamieson
  NATS' financial position is regularly discussed by all parties concerned—NATS, the Airline Group, the Government as the other main shareholder, the Civil Aviation Authority as regulator and the banks. All are making a contribution to ensuring that NATS has a robust financial structure for the foreseeable future.

  Technical issues are operational matters for NATS.
  759W
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the implications for future air traffic volumes if NATS delivers its investment plan; [60296]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the impact on NATS' ability to take advantage of the commercial freedoms offered by the European Union's Single European Sky Policy of a lack of an investment plan. [60295]

  Mr. Jamieson
  NATS recently announced a £1 billion investment plan, detailing its strategic and operational direction for the next decade. This positions the company for the fundamental changes that are expected to take place in European air traffic management over the next 10 to 15 years and gives it the headroom needed to handle safely a further 1 million flights a year by 2011.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the status is of negotiations to increase investment by other parties in NATS; and what commitments the Government have made in connection with its intention to invest further sums of money in NATS. [60294]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The competition for a new investor in NATS is being run by the company's chairman on commercially confidential terms.

  As a responsible shareholder in NATS, the Government have said that they would be prepared to match appropriate third party investment.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many reports the HSE has issued in connection with the NATS in(a) 2002, (b) 2001, (c) 2000 and v(d) 1999. [60300]

  Mr. Jamieson
  HSE has sent only one report to NATS since the beginning of 1999. That was the one by its expert on display screen equipment on the risks to the health of those operating the air traffic control system at Swanwick following a visit in January 2002.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in(a) 1999, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) 2002 the HSE has been notified of problems at NATS. [60306]

  Mr. Jamieson
  NATS is a large organisation operating at many locations throughout the country. Since the beginning of 1999 NATS has notified HSE of 16 reportable accidents nationally. A yearly breakdown follows. In order to protect complainants and because not all may be justified, HSE does not disclose the number of complaints it receives concerning individual employers.

  Accidents

  1999

  5

  2000

  6

  2001

  5

  2002

  0

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the reports by the Health and Safety Executive on IT systems in operation at Swanwick and West Drayton. [60304]

  Mr. Jamieson
  HSE has already sent a copy of its report on the operation of IT systems at Swanwick to the employer, NATS, and to the representatives of the 760W
  relevant employees in accordance with its duty to keep them informed about matters affecting their health and safety. HSE will endeavour to release the report more widely. However there are statutory restrictions on the disclosure of information obtained by HSE in pursuance of its powers and at present they still apply to this report.

  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I am able to give him any further information on this issue.

  There is no corresponding report on the operation of the display screen equipment at West Drayton air traffic control centre.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the effects of the IT patterns at the Swanwick air traffic control centre on air traffic volumes; [60299]

  (2) what discussions he has had with National Air Traffic Services concerning IT problems at Swanwick and West Drayton; [60302]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the likely reliability of IT systems at Swanwick and West Drayton over the summer; [60303]

  (4) what assurances he has received from the Airline Group about the reliability of NATS IT systems; [60305]

  (5) what steps the Government have taken to assess the reliability of the air traffic control systems at Swanwick. [60301]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Responsibility for the air traffic control systems at Swanwick and West Drayton rests with NATS. NATS has successfully implemented solutions for the recent problems at these centres and have given assurances that they are doing everything they can to ensure that their systems are resilient. Safety was not compromised in any way.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when Swanwick will assume responsibility for all air traffic services from the centres at Manchester and West Drayton; and what conditions will need to be met before this takes place. [60297]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for NATS. I understand that subject to detail planning, the Manchester and West Drayton air traffic services will be moved to Swanwick by 2008.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with and representations he has received from(a) the Health and Safety Executive, (b) the Health and Safety Commission, (c) the Civil Aviation Authority, (d) National Air Traffic Services and (e) other organisations relating to health and safety issues associated with the operation of air traffic control centre at Swanwick; and if he will make a statement. [60401]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such discussions or representations have taken place.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what impact the financial position of National Air Traffic Services is having on the building of the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick. [59178]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.
  761W
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on 23 January 2002, Official Report, columns 862–63W.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent approaches Manchester Airport plc has made to his Department to alter departure routes from Manchester airport. [60312]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Aviation Security
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment the Government have made of(a) the draft EU regulation on establishing common rules in the field of aviation security and (b) the recommendation of the European Parliament that member state Governments should meet an equitable share of the costs of airport security. [R] [60012]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are fully committed to the establishment of common rules for aviation security throughout Europe and regards the agreed measures in European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) Document 30 as the appropriate basis for doing so. It welcomes the EU initiative, which will aid compliance and views many of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament as useful clarification.

  However, the UK firmly believes that the financing of aviation security should be for each individual state to determine. It is for aerodromes and airlines to decide how best to comply with the regulation within the context of the UK National Aviation Security Programme, and how associated costs are passed on to the user. This system has been used to good effect in the UK for many years.

  Infrastructure Projects
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals for(a) airports, (b) runway extensions and (c) airport terminal extensions of which he has been notified fall within the category of major infrastructure projects as defined in the Government's consultation paper, New Parliamentary Procedures for Processing Major Infrastructure Projects. [58887]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The forthcoming series of regional consultation documents on airports and air services will present a range of options for airport development for the next 30 years. Decisions taken following the consultation will lead to an Air Transport White Paper which we aim to publish towards the end of the year.

  At present, proposals for airport development are subject to the requirements of the land-use planning system. Under the proposals for New Parliamentary Procedures for Processing Major Infrastructure Projects set out in the December 2001 consultation paper, only those projects of national importance which are designated by the Secretary of State, in the light of the definition proposed in annex C of the consultation paper,
  762W
  will be put to Parliament as major infrastructure projects for their consideration in principle. Designation of these projects will be on a case by case basis under the proposed new legislation.

  Heathrow Airport
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what work his Department has done into the technical feasibility of additional runway capacity at Heathrow. [60243]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study (SERAS) has examined and appraised a wide range of development options for terminal and runway capacity at existing airports and new sites.

  The technical study has now been completed. It would be inappropriate to comment on the status of the options considered at this stage. We intend to launch a full public consultation on the final shortlist of options early in the summer.

  Shipping
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action the Department will take in relation to the OECD's Maritime Transport Committee's proposals to eradicate substandard shipping. [60162]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I welcome the OECD Maritime Transport Committee's (MTC) policy statement on substandard shipping. The MTC plays an important role in supporting the efforts of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and others to eliminate substandard shipping. The policy statement is also a welcome contribution to the International Quality Shipping Campaign, in which the UK plays a leading role. That campaign sets out to eradicate substandard ships through a combination of market action and state action. The UK and like minded flag states will pursue in the IMO the proposals in MTC's policy statement.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the length of time taken by the Maritime Coastguard Agency in approving stability information on the ferry P&OSL Canterbury. [60164]

  Mr. Jamieson
  P&OSL Canterbury joined the UK shipping register in the summer of 1998. Her stability information booklet (SIB) had been approved in 1992 by the French classification society Bureau Veritas (BV) on behalf of her previous flag administration, the Bahamas. As BV are a classification society authorised by the UK, and the Bahamas is a reputable flag, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) followed established procedures and accepted the stability information on the basis of the previous approvals, and without any further detail checks, by marking the document "provisionally approved".

  At no time has the vessel not had approved stability information complying with international standards.

  The vessel was preparing for a programme of model testing to demonstrate compliance with the "Stockholm Agreement" standards for stability with the car deck flooded, and a routine displacement check was carried out in November 2000. A number of amendments to the SIB

  763W
  were eventually required and the owner's consultant submitted a "SIB Addendum" on 8 November 2001 which was approved on 16 November, within the MCA's charter standard time for document approval.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 149, how many of the merchant ships which have joined the UK shipping register have met the target of increasing UK cadet numbers by 25 per cent. each year. [60250]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are collecting information from individual companies that have joined the tonnage tax regime on the action they have taken to ensure they meet their 1:15 training commitment.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the regulations governing ship classification societies regarding the inspection and certification of oil tankers entering British territorial waters. [60582]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency as the administration for United Kingdom registered ships, monitors classification society performance where statutory surveys are concerned and, in their role as port state control inspectors, ensures that oil tankers entering United Kingdom territorial waters comply with international regulations.

  Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 which details Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil, is transposed into UK legislation by the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996. In September 2002, the UK will be implementing substantial amendments to these regulations which will include the establishment of a schedule accelerating the phase out of single hull tankers. They will also detail a rigorous new quality test to be applied by classification societies, known as the condition assessment scheme, applicable to single hull oil tankers of 20,000 deadweight tonnes and above.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many groundings of boats in Scottish waters have been attributed to the watchkeeper falling asleep in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, (d) 1998, (e) 1999, (f) 2000, (g) 2001 and (h) 2002 to date. [60182]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is as follows:

  Total

  Fishing vessels

  Merchant vessels

  Deaths

  Vessel lost

  1995

  6

  5

  1

  1

  2

  1996

  6

  5

  1

  1

  1

  1997

  4

  4

  —

  —

  1

  1998

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1999

  4

  4

  1

  —

  —

  2000

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  2001

  4

  4

  —

  —

  1

  20021

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  29

  24

  5

  2

  6

  1 To date

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of trends in the number of lives lost at sea in UK waters. [60163]
  764W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The trends for the number of lives lost in UK waters remain static when compared to incident numbers. However, even one death is too many. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency are, therefore, currently undertaking incident prevention pilot studies in each of their three regions in order to assist in the formulation of a long-term incident prevention strategy. This strategy will address ways of reducing accidents, deaths resulting from accidents, false alarms and hoax calls.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many lives have been lost at sea in UK waters in each year since 1990. [60161]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A breakdown of the number of lives lost in UK waters for each year 1990 to 2001 is as follows.

  Lives lost

  1990

  295

  1991

  201

  1992

  210

  1993

  262

  1994

  272

  1995

  232

  1996

  216

  1997

  251

  1998

  249

  1999

  251

  2000

  236

  2001

  284

  Merchant Navy
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the cost of upgrading and revalidation of maritime certificates of competence for unemployed merchant seamen will be met by the Merchant Navy Training Provider. [59663]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  SMarT support is paid at fixed rates representing approximately 50 per cent. of the average course costs. This is made available through the Merchant Navy Training Provider (MNTP) for the revalidation of certificates of competency.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many persons resident in Scotland have received assistance through the Merchant Navy Training Provider to upgrade and revalidate certificates of competency. [59672]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  To date, six unemployed people with an address in Scotland have received SMarT funding through the Merchant Navy Training Provider (MNTP).

  Note:

  The MNTP has only been running since January this year.

  Braer
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission an independent third party to review the evidence available concerning the loss of the tanker Braer. [60581]
  765W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Marine Accident Investigation Branch inspectors have fully considered the material submitted to them in respect of the Braer and the chief inspector of Marine Accidents has concluded that the material does not provide grounds for reopening the investigation into the grounding of the vessel.

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 14 May 2002,Official Report, column 519W, on ferry services, on what dates and in what locations discussions regarding the EU directive on minimum conditions of service and wages for seafarers took place; what documents were submitted by the UK Government in the course of such discussions; and who represented the UK on each occasion. [60015]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Discussions on the Commission's draft EU ferry-manning directive have taken place at the European Transport Councils on the following dates:

  20–21 December 2000 in Brussels (Lord MacDonald represented the UK)

  9–10 December 1999 in Brussels (Lord MacDonald represented the UK)

  30 November to 1 December 1998 in Brussels (my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) represented the UK)

  17–18 June 1998 in Luxembourg (my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) represented the UK).

  The outcome of the latest European Transport Council discussion was reported in the other place by the then Minister for Transport (Lord MacDonald) on 1 January 2001, Official Report, columns WA 116–18. The UK Government have not submitted any documents for these discussions, which have concerned the Commission's draft proposal.

  Multi-Modal Studies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the costs are of the London to South West and South Wales Multi-Modal Study, broken down by(a) staff and (b) other costs. [59779]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The total cost of the London to South West and South Wales MMS is £1.812 million (excluding VAT). This figure incorporates(a) staff and (b) other costs.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will respond to the MIDMAN multi-modal study. [60313]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I will respond to the recommendations of this study once we have received advice from both the West Midlands Local Government Association and North West Regional Assembly.

  Aerial Tramways
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the viability of aerial tramways in the UK. [59360]
  766W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. It is for local authorities in England to examine all relevant modes of transport to determine the most appropriate solutions for their areas in the context of their local transport plans. My Department undertakes a detailed assessment of any proposal based on the NATA (New Approach To Appraisal) to ensure that any scheme put forward provides not only value for money but also meet wider integrated transport objectives. Separate arrangements, which are outside my Department's responsibility, apply in the rest of the UK and in London this would be a matter for the Mayor and Transport for London.

  Severn Crossing
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what policy guidance exists on procedures for restrictions of traffic and closures of the M48 Severn crossing; whether the closures of the M48 Severn crossing are monitored and recorded; and whether a risk assessment of the M48 Severn crossing during adverse weather conditions has been carried out. [60476]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Operational procedures for restrictions of traffic and closures of the M48 Severn bridge during high winds are agreed between the Avon and Somerset police and the Highways Agency.

  Closures are decided by the police, who monitor them by surveillance camera. Severn River Crossing plc keep a record of bridge closures and also monitor wind speeds with anemometers positioned on the bridge.

  Current procedures are based on over 30 years of experience of the effect of wind speed and direction on the various types of traffic using the crossing. The Highways Agency is investigating the scope for a formal risk assessment of traffic behaviour on the Severn bridge during adverse weather conditions.

  Park and Ride Schemes
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on promoting park and ride schemes; and if he will make a statement. [60078]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government recognise that, under the right circumstances, park and ride can make a valuable contribution to alleviating congestion, improving the environment and promoting accessibility and travel choice. A number of high quality schemes have been introduced in recent years. Such schemes are carefully sited and accessible, offer safe and secure parking, provide clean and comfortable buses and offer a high frequency of service and fast journey times. Local authorities are being encouraged to consider the role that park and ride can play in their local transport plans. The English Historic Towns Forum, in conjunction with my Department, published the current edition of "Good Practice Guide on bus-based Park and Ride" in May 2000.

  Cherished Plates
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cherished plates have been transferred in(a) Angus and (b) Scotland in each of the last five years. [60069]
  767W
  Mr. Jamieson
  No information is kept on the number of cherished plate transfers for Angus. However, Angus is included in the catchment area for the DVLA local office at Dundee. During the last five years, the Dundee office has processed the following number of transfer applications:

  Transfer applications processed

  1996–97

  3,261

  1997–98

  3,389

  1998–99

  3,565

  1999–2000

  3,771

  2000–01

  3,714

  The combined number of applications processed by all five DVLA local offices in Scotland (Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Inverness) for the same period was:

  Transfer applications processed

  1996–97

  21,267

  1997–98

  22,415

  1998–99

  23,961

  1999–2000

  25,748

  2000–01

  27,928

  Road Risk
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to implement the recommendations of the Work-Related Road Safety Task Group concerning occupational road risk. [60123]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Further to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 801W, I have recently received advice from the Health and Safety Commission on the recommendations made by the Work-Related Road Safety Task Group which we are now considering. A copy of that advice has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Cones Hotline
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many calls the Cones Hotline received in each year since 1995, how many staff were employed on full-time and part-time contracts; and what the running costs for the service were in each year since 1997. [59546]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Cones Hotline was discontinued in November 1995.

  Birmingham North Relief Road
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the total projected cost was of the Birmingham North Relief Road agreed between his Department and the consortium that is responsible for it; [59330]

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of changes to road usage that will arise from the opening of the Birmingham North Relief Road; [59331]
  768W
  (3) what estimates have been made of the total annual revenue from the Birmingham North Relief Road. [59329]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from G. Rainbow to Mr. Chris Grayling, dated 10 June 2002:
  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, has asked Tim Matthews to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the projected cost of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road (now known as the M6 Toll Road), the changes to road usage that will arise from the opening of the road and estimates of total annual revenue from it. I am replying in Tim's absence on official business.
  Under the Concession Agreement between the Department and the consortium building the road, Midland Expressway Ltd. (MEL), the cost of constructing the M6 toll falls to MEL as the concessionaire, MEL has awarded a Design and Construct contract for the project to the CAMBBA Construction Group at a cost of £485.5m. MEL will also bear additional costs to cover scheme preparation, land acquisition and financing. The total costs are a commercial issue for MEL and no total projected cost has been agreed with either the Department or the Highways Agency.
  Estimates of changes to road usage because of the M6 Toll were presented in evidence at the Public Inquiry for the scheme. Briefly, it is expected that much of the long distance traffic presently travelling through the West Midlands on the very congested M6 motorway will transfer to M6 Toll. That transfer will allow released capacity on the M6 to be used by traffic currently using congested trunk and local roads within the M6 corridor, thus relieving their overall traffic burden. Traffic flows are expected to increase on some routes which provide access to the new motorway; for example, some sections of the A453 and A5127.
  Estimates of the total annual revenue from the M6 Toll are a commercial matter for MEL as Concessionaire and no details are available.
  If you require any further information, Richard Willson, the Highways Agency's Project Manager for the M6 Toll scheme, would be pleased to help. He can be contacted at the Agency's offices at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham, B5 1BL, or by telephone on 0121 678 8267.

  Environmentally Friendly Cars
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions his Department has had with vehicle manufacturers to encourage the development of more environmentally-friendly cars. [59733]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  DTLR together with the DTI, DEFRA and the Treasury published "Powering Future Vehicles, a draft Government Strategy", setting out and inviting comment on the Government's proposals for promoting the development, introduction and take-up of environmentally friendly low-carbon vehicles and fuels. As part of the consultation, the four Ministers held a major discussion seminar with all the stakeholders in the shift to low-carbon transport, including vehicle manufacturers. We are very grateful for their input to the development of the strategy, which includes the setting up of a Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, involving vehicle manufacturers and other stakeholders in the strategy's implementation. The final Powering Future Vehicles strategy will be published shortly.

  Biodiesel
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of fuel sold in the UK in 2001 was biodiesel; and what proportion of overall fuel sales his Department estimates will be biodiesel in(a) 2002, (b) 2003, (c) 2004, (d) 2005 and (e) 2006. [59731]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Currently, we estimate biodiesel production to be approximately 0.1 per cent. of road transport diesel consumption in 2001. The Government expect this figure to rise substantially with the introduction of a 20p fuel duty reduction for biodiesel. Preliminary projections collected from the industry suggest that existing and planned production would represent around 1.5 per cent. pure biodiesel by 2003, likely to be used as a 5 per cent. blend with conventional diesel. The Government have made no further estimates beyond this date.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of new cars sold in the last 12 months(a) were capable of running on biodiesel and (b) had diesel engines. [59732]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  (a)Nearly all diesel car manufacturers warranty their new vehicles to run on blends of at least 5 per cent. biodiesel. Some manufacturers warranty their vehicles at higher blending levels.

  (b) The Department's own figures show that 17.83 per cent. of new cars sold in the last 12 months were diesels.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which current proposals for road schemes in excess of 30 kilometres in length are(a) in the targeted programme for improvement, (b) recommended by multi-modal studies and (c) supported in local transport plan settlements. [58886]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no road schemes in excess of 30 km in length in the targeted programme of improvements, nor have any local authority schemes of this length been fully or provisionally approved since local transport plans were introduced in 1999. The West Midlands to North West multi-modal study has recommended on-line widening of the M6 between junctions 11a and 19 (a distance of 81 km). The north/south movements in the East Midlands multi-modal study as recommended on-line widening of the Ml between junctions 21 and 28 (40 km). Neither recommendation includes new sections of road.

  Mobile Home Owners
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions further to his answer of 16 May 2002,Official Report, column 802W, on mobile home owners, since when compensation booklets have been made available at public exhibitions, inquiries and on request to those whose property may be required or affected by road construction. [59193]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.
  770W
  Compensation booklets have been publicly available since 1973. The current booklets that advise owners of mobile homes about the new regulations under which they may claim a noise payment in respect of new road schemes have been available to the public since August 2001.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many names and addresses of vehicle owners and keepers have been disclosed by the DVLA to third parties by virtue of that party showing reasonable cause for the disclosure over the last three years; if he will break down these disclosure statistics by categories of reasonable cause; and if he will make a statement on the number of cases where disclosure has been subsequently shown to be not for a reasonable cause, with the action taken in these cases. [59169]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of "reasonable cause" inquiries resulting in the release of vehicle keeper details held on the DVLA register during the last three years was:

  Year

  Number

  1999–2000

  883,522

  2000–01

  955,484

  2001–02

  1,001,421

  The majority of requests are from insurance companies and finance houses in respect of insurance claims and vehicle-related loan arrangements. The remainder are from solicitors, car parking enforcement companies and members of the public. Statistics relating to specific categories of "reasonable cause" are not recorded.

  The information commissioner has powers under the Data Protection Act to prosecute anyone who knowingly or recklessly obtains information without consent. Any disclosure subsequently used for a purpose other than that stated in the application is referred to the information commissioner to investigate. Seventeen such cases in the last three years have been referred to the information commissioner.

  Vehicle Registration Numbers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to allow third parties to be granted entitlement to a retained vehicle registration number; and if he will make a statement. [59901]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I plan to extend the vehicle registration number retention facility to cater for third party entitlement as soon as the necessary powers can be obtained. My officials are scanning the legislative programme for an opportunity to take this forward.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the value of sales by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for the sale of cherished number plates in each year since 1997. [59902]
  771W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Gross receipts from the sale of personalised registration numbers for each year from 1996–97 were as follows:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Revenue

  1996–97

  44.95

  1997–98

  57.47

  1998–99

  64.92

  1999–2000

  66.89

  2000–01

  79.58

  2001–02

  91.78

  Revenue is inclusive of VAT, assignment fees and other fees for the extension of rights or the later addition of nominees.

  Vehicle Taxation (Disabled People)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the criteria are for eligibility for exemption from taxation of vehicles used by disabled people; whether such exemption will be extended to non-disabled people who make occasional use of the vehicle; and what evidence there is of abuse of the concession. [59064]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Eligibility for exemption from paying Vehicle Excise Duty is available in respect of vehicles kept or used for the purposes of those claiming disability living allowance at the higher rate or war pensioners' mobility supplement. There are in addition a number of people who claim exemption under the former Disabled Passenger Scheme via attendance allowance. This was abolished in 1993 but those entitled to exemption from paying Vehicle Excise Duty at the time have remained eligible.

  There are no plans to extend eligibility for the exemption.

  It has long been recognised that there is potential for abuse of the system. The responsibility for addressing abuse lies with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and the Department for Work and Pensions. Approximately 250 cases per month are referred to DVLA for investigation, but in no more than a handful of cases each year is the entitlement rescinded.

  A5 (Road Accidents)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people have been(a) killed and (b) injured in road traffic accidents along the A5 road between Shrewsbury and Wrexham in each year since 1992. [59223]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of people (a) killed and (b) injured between Shrewsbury and the Wrexham turning from the A5 are shown in the table.

  Number of casualties on A5 between Shrewsbury1 and the turning for Wrexham2 1992 to 2000

  Killed

  Injured

  1992

  2

  76

  1993

  7

  83

  1994

  1

  70

  772W

  Number of casualties on A5 between Shrewsbury1 and the turning for Wrexham2 1992 to 2000

  Killed

  Injured

  1995

  5

  66

  1996

  2

  119

  1997

  3

  74

  1998

  1

  58

  1999

  5

  71

  2000

  1

  85

  1 The roundabout at the junction with A458.

  2 The roundabout at the junction with A483.

  M25
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the accident record of junction 13 of the M25 over the last five years. [59447]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  In the five years up to July 2001 67 personal injury accidents have been reported at this junction. Of these five have been serious and the rest slight. There have been no fatalities. Some 72 per cent. of the accidents over this period have been nose to tail shunts.

  The number and severity of accidents at this junction are similar to those recorded at other motorway junctions with high volumes of traffic.

  Last summer the Highways Agency took action to improve driver awareness of the layout by enhancing the signing at this junction. It is too early to conclude how effective this has been in reducing the number of accidents. Traffic signals are due to be installed at the junction as part of the widening of the M25 between Junctions 12 to 15. The road markings are to be renewed shortly and further improvements to the signing are currently being considered. In the meantime the Highways Agency will continue to monitor the situation.

  M4
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the M4 bus lane on(a) motorcyclists, (b) traffic speeds at off-peak hours and (c) congestion between Junction 4 and Junction 7 of the M4; [60638]

  (2) when he will publish the results of his consultation on the use of the M4 bus lane. [60637]

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Fiona Mactaggart, dated 10 June 2002:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the M4 Bus Lane.
  The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) monitored use of the Bus lane during its first year of operation including the effects of the bus lane on off-peak traffic and congestion to the west of Junction 4. A copy of their report was placed in the House of Commons Library in January 2001.
  The effectiveness of the bus lane has been closely monitored by the Highways Agency. They reported that it continues to alleviate peak congestion on this busy section of the motorway. However

  773W
  they recommended that the scheme could be improved by raising the speed limit between junction 4 and the elevated section to 60 mph and allowing motorcycles to use the lane designated for buses and taxis.
  Accident monitoring since the bus lane was introduced in June 1999 indicate that motorcycles are now slightly more at risk in peak periods. The numbers involved are small, but we believe that safety for motorcyclists will be improved by allowing them to use the bus lane.

  Roads
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the cost of making junction 20 of the M6 fully directional; [60316]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the cost of building the proposed M556; [60315]

  (3) what plans he has to reduce traffic flows on the A556 between junction 19 of the M6 and the M56. [60317]

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. George Osborne, dated 10 June 2002:
  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, has asked me to reply to your three recent Parliamentary Questions about the cost of building a new motorway link between the M6 in the vicinity of JI9 and the M56 in the vicinity of J7, plans to reduce traffic flows on the A556, and the cost of making Junction 20 of the M6 Motorway fully directional.
  At the time of the Government's trunk roads review of 1998 the estimated cost of constructing the A556(M) was £100m. The cost-estimate is currently under review as part of the A556 Area Study being carried out to inform the West Midlands to North West Conurbations Multi-Modal Study (MIDMAN) consideration. The purpose of MIDMAN was to develop an overarching strategy for transport between the conurbations.
  The Highways Agency is currently undertaking the A556 Area Study in support of the MIDMAN Multi-Modal Study, which is also exploring different options for a link between Junction 19 of the M6 and Junction 7 of the M56. Reduction of traffic flows and the associated environmental relief to communities along the A556 are key aims. That report is expected to be completed this Summer.
  A scheme, which would make Junction 20 of the M6 fully-directional is currently being investigated as part of the A556 Area Study. The cost-estimate is currently being developed and will form part of the final report on that Study.
  I hope this is helpful. If you would like any further information about these issues, please contact Gerald Cooper, Room 703, Sunley Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester, MI 4BE (telephone 0161–930 5640).

  Road Safety
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many children have been(a) killed and (b) seriously injured in each year since 1997 in road traffic accidents as a result of failing to wear seat belts. [59432]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  These data are not collected because of the difficulty in establishing accurately, after the event, whether seat belts were worn.

  Vehicle Safety
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on pedestrian protection in relation to the tests developed by the European Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee. [60070]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The UK will continue actively to support the work of the EEVC working group on pedestrian protection. It is intended that methods developed by this group will be used to assess new car designs against the requirements of the proposed negotiated agreement with the motor industry on pedestrian protection.

  Drivers' Hours Regulations
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the EU draft regulations on drivers' hours on the UK livestock industry. [59667]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department carried out an extensive public consultation exercise on the European Commission proposal to amend the existing European Union (EU) drivers' hours rules as part of our consideration of the likely impact of this proposal on UK industry. Those consulted include DEFRA, the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, the National Farmers' Union (NFU), NFU Scotland, Farmers Union for Wales, and the Dairy Industry Federation.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what meetings he has had with his counterparts in the other nations of the EU to discuss the impact of the EU draft regulations on drivers' hours on the animal transport industry within the UK. [59669]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. There is to be an orientation debate on this issue at the Transport Council on 17 June which will provide the opportunity for Ministers from all member states to express their views. In the meantime, discussions will continue to take place at official level.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the(a) Scottish Executive, (b) National Assembly for Wales and (c) Northern Ireland Assembly on the impact on the UK livestock industry of the EU draft regulations on drivers' hours. [59678]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department carried out an extensive public consultation exercise on the European Commission proposal to amend the existing European Union (EU) drivers' hours rules. The Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Executive were invited to contribute.

  Safety Cameras
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the new criteria are for the siting of safety cameras under the netting off scheme; on what research the new criteria were based; and if he will place a copy of the research in the Library. [60077]
  775W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), on 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 623W.

  Speed Cameras
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it is his policy to restrict the siting of speed cameras to sites where serious accidents have already taken place. [60242]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Guidance on deployment for the siting of cameras is contained in Circular Roads 1/92 which states that cameras should be placed at sites with a history of speed related accidents. That remains key advice to local authorities.

  ILO Convention
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the UK's compliance with its obligations under the International Labour Organisation Convention 147. [60168]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The UK ratified ILO Convention Number 147 in 1980. The UK Government ratifies international conventions only when it is satisfied that measures are in place to ensure compliance. The Government has also ratified the Protocol of 1996 to that Convention, which extends the list of other conventions with which signatory states must comply.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the right hon. Member for

  PFI Project

  Capital value (£ million)

  Nature of project

  Stage in PFI procurement process

  Highways Agency—A69

  9

  Road

  Operational

  Highways Agency—AI(M)

  128

  Road

  Operational

  Highways Agency—A417/419

  49

  Road

  Operational

  Highways Agency—A50

  21

  Road

  Operational

  Highways Agency—A30/35

  75

  Road

  Operational

  Highways Agency—M40

  65

  Road

  Operational

  Highways Agency—A 19

  29

  Road

  Operational

  Highways Agency—MI-AI Link Road

  214

  Road

  Operational

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  3

  Catering

  Operational

  Highways Agency—Traffic Control Centre

  85

  IT

  Contract awarded and under construction

  Vehicle Inspectorate—MOT Computerisation

  31.4

  IT

  Contract awarded and under construction

  Health and Safety Laboratory—Estate Rationalisation

  63

  Laboratory

  Contract awarded and under construction

  Highways Agency—AI(M) Dishforth to Darrington

  1240

  Road

  In procurement (best and final offer stage)

  Health and Safety Executive—Merseyside Accommodation

  250

  Office accommodation

  In procurement (awaiting responses to invitation to negotiate)

  Highways Agency—A249 Stockbury to Sheerness

  175

  Road and bridge

  In procurement (pre—qualification stage)

  Highways Agency/Government Office for Yorkshire and the

  130

  Office accommodation

  In procurement (expression of interest stage)

  Humber/Traffic Area Network—Leeds Accommodation

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency—helicopter harmonisation (with Ministry of Defence)

  Not known

  Search and rescue helicopters

  Pre-procurement (harmonisation options under consideration)

  1 This is an estimated figure for the construction cost.

  2 This is an estimated figure for the capital cost.

  3 PH is one of the options under consideration.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the EC-Bulgaria Joint Transport Committee 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 776W
  North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a substantive reply to his letter of 28 March on behalf of his constituent Mr. J. Germany. [59718]

  Mr. Darling
  I apologise for the delay in providing a substantive reply to the right hon. Member of North-West Cambridgeshire's letter of 28 March on behalf of your constituent Mr. J. Germany. My predecessor explained in his reply of 10 April 2002 that Mr. Germany raised some complex issues and that it would take some time to explore these and respond in some detail. However, a full response will be sent today.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many non-PFI capital projects fall under the responsibility of his Department and related NDPBs; and what the capital value and nature is of each project. [59814]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  In respect of DTLR the information requested can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many PFI capital projects fall under the responsibility of his Department and related NDPBs; what the capital value and nature is of each project; and what stage they are at in the PFI procurement process. [59834]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested in respect of the former DTLR is set out in the table

  currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [58413]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  This Committee is established under the provisions of Article 13 of the Agreement of 26 July 2000 between the European Community and the Republic of Bulgaria establishing certain conditions for the carriage of goods

  777W
  by road and the promotion of combined transport. The remit of the Committee is to ensure the proper implementation of the Agreement. The Committee would be made up of representatives appointed by the Community and Bulgaria. But I am not aware that it has met since the conclusion of the Agreement or that there are any plans for it to meet in the immediate future.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Committee on the movement of air or sea passengers' baggage (principles) 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. [56791]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have not been able to identify this committee from the information in the hon. Member's question.

  Network Rail
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guarantees concerning(a) the state of the track and signals and (b) future safety are being sought by the consortium, Network Rail. [58016]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  Network Rail has sought no such guarantees.

  Railways
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if it is his policy to modify the provisions of the Railways Act 1993 in relation to Railway Administration. [59333]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no current plans to do so.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the requirement in the Commercial Loan Agreement for the Railtrack administrator to repay commercial loans in September. [59358]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under Clause 11.1.1 of the Commercial Loan Agreement, repayment is due on the earlier of, the date notified to the agent as being the date expected to fall seven days before a transfer scheme is made or if no transfer scheme is made, an Alternative Railway Transfer, or discharge of the Railway Administration Order, or 23 September 2002 or the date which is the next business day following any date to which the availability period is extended. The availability period is defined as the period from (and including) financial close to (and including) 20 September 2002 or such later date as may be determined pursuant to Clause 5.5 of the Commercial Loan Agreement.
  778W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the number of trained staff in Scotland on the implementation of the Strategic Rail Authority's plan in Scotland. [58095]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Strategic Rail Authority has recognised the need for improvements in training within the industry and is taking the lead on the development of a National Rail Academy, to promote the development of the key skills and competencies needed to run a railway on a safe and effective basis. The SRA has provided £500,000 for development work.

  Rail Service (Edinburgh)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects passenger rail services to begin between Edinburgh Waverley and the proposed Edinburgh Park station. [59201]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am not aware that a date has been set. I understand that a formal bid will be put forward to the Strategic Rail Authority for Rail Passenger Partnership funding, the initial proposal having pre-qualified. The Strategic Rail Authority will assess the bid on value for money terms in line with their published planning criteria. The outcome of that process will determine how and when the scheme progresses.

  Island Line
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has for adding the Island Line to the London to Portsmouth railway franchise. [59176]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  At the time the South West Trains franchise replacement process commenced the Strategic Rail Authority considered that the best solution for the Island Line was that it should become A separate micro-franchise. The authority is currently giving further consideration to the future of the Island Line in the light of the consultants' report on future options produced in September 2001 and will make a further announcement in due course.

  Crossrail
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 567W, on Crossrail, who the key stakeholders involved in the consultation period are; how the consultation will be carried out; and who will be funding the consultation process, and at what financial cost. [59549]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The key stakeholders which are about to be consulted on the shortlisted Crossrail route options are "line of route" local authorities, development partnerships and significant businesses, either individually or through their representative bodies.
  779W
  The consultation will be carried out by Cross London Rail Links Ltd., who will be distributing a consultation document, and providing individual and group briefings and presentations as appropriate. I am arranging for a copy of the stakeholder consultation document to be placed in the Library.

  The cost of the stakeholder consultation exercise is included in Cross London Rail Link's Crossrail project development budget, and has not been broken down separately.

  Road Bridges
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures he intends to take to improve road bridges over railway lines as a result of the Great Heck accident. [59371]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Minister for Transport announced in the House on 25 February 2002, Official Report, columns 803–04W, that we had accepted all the recommendations in the reports of the Health and Safety Commission and the Highways Agency into the various issues involving road vehicles obstructing the railway following the Great Heck road/rail accident. There are five streams of work arising from these recommendations:

  the development of a protocol for apportioning responsibility and costs of improvements made at locations where roads meet, cross or run close to railways;

  the development of tools and data for use at the local level to assess the risk of vehicles leaving the road and getting onto the railway;

  the development of good practice guidance on measures to help manage risk at specific sites;

  identification of the relevant information that it would be practicable and useful to collect about incidents where road vehicles get onto railway property; and

  updating the standards for safety barriers on major roads in a clear and open procedure.

  Representations from highway authorities, rail infrastructure authorities and rail safety organisations are supporting this Department in taking forward the recommendations. Our first priority is the protocol on responsibilities and costs which we aim to have agreed by the end of June 2002 and the Minister for Transport has asked for a report on progress on all streams of work by the end of July 2002.

  Any measures taken as a result of this work will be the responsibility of the highway authorities and rail infrastructure authorities.

  Rail Bridges
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made with the risk assessment of rail bridge safety he ordered as a result of the Great Heck incident. [60409]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have accepted all the recommendations in the reports of the Health and Safety Commission and the Highways Agency into the various issues involving road vehicles obstructing the railway following the Great Heck road/rail accident. Representatives 780W
  from highway authorities, rail infrastructure authorities and rail safety organisations are supporting this Department in taking forward work on:

  the development of a protocol for apportioning responsibility and costs of improvements made at locations where roads meet, cross or run close to railways.

  The development of tools and data for use at the local level to assess the risk of vehicles leaving the road and getting onto the railway; and

  the development of good practice guidance on measures to help manage risk at specific sites.

  Our first priority is the protocol on responsibilities and costs which we aim to have agreed by the end of June 2002 and the Minister for Transport has asked for a report on progress on all streams of work by the end of July 2002.

  We have also endorsed the prioritisation tool produced by Railtrack and the CSS (formerly the County Surveyors' Society) and have encouraged highway authorities and rail infrastructure authorities to use it on the bridges for which they are responsible.

  Any measures taken as a result of this work will be the responsibility of the highway authorities and rail infrastructure authorities.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with British Transport Police regarding possible incidents involving track(a) maintenance and (b) vandalism at (i) Severn tunnel junction, (ii) Bristol parkway and (iii) other locations since January 2000; and if he will make a statement. [59886]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. There have been no discussions between the Department and British Transport Police (BTP) on specific incidents. However, I understand from BTP that they and the Health and Safety Executive work together closely on them.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the proposed railway safety body will be established; what its remit is; what the role of(a) contractors and (b) subcontractors will be within this body; and if he will make a statement. [59889]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR) are consulting on a proposed licence modification which would enable the proposed railway industry safety body (RISB) to be established without primary legislation. The RISB would take the role of an industry safety body as recommended by Lord Cullen in his part 2 report on the Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry. The involvement of contractors and subcontractors in the decision-making processes of RISB forms part of ORR's consultation. If there is agreement to proceed by way of a licence change modification, ORR expect RISB to be in place by the end of the year.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the proposed rail accident investigation body will be
  781W
  established; what its remit is; what the expected role of (a) contractors and (b) sub-contractors will be within this body; and if he will make a statement. [59888]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  We expect to consult this summer on proposals for the establishment of an independent rail accident investigation branch (RAIB) before publishing the necessary primary legislation. The remit of the RAIB will be subject to consultation but will reflect the recommendations made by Lord Cullen in his part 2 report on the Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry. The role of contractors or sub-contractors within RAIB would be as witnesses, when appropriate, during investigations.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many incidents of motor vehicles colliding with trains on railway lines at level crossings there have been in each year since 1997; in which locations; and if he will make a statement. [59885]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Incidents of motor vehicles colliding with trains on railway lines at level crossings since 1997 is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1997–98

  24

  1998–99

  27

  1999–2000

  24

  2000–01

  24

  2001–02

  16

  The locations of these incidents are as follows:

  Location

  1997–98

  12 April 1997

  Greenland Mill

  26 April 1997

  Glanyrafon

  25 June 1997

  Oaks Occ

  26 June 1997

  Okeltor

  22 July 1997

  Dingwall Middle

  28 July 1997

  Moat Farm No. 1

  9 August 1997

  Saxondale

  23 August 1997

  Berthddu

  12 September 1997

  Holywell, Newsham

  12 September 1997

  Club Lane

  29 September 1997

  Holywell Aocl

  12 October 1997

  Blackhill UWGT

  13 October 1997

  Washwood Heath

  18 October 1997

  St. Mary's Road, Dymchurch

  9 December 1997

  Glanyrafon

  29 December 1997

  Star Crossing, Rye

  10 January 1998

  Lechryd

  15 January 1998

  Swineshead AHB

  18 January 1998

  Toddington

  24 January 1998

  Trafford

  10 February 1998

  York

  11 March 1998

  Swineshead AHB

  11 March 1998

  Shaws Crossing

  29 March 1998

  Holywell

  782W

  Location

  1998–99

  15 April 1998

  Miltonise

  23 April 1998

  Marchwood

  12 May 1998

  Ardrossan Princes AOCL

  14 May 1998

  Sutton Forest AHB

  8 June 1998

  Callerton Parkway Crossing

  8 June 1998

  Bye Farm Crossing

  11 June 1998

  Brora

  26 June 1998

  Dolfawr Farm

  1 July 1998

  Trout Farm

  11 July 1998

  Uttoxeter

  18 July 1998

  Millom

  29 July 1998

  Muir of Ord

  29 August 1998

  Three Gates

  8 September 1998

  Fron Goch

  8 September 1998

  Stoke Creek

  14 September 1998

  Crabtree Lane

  20 September 1998

  Marina

  24 September 1998

  Wainfleet AHB

  7 November 1998

  Hamsey

  10 November 1998

  Sands Lane

  2 December 1998

  Gypsey Lane

  5 December 1998

  Hibaldstow

  8 December 1998

  Llanwrda

  22 December 1998

  Coles Harbour

  4 January 1999

  Cwmbach Sidings

  12 January 1999

  Bertram Drive

  21 March 1999

  Hixon

  1999–2000

  1 April 1999

  British Cellophane

  3 May 1999

  Rose Lane

  20 May 1999

  Whitegate Farm

  31 May 1999

  Allanfearn

  21 June 1999

  Low Mill

  28 June 1999

  Trencreek

  1 July 1999

  Blackwood

  15 July 1999

  Snaith Station

  25 July 1999

  Marsh Lane

  26 July 1999

  East Guldeford

  29 July 1999

  Gorsey Lane

  3 August 1999

  Dingwall Middle

  20 August 1999

  Ynys Uchaf

  22 August 1999

  Dalfaber

  28 August 1999

  Black Dyke

  2 September 1999

  Bretts

  2 September 1999

  Battery Road, Dungeness

  4 September 1999

  Manorbier

  29 October 1999

  Llanbrynmair

  26 December 1999

  Quarr Farm

  29 December 1999

  Swan Lane

  2 March 2000

  Ivy Lea

  19 March 2000

  Seghill

  20 March 2000

  Howdon Road

  2000–01

  3 April 2000

  Sawbridgeworth Station

  2 May 2000

  Allanfearn

  8 May 2000

  Tregoss Moor

  22 June 2000

  Hixon

  24 June 2000

  Battery Road, Dungeness

  12 July 2000

  Beavers

  4 August 2000

  Borth Capel Soar

  10 August 2000

  Bragg Marsh

  24 August 2000

  Sweet Briar Lane

  7 September 2000

  Munllyn

  24 September 2000

  Weston Avenue

  17 October 2000

  Pooley Green

  22 October 2000

  Appenine Way

  23 October 2000

  Traethmawr

  2 November 2000

  Lairg

  11 November 2000

  Common Lane, Rankshill

  12 November 2000

  Bank Foot

  15 November 2000

  Coltishall Lane

  783W

  Location

  19 November 2000

  Callerton Parkway

  25 November 2000

  Northwood

  28 November 2000

  Waterbeach Station

  14 December 2000

  Meldreth Road

  25 January 2001

  Quintrell Downs

  14 February 2001

  Wadhams North Barn

  2001–02

  19 April 2001

  Forge Farm

  5 May 2001

  Moulinearn

  14 June 2001

  Shaws Crossing

  26 July 2001

  Swineshead

  17 August 2001

  Clattercote

  21 August 2001

  Allanfearn

  23 August 2001

  Ardorssan Harbour

  25 August 2001

  Shenley Hill Road Crossing

  19 September 2001

  Swan Lane

  26 September 2001

  Foxton

  7 October 2001

  Llwyn Cadwygan

  29 October 2001

  Rippins Main

  17 November 2001

  Cleghorn

  1 January 2002

  Norwood Road

  7 February 2002

  Tan Lane

  15 February 2002

  Carleton

  Level crossing accidents in Great Britain are among the lowest in Europe. However, as about 33 per cent. of railway collisions occur on level crossings they still present a significant area of risk. Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) are currently developing plans for a level crossing working party to critically look at all level crossing issues from first principles.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes are proposed to the remit of the HMRI in relation to railway(a) inspection, (b) safety cases and (c) accident investigation; what changes are proposed to the role of (i) contractors and (ii) sub-contractors within the HMRI; and if he will make a statement. [59890]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  No changes are planned to the remit of HMRI or to the role of contractors and sub-contractors within HMRI.

  Subject to Parliament's approval of the necessary legislation, in future the Rail Accident Investigation Branch will have lead responsibility for rail accident investigation but HMRI will retain responsibility for breaches under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what recent representations he has received in relation to the role of contractors in(a) inspection, (b) safety cases and (c) accident investigation; and if he will make a statement; [59956]

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) Railtrack, (b) the HSE, (c) the HSC and (d) other organisations in relation to the role of contractors in (i) inspection, (ii) safety cases and (iii) accident investigation; and if he will make a statement; [59959]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the role of contractors in the railway industry in relation to (a) safety inspection, (b) safety cases and (c) accident investigation; and if he will make a statement. [59957]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.
  784W
  On 23 May, the then Secretary of State met with key players in the railway industry to discuss the issue of contractors in the railway industry. He also received a letter and report on this issue from the chair of the Health and Safety Commission on Friday 31 May, copies of which are available in the House Libraries.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the proposals for establishment of a railway industry safety body; and if he will place the consultation papers in the Library. [60596]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR) are consulting on a licence modification which would enable the proposed railway industry safety body (RISB) to be established without primary legislation. If there is agreement to proceed by way of a licence change modification, ORR expects RISB to be in place by the end of the year. A copy of the consultation document was placed in the Library by the ORR in December 2001, it is also available on the ORR website www.rail-reg.gov.uk.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the programme of safety tours that the chief executive officer of Railtrack undertakes. [60610]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department does not hold the information requested, although I understand that the chief executive officer and other senior staff undertake such safety-related activities on a continuing basis.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what meetings he has had with Railtrack officials since the Southwell rail accident. [60597]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers have regularly met Railtrack board members and officials since September 1997.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the primary legislation required to set up the Railway Accident Investigation Branch will be published. [60607]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Lord Cullen recommended the establishment of a Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB), which will require primary legislation. We expect to consult this summer on our proposals for the establishment of RAIB before publishing the necessary primary legislation.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department is represented on the Railtrack Safety Executive. [60611]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is not represented on the board of Railway Safety.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the development group meetings of key stakeholders of the rail industry safety body will be open to the public. [60608]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Rail Regulator has published a consultation document on the establishment of the rail industry safety body (RISB). Copies of the consultation document and the majority of responses are available on the Rail Regulator's website, together with other working papers discussed at the development group. The development group is intended to be a series of working
  785W
  meetings to develop the detailed proposals for establishing RISB. It is not therefore open to the public. The Rail Regulator has however held two conferences open to a wide audience including passenger representatives, freight users, and trade unions. A transcript of the last industry conference on 9 May 2002 will be made available shortly on the Rail Regulator's website.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what initiatives and management systems the rail industry use to ensure employee involvement in safety issues. [60609]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Health and safety law places a duty on all employers to consult employees and their representatives in good time about specified aspects of their health and safety at work.

  In addition, the Railway Safety Case Regulations 2000 places an explicit duty on railway employers to establish adequate arrangements for the passing and receiving of information relevant to health and safety to and from employees and others affected by their operations.

  The railway industry also has a Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS). CIRAS offers an independent and confidential way for staff to report safety concerns without fear of disciplinary procedures. CIRAS is not intended to replace the normal reporting channels already operated by railway companies. Rather it is intended to work alongside them.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) timescale, (b) terms of reference and (c) costs are of the consultation exercise on the establishment of an independent rail accident investigation body; and if he will make a statement. [60595]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Lord Cullen's part 2 Ladbroke Grove report made a number of recommendations about an independent rail accident investigation branch (RAIB). We expect to consult this summer on proposals for the establishment of RAIB which are drawn from these recommendations. The consultation exercise will run for 12 weeks from the date of publication, as set out in the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation. Responses to the consultation will be carefully analysed following this period, and in advance of primary legislation. The costs of consultations exercises are included in the Department's running costs.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many children were injured on railway lines in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [60393]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information held by the British Transport police on fatal and major injuries to juveniles (under 16 years) in relation to trespass offences is contained in the following table:

  Year

  Fatal

  Major injuries

  1997–98

  6

  10

  1998–99

  5

  9

  1999–2000

  5

  13

  2000–01

  8

  16

  2001–02

  3

  7

  Cullen Report
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if the results of the centralised training and development team formed by Railtrack, as reported in the Cullen report, will be made publicly available; [60612]

  (2) what the terms of reference are for the local management teams that monitor the implementation of contracts for the rail industry as reported in the Cullen report on the Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry. [60604]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These are operational matters for Railtrack.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the shortcomings are in the scope of contract documentation reported in the Cullen report on the Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry. [60603]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Lord Cullen discussed the use of contracts in Chapter 4 of his part 2 Ladbroke Grove report including the process for awarding and controlling contracts and contractors. He did not make any specific recommendations about contract documentation. A copy of the report is in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what maintenance delivery and other improvements are being followed up by Railtrack as reported in the Cullen report on the Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry; [60602]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reasons for non-completion of recommendations 4, 6, 9 and 72 of the Cullen report into the Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry; and what timetable he has set for their completion; [60594]

  (3) what steps are to be completed by Railtrack to comply with the recommendations of the Cullen report into the Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry; and what (a) timescales and (b) costs are involved. [60598]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has published progress reports on how the recommendations of the Cullen reports have been implemented: Part 1 on 14 March 2002 and Part 2 on 29 April 2002. These reports describe the original and revised timetables for all the recommendations and have been placed in the House Library.

  On 1 May 2002, the Secretary of State asked the HSC for a further progress report on the reasons for the delay in implementing recommendations associated with the management of contractors. A copy of the HSC's reply has been placed in the House Library.

  The cost of implementing those Cullen recommendations for which they have responsibility is a matter for Railtrack.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the 10 strategic maintenance principles developed by Railtrack that involve Railtrack directly managing inspection, appraisal and key work decisions as reported in the Cullen report on the Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry. [60601]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that Railtrack have drawn up the following 10 key principles relating to maintenance and contractor management:

  1. To take responsibility for material asset, engineering decisions.

  787W

  2. To deliver clear asset engineering policies, standards, specifications and key work instructions.

  3. To own asset information including asset condition data and monitoring.

  4. To own examination of its network and, on a long-term basis, to aim to automate inspection as appropriate.

  5. To own the work prioritisation decisions and the resulting work plans on planned and reactive maintenance.

  6. To be accountable for developing the long-term view of people and the capability required and to work with the industry to ensure that people are developed as necessary.

  7. To lead the industry research and development into plant, systems, process and materials.

  8. To own all engineering access to the network and additionally to manage possessions based on assessed risk against a risk matrix, having fully consulted the passenger and freight train operating companies.

  9. To be able to demonstrate cost effectiveness of maintenance and renewals, and to seek continual unit cost reductions to meet regulatory expectations of efficiency.

  10. To continue to contract out maintenance and renewals in this control period but will consider the merits of bringing this work in-house for one or two "control areas".

  Railtrack
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the circumstances in which Railtrack has imported rail track components that are cheaper but require higher maintenance than those of established British suppliers; and if he will make a statement; [58147]

  (2) in relation to Railtrack's decisions on which rail track components to purchase, what criteria are set by the (a) Rail Regulator and (b) HSE as to how Railtrack should trade off complexity of maintenance and capital outlay. [58146]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. These are procurement matters for the industry parties. However, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 places specific duties on designers, manufacturers, suppliers and installers to ensure components are safe.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many posts in Railtrack Scotland are unfilled; and what impact these vacancies are having on Scotland's rail services; [58097]

  (2) for what posts in the Scottish rail network Railtrack has recruited people from (a) Romania and (b) the Philippines; and how many have been recruited; [58098]

  (3) what additional training is required for people recruited from Romania and the Philippines by Railtrack to work on the rail network. [58094]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.
  788W
  Recruitment and training are matters for the industry parties. Railtrack employs contractors to carry out its maintenance and renewal work on the network in Scotland. Signalling resources have been an issue for the industry and the contractors have looked at various options including the small-scale recruitment of qualified engineering staff from abroad. Their training additionally includes familiarisation with the operational methods and standards of the UK network.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the results of the enhanced basic questionnaire for prospective Railtrack contractors will be made available to the public. [60599]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a commercial matter for Railtrack.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the deferred timescales of Railtrack for the revised selection process for prospective contractors. [60600]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that Railtrack's maintenance contracts are for fixed terms and will be re-let upon expiry. The next tranche is due to be renewed with effect from 1 April 2003.

  Railway Lines
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 349W, if he will (a) provide a breakdown of the table by (i) wild animals, (ii) cattle and (iii) domestic animals and (b) provide an explanation for the decline in 2001–02. [60031]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate only records incidents of trains running into either cows or horses where the animals were subsequently killed, injured or retrieved from railway lines. Details are contained in the following table.

  Year

  Cows

  Horses

  1996–97

  67

  15

  1997–98

  56

  14

  1998–99

  53

  13

  1999–2000

  71

  17

  2000–01

  68

  14

  2001–021

  46

  5

  1 Provisional

  Figures are also recorded for trains striking other animals if the strike causes damage to the train which necessitates immediate repair. However the type of animal is not recorded. All these figures are also available in HM Chief Inspector of Railways Annual Report on Railway Safety, copies of which are in both House Libraries.

  It is not year clear whether the decline in 2001–02 has any statistical significance. However, factors may include the better provision of fencing and the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

  Rail Investment
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the allocation of the money
  789W
  under the 10-year transport plan for rail investment, broken down by region, including (a) total amount and (b) percentage allocated to each region. [60268]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on 28 January 2002,Official Report, columns 53–54W.

  Railway Inspectorate
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) terms of reference, (b) timescales and (c) job description are for the successful candidate applying for the position of director in Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate. [60605]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The creation within the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) of the new post of Director of Railway Safety is a direct result of Lord Cullen's recommendations following the Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry. This will be a permanent appointment on standard civil service terms. The post was advertised in the national and specialist press, interviews have taken place, and the recruitment process, overseen by the Civil Service Commission, will be completed shortly. An announcement will be made by the HSE in due course.

  The job specification for the post includes requirements to lead and direct the Railway Inspectorate in ensuring that all relevant duty holders carry out their health and safety responsibilities to employees, passengers and others; contribute to the health and safety strategy for railways; ensure that all targets to improve health and safety on the railways are fully met; and to maintain strong links with stakeholders in driving forward the health and safety strategy and improving public confidence.

  Railway Industry Advisory Committee
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the terms of reference are for the two additional members of the Railway Industry Advisory Committee; and from which areas nominations are accepted. [60606]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The published terms of reference for all Railway Industry Advisory Committee (RIAC) members, including the two new passenger interest representatives, are:

  to develop and advise the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) on a strategy for improving standards of health and safety in the rail industry and the protection of the public from related hazards;

  to advise HSC on the protection of people at work and others from hazards to health and safety arising within the rail industry;

  to provide advice and guidance to the rail industry in the context of HSC/E strategies;

  to encourage the participation of representative organisations in the protection of people from hazards to health and safety arising from the operation of the railway services; and

  in order to meet these goals to involve all those with an interest in health and safety on Britain's railways in the work of RIAC either through membership—particularly for representative organisations—or other forms of consultation.

  790W
  The "person specification" set out in the advertisement states that applicants need to be able to:

  represent the broad interests of all passengers and the public generally in rail safety issues;

  take a strategic approach to issues;

  weigh up conflicting opinions and reach consensus;

  work constructively with a range of stakeholders across the rail industry; and

  prepare for and attend two to four meetings a year.

  The new positions have been advertised in the national press and on the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) website. Details of the vacancies have also been sent to consumer bodies and passenger interest organisations.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Millennium Stadium (Cardiff)
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide additional funding to pay for the policing of major national events at the Millennium stadium, Cardiff. [57057]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, approved a special grant of £300,000 for South Wales Police on 8 May as a contribution towards the additional cost of policing major football finals at the Millennium Stadium in 2002–03.

  Asylum Seekers
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are awaiting a final decision on their application; and what the average waiting time for a decision was over the last 12 months. [57058]

  Beverley Hughes
  There were 35,500 asylum applications, excluding dependants, awaiting an initial decision on 31 March 2002. This number relates to the number of cases, i.e. the number of principal applicants.

  The average time between application and initial decision was 11 months for initial decisions made in 2001–02. It was 17 months in 1996.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he proposes on the criteria for admission to the UK of asylum seekers. [57063]

  Beverley Hughes
  As a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the United Kingdom has an obligation to consider all applications for asylum made in this country.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if asylum seekers whose appeal against a refusal of support fails will be able to ask for a judicial review of this decision. [59998]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Asylum seekers who have been refused support by the National Asylum Support Service have a right of appeal to the Asylum Support Adjudicators. If their appeal is unsuccessful, they can apply for a judicial review of the adjudicator's decision.
  791W
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of those seeking asylum were convicted of criminal offences in each of the past five years. [57263]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I provided to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 20 May 2002,Official Report, column 74W.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's criteria will be for the allocation of permanent addresses to those asylum seekers awarded leave to remain while residing in an asylum accommodation centre. [58343]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on 9 May 2002,Official Report, column 329W.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are estimated to have entered Britain from France on freight trains in the weeks of(a) 1 March 2001, (b) 11 November 2001, (c) 17 February 2002 and (d) 14 April 2002; and if he will re-enter the bilateral agreement with France on security arrangements near the entrance to the channel tunnel. [R] [58746]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is not possible to establish precisely how many asylum seekers have entered the United Kingdom after travelling through the channel tunnel on freight trains. Some illegal entrants do not claim asylum on arrival. Some illegal entrants are detected inland and cannot be attributed to a particular port of entry and some claim to use the channel tunnel but have in fact entered by a different route.

  Information on the number of illegal entrants who have arrived in the United Kingdom after travelling on freight trains via the channel tunnel is not held centrally. However, local provisional management information is collated on a monthly basis although is not yet available for 2002. The locally collated figures for the two months in 2001 including these periods are as follows: 150 (March 2001), 288 (November 2001).

  Security arrangements near the entrance to the channel tunnel have not been subject to any bilateral agreement with France. We have repeatedly stressed to SNCF and all levels of the French Government the need for rapid security improvements. We are monitoring the situation and we will take further concerted action until the overall policing and security levels are adequate. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) has made clear that addressing the problem of cross-channel asylum seekers in its totality will be a priority for discussions with the new French Government after their elections.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the management of Landmark and Inn on the Park in Everton, Liverpool in housing asylum seekers. [58613]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: The National Asylum Support Service's (NASS) housing management team carry out regular inspections of the two
  792W
  properties to ensure that the accommodation provider is compliant in its contract with NASS. These inspections are to check on the provider's housing management policies, procedures and systems. In addition, residents are regularly interviewed to find out whether the standards of housing management are being maintained and if the complaints procedure is operating in accordance with the contract.

  The NASS contract manager is in continuous monitoring contact with the accommodation provider to ensure overall compliance with all terms of the contract.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the performance of NASS in relation to its monitoring of contracts for asylum seekers in Liverpool. [58614]

  Beverley Hughes
  Any assessment regarding the performance of the contractors used by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is overseen by the head of the Procurement Section, who reports to the director of NASS. NASS contract managers monitor the performance of accommodation providers against their contracts across the country. The work of NASS is subject to the normal management, audit and complaints procedures of that directorate.

  As part of the Home Office, NASS is open to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and, through Ministers, by the Public Accounts Committee.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances asylum seekers applying for accommodation can exercise choice over the(a) type and (b) location of their accommodation. [59996]

  Beverley Hughes
  As a general rule the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) allocates accommodation on a no choice basis. Asylum seekers can, as part of their application for support, put forward reasons why they should not be dispersed or, if they are to be dispersed why they should be sent to a particular location. Any factors put forward will be taken into account. But no guarantees can be given that a request to be located in a particular area will be met. This will depend on a number of factors including availability of suitable accommodation.

  Community Support Officers
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposed role of community support officers. [57059]

  Mr. Blunkett
  We are providing CSOs to support and work with the growing number of fully trained police officers with over 4,500 additional officers between March 2000 and January this year and 189 over the same period in Devon and Cornwall. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has been at the forefront of arguing the case for CSOs, other forces and ACPO have also expressed their support. CSOs are a realistic and hard headed approach to providing a visible police presence in support of the police, freeing them up for other front line duties and tackling antisocial behaviour and increasing public safety.

  Police (North-East)
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police numbers in the north-east. [57060]

  Mr. Denham
  The north-east forces (Cleveland, Durham and Northumbria) had a total of 6,927 police officers on 31 January 2002. This is 386 more officers than in March 1997 and is a record number.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to prevent antisocial behaviour. [57061]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Our strategy to prevent antisocial behaviour includes the introduction of Neighbourhood and Street Wardens, the Closed Circuit Television initiative and a range of sentences for juvenile offenders to prevent further offending. Measures in the Police Reform Bill will improve the effectiveness of Anti-Social Behaviour-Orders and increase the extended police family to deter people from committing antisocial acts.

  Tackling antisocial behaviour is a priority for the Government—it is blighting the lives of too many people.

  Prisoner Rehabilitation
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to assist the rehabilitation of prisoners. [57062]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government is investing an additional £31 million in 2001–02, £50 million in 2002–03 and £71 million in 2003–04 on basic skills, drug treatment, offending behaviour programmes and resettlement to help assist prisoner rehabilitation and reduce the rate of reconvictions.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards prosecuting people for possession of cannabis. [57065]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is currently considering whether the classification of Cannabis should be changed from Class B to Class C, taking into account the advice he has received from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the reports relating to the Lambeth cannabis pilot warning scheme and the findings of the Home Affairs Select Committee.

  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is responsible for prosecuting criminal offences. Each case received by the CPS is reviewed in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. A prosecution will only be pursued if there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest.

  Drug Testing Pilot Schemes
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on recent drug testing pilot schemes. [57066]
  794W
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on drug testing pilots. [57071]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The drug testing pilot programme began in three sites, Nottingham, Staffordshire and Hackney, between July and December 2001 under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. It will run for two-years and is subject to a full independent evaluation.

  The programme is being extended to an additional six sites to enhance the evaluation process.

  An interim process evaluation report is to be published as Research Findings 176 on 30 May, with a further interim report in Spring 2003, on the emerging learning from the programme.

  Domestic Violence
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to reduce domestic violence in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [57067]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office and the Women's Unit jointly published the policy document "Living without Fear: an integrated approach to tackling violence against women" in June 1999. The document set out the Government's goals for tackling violence against women which include:

  to reduce crimes of violence against women and fear of violence as measured by the British Crime Survey;

  to help today's children grow up in a society where violence is not part of family life and relationships are built on greater mutual respect; and

  within five years to see effective multi-agency partnerships operating throughout England and Wales, drawing on good practice demonstrated in the mentioned publication.

  Within the last two years we have also issued new multi-agency guidance on dealing with domestic violence, specific guidance to Health Service professionals and a new Home Office circular to the police which has been widely welcomed.

  We have provided £120 million additional capital funding for a new Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund and increased funding for Victim Support. Over £10 million has been provided for a violence against women initiative within the Crime Reduction Programme to help us identify what interventions in what circumstances are the most effective and cost-effective.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State (Mr. Denham) chairs a Ministerial group on domestic violence involving representatives from seven key departments which is working closely together to consider the development and implementation of preventative strategies to address domestic violence. The group has highlighted five areas for priority action as follows:

  Early intervention by Health Practitioners

  Enhanced Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction Interface

  Increasing safe accommodation choices for women and children Education and awareness training

  Ensuring an appropriate and consistent police and Crown Prosecution Service response.

  795W
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will review the one year concession in immigration rules in relation to domestic violence. [58596]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are currently in the process of reviewing the domestic violence concession.

  Victims of Crime
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the support his Department is giving to the victims of crime. [57068]

  Hilary Benn
  I am committed to improving services and support to victims of crime. That is why we have more than doubled the annual grant to Victim Support since May 1997, increased the total amount awarded by the criminal injuries compensation scheme, and delivered new services such as witness support in magistrates courts, and a national telephone helpline.

  A review of the 1996 Victim's Charter is well advanced. A Bill of Rights for victims and the establishment of a Victims' Ombudsman and Commissioner are under active consideration. I am also taking forward work on setting up a Victims Advisory Panel to enable me to hear, directly and regularly, of the concerns of victims of crime.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposed locations for the asylum accommodation centres. [57069]

  Beverley Hughes
  We have submitted a planning notification at two sites, near Bicester in Oxfordshire and at RAF Newton in Nottinghamshire. We intend to submit a planning notification with regards to Throckmorton Airfield, in the hon Member's Constituency, shortly. Further work is required on sites at AirWest Edinburgh, Sully Hospital (Glamorgan) and Hemswell Cliff (Lincolnshire) before a decision can be taken on whether to proceed to planning notifications.

  Consultation with the relevant local authorities will continue, including public meetings.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sites were considered for asylum accommodation centres before the shortlist of eight was agreed; and if he will list the other sites considered and the reasons for their exclusion. [57089]

  Beverley Hughes
  We have put into the public domain the location of all sites which were considered to merit detailed assessment for the purpose of siting an accommodation centre and will continue to do so in the future. We do not consider that it would be appropriate to put into the public domain details of sites which were not considered to merit detailed assessment.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2002,Official Report, column 234W on asylum seekers, if he will define suitably qualified staff for the management of education provision in accommodation centres; [57712]
  796W
  (2) what criteria will be used to assess the suitability of private contractors who will provide education in accommodation centres. [57624]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply of 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 412W which my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett). We are still in discussions with other Government Departments on the management of education provision in accommodation centres.

  Those selected to operate the centres will be obliged to operate within strict Home Office guidelines.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will respond to the public petitions presented in the House on plans for an accommodation centre for asylum seekers near Bicester. [57966]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: A response will be submitted shortly.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long planning authorities will have to respond to notification from his Department about proposals to build an asylum accommodation centre in their area; and what timetable there will be for subsequent non-statutory planning inquiries. [59084]

  Beverley Hughes
  In general, local planning authorities will have eight weeks to respond to a planning notification from the Home Office in line with the ordinary provisions contained within Circular 18/84. However, where there is an environmental impact assessment required such as in the hon. Member's constituency, this timescale would be extended by a further eight weeks.

  After a planning notification has been considered, depending upon the conclusion reached by the local planning authority, it would be a matter for the office of the Deputy Prime Minister whether there is an inquiry and what the format of any inquiry would be.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long Wychavon District Council will have to consider the planning notification for the proposed asylum accommodation centre at Throckmorton after its receipt. [60292]

  Beverley Hughes
  In general, local planning authorities will have eight weeks to respond to a planning notification from the Home Office in line with the ordinary provisions contained within Circular 18/84. However, where there is an environmental impact assessment required such as in the hon. Member's constituency, this timescale will be extended by a further eight weeks.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reach a conclusion on the suitability of RAF Turnhouse as a site for an asylum seeker accommodation centre; what factors have prevented a decision being reached; and for what reasons the Killingholme and Hooton Park sites are no longer under consideration for such centres. [57332]

  Beverley Hughes
  Those sites still under consideration, including the Royal Air Force (RAF) Turnhouse, are currently being evaluated under a wide range of criteria.
  797W
  We will reach a decision as soon as possible on the suitability of RAF Turnhouse. However, immediate priority will be given to the three sites for which it has been decided to submit planning notifications.

  All prospective sites were evaluated under a wide range of criteria including size, configuration, location, technical characteristics and planning considerations. The sites at Killingholme and Hooton Park were found to be unsuitable.

  Trespass
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the law in relation to occupation of private land by travelling people. [57070]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office and Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions are currently considering their long term gypsy and traveller strategy, which includes a review of eviction powers.

  Sentencing
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for a guideline body to encourage consistency in sentencing; and how it will interact with the Sentencing Advisory Panel. [57072]

  Hilary Benn
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained, in his address to the Justices' Clerks Society Conference in Cardiff on 7 May 2002, that it is the Government's intention to set up a sentencing guidelines body. This new body would seek to improve consistency in sentences for offences across the board in a way that is authoritative, comprehensive and that all the courts would be required to take account of.

  The new body will be supported by the Sentencing Advisory Panel and will build on the work already done by the Court of Appeal (assisted by the Sentencing Advisory Panel) and the Magistrates' Courts Sentencing Guidelines.

  We will set out our proposals on sentencing in a wider Criminal Justice White Paper due for publication later this year.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from the police on sentencing policy. [57083]

  Hilary Benn
  The publication of the Halliday report on "Making Punishments Work" was subject to public consultation. Nine police forces responded and were generally supportive of the proposals. The consolidated response from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in particular supported the case for sentencing reform and considered that the proposals met in large measure the submissions that ACPO had made. Responses to the consultation were published. ACPO is quoted as saying:"The entire system including the courts must bear down on the recidivist".

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his action on guidance for magistrates on sentencing. [57074]
  798W
  Hilary Benn
  Following the recommendation of the review on the Sentencing Framework, we intend to set up a sentencing guidelines body. This new body would seek to improve consistency in sentences for offences across the board in a way that is authoritative, comprehensive and that all the courts would be required to take account of. Decisions in individual cases will of course continue to take account of individual circumstances.

  The new body will be supported by the Sentencing Advisory Panel and will build on the work that has been done by those responsible for the Magistrates' Court sentencing guidelines.

  We will set out our proposals on sentencing in a wider Criminal Justice White Paper due for publication later this year.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the contribution of the NHS to the effectiveness of drug treatment and testing orders. [57073]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Research shows that there is a strong link between drugs and acquisitive crime, and that treatment can play a significant part in reducing both drugs misuse and associated crime. The National Drugs Treatment Monitoring System provides data on trends in the use of drug treatment services to assist planning on how best to provide services to meet the needs of drugs misusers. It is though, a matter for local decision between the Probation Service and other stakeholders within Joint Commissioning Groups whether the clinical treatment element of the Drug Treatment and Testing Order is delivered through the National Health Service or by another provider.

  Prisoners' Health
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on funding for prisons to achieve the health targets set out in each prison's health improvement programme. [57075]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service and the Department of Health, working in partnership, are committing significant new resources to support local improvements in health services for prisoners. This additional funding will amount to £62.9 million over the three years from April 2001 (£9.4 million 2001–02, £24 million 2002–03 and £29.5 million 2003–04).

  Police (Sussex)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police numbers in Sussex. [57076]

  Mr. Denham
  On 31 January 2002 Sussex Police had 2,878. police officers. Police numbers increased by 56 between March 2000 and January 2002.

  Over the three-year period to March 2003 Sussex has been allocated 206 recruits from the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) over and above the force's previous recruitment plans for the period. Sussex Police took on 42 CFF

  799W
  recruits in 2000–01 and 71 CFF recruits in 2001–02. A further 93 CFF recruits are expected to be taken on by Sussex Police in 2002–03.

  Street Crime
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of his safe street campaign in the Yorkshire region. [57077]

  Mr. Denham
  The street crime initiative represents a step-change in cross-Government action to tackle street crime with a focused programme of action in the 10 police force areas where the problem is most acute. In the Yorkshire region two forces are involved, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire.

  Both South and West Yorkshire have commenced targeted police operations in crime hotspots. Police activity is being supported by cross criminal justice agency with priority street crime courts established in Doncaster, Sheffield, Barnsley, Rotherham, Leeds and Bradford, and the Crown Prosecution Service providing a premium service for processing street crime cases. Bradford, Leeds and Sheffield are among 34 local education authorities across the 10 areas receiving additional funding to target truancy and bad behaviour. Both Yorkshire areas will also benefit from an increase in Summer Splash schemes, targeting children at risk of offending and providing a range of organised activities over the school holidays. Local partnerships are engaged in ensuring that street crime is a priority in local strategic planning.

  To support the police further in these areas the Government have announced additional funding allocations. West Yorkshire will receive £1.8 million and South Yorkshire £1.6 million.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to tackle street robbery. [57080]

  Mr. Denham
  Tackling street crime is now a top priority for the Government. However, it is recognised that it cannot successfully be tackled by the police and criminal justice agencies alone. That is why the Government set up the Street Crime Action Group in March of this year. This group, chaired by the Prime Minister, has brought together all relevant Government Departments, criminal justice and other agencies to work together to identify and address weaknesses in the current systems. This includes preventative action as well as action designed to detect offenders and deal effectively with them through the courts.

  The programme of action has been targeted and accelerated in 10 police force areas accounting for over 80 per cent. of street crime, since April 2002.

  The Government have to date announced a number of measures to help tackle the issue of street crime. These include:

  the funding of the roll-out of VIPER video identification equipment to enable video ID parades in the 10 areas;

  the nomination of 67 specialist street crime courts in the 10 areas to fast-track street crime cases and provide separate facilities and support to victims and witnesses;

  800W

  the launch of a CPS Premium Service for Street Crime offenders with experienced prosecutors working with police in a dedicated investigation and prosecution service;

  the extension of bail powers through the greater use of electronic tagging, ISSP orders, new curfew conditions and the provision of more secure accommodation places for juvenile repeat offenders;

  greater powers to remand into custody persistent young offenders aged 12 to 16;

  a £66 million DfES package to tackle bad behaviour and truancy in schools, and to support summer activities;

  the introduction of the Mobile Phone Re-programming Bill to outlaw the re-programming of mobile phones.

  Further to support the policing operations in these areas the Government have announced the following additional funding allocations:

  £

  Avon and Somerset

  2,340,000

  GMP

  2,390,000

  Lancashire

  835,000

  Merseyside

  1,700,000

  Met

  13,130,000

  Nottinghamshire

  1,052,000

  South Yorkshire

  1,600,000

  TVP

  1,500,000

  West Midlands

  1,880,000

  West Yorkshire

  1,800,000

  Language and Citizenship Education
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to offer language and citizenship education to those settling long term in the UK. [57078]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is the Government's intention to ensure that people applying for nationality, and some others in categories leading to settlement, have ready access to language and citizenship education. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill presently before Parliament makes provision for this. The Bill also provides for applicants to provide evidence of prior achievement, and for waiver of the requirement-to demonstrate competence in certain circumstances.

  The purpose of these courses is partly to ensure that people entitled to work here should not be disadvantaged in the employment market by having an inadequate knowledge of English. Also, as part of a wider programme for integration with diversity and social cohesion, we want to encourage a greater sense of common citizenship by helping people gain a knowledge of parliamentary government, economic and social life.

  A context-free course in English for Speakers of Other Languages was launched in February and the citizenship curriculum will be developed by a group of experts drawn from the fields of education and social cohesion.

  Drug-Related Crime (North-East)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department is doing to break the link between drugs and crime in the north-east. [57079]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The links between drugs and crime are complex and deep rooted, and require a combined effort of police enforcement, treatment, education and diversionary activity.
  801W
  In the north-east, the Home Office funds a number of initiatives to tackle drug misuse such as:

  drug treatment and testing orders, available across the three north-east probation areas;

  arrest referral schemes covering the three north-east police forces.

  Additionally a range of activities are funded under the Communities Against Drugs programme, aimed at stemming the supply of drugs, helping people into treatment and strengthening communities to resist drugs. In the year 2001–02 a total of £2.5 million was made available for the north-east under this initiative to be spent on local projects. This is in addition to mainstream funding for police, health and education and the range of work to help regenerate deprived areas and tackle social exclusion.

  Racist Newspaper Articles
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the publication of racist articles in foreign language newspapers distributed in the United Kingdom. [57081]

  Beverley Hughes
  Home Office Ministers have received a number of representations from Members of Parliament (three), members of the public (two) and from the Board of Deputies of British Jews on this issue. The investigation of possible breaches of the law, in this case allegations that material incites racial hatred under part III of the Public Order Act 1986, are operational matters for the police. The police are investigating allegations that articles in the al-Akhbar newspaper, an Egyptian newspaper available in the United Kingdom, incited racial hatred. We would encourage anyone to report to the police any material they believe breaches the incitement to racial hatred laws.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there are in England and Wales; and how many there were on I May 1997. [57082]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of serving special constables in England and Wales on 30 September 2001 was 12,068. In March 1997 there were 19,874 serving special constables.

  The Government are committed to reversing this decline in numbers and achieving a stronger, increasingly professional special constabulary. Measures to achieve this include:

  A new headline role focusing on intelligence led patrolling and crime reduction initiatives;

  a new national foundation training package for special constables;

  joint Home Office/Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) good practice guidance covering recruitment, management and deployment of specials;

  new conditions of service and conduct regulations.

  In January we ran a press campaign targeting specials as part of the national recruitment campaign for the regular Police Service. And as the Home Secretary also announced at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) last week, we will also be working with employers to
  802W
  encourage them to support employees who are specials—in particular by giving them extra paid leave to carry out their police duties.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of special constables. [57050]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government is committed to increasing the size of the Special Constabulary. We are currently working with stakeholders on a number of measures to achieve this, through improvements to the recruitment, training, management and welfare of specials.

  Child Disappearance
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children up to the age of 16 years have disappeared within the UK during each of the last five years and have not been found. [51647]

  Mr. Denham
  Missing persons are reported to the Police National Missing Persons Bureau (PNMPB) after they have been missing for 14 days or more. The PNMPB currently record missing children figures in the category of under 18 years. However, until the period 1999–2000 the age range of 'up to and including 18 years of age' was used. The following are the figures of those reported missing using the above mentioned categories, for the last five financial years:

  Total

  1997–98

  938

  1998–99

  1,184

  1999–2000

  1,467

  2000–01

  1,021

  2001–02

  1,037

  Of those cases, the PNMPB database currently shows a total of 468 outstanding unresolved cases.

  Terrorist Organisations
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government have classified(a) Al-Amn al-Ri'asah, (b) the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, (c) the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, (d) the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command and (e) Sa'iqa as terrorist organisations; what changes in classification have taken place since 1 August 2000; and if he will make a statement. [55994]

  Mr. Blunkett
  None of these organisations are on the proscribed list of organisations contained in schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. No new organisations have been added to schedule 2 since it came into force on 29 March 2001.

  The list of organisations in schedule 2 are reviewed on a regular basis.

  All information supplied on these organisations will be evaluated very carefully, and decisions to proscribe or deproscribe are taken after careful consideration of all relevant aspects.

  Terrorist Attacks (Emergency Services)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding will be given to extra training of emergency services staff to deal with the possible threat from large scale terrorist attacks; and if he will make a statement. [56676]

  Mr. Denham
  The United Kingdom police forces have a wide range of skills and capabilities which are regularly tested and can be deployed during a terrorist incident. The ability of police forces to respond to a terrorist attack involving the use of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) materials is being strengthened through specialist police training.

  Home Office funding is being made available in 2002–03 to meet the full running and equipment costs involved. It is not normal practice to disclose the level of funding allocated by the United Kingdom to specific counter-terrorist measures.

  I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Milburn) that the ambulance services have improved their preparedness to respond to chemical and biological incidents. New personal protective equipment and decontamination units are currently being provided. The full training implications and its funding are still being considered by the Department of Health.

  I understand from my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Prescott) that fire service personnel already receive training for dealing with terrorist and major incidents. Details of specific training carried out by each fire authority are not held centrally.

  His Department announced in February that it was providing £53 million funding for the fire service to give further protection to the public and emergency services in the event of a major chemical, biological or radiological attack. The funding provides for equipment, vehicles, training and revenue support. The Department is continuing to consider the case for additional resources.

  Visas
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the mandate of the Committee on the introduction of a uniform format for visas 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. [57471]

  Beverley Hughes
  The mandate for the Committee on uniform format visas is Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) 1683/95 of 29 May 1995 laying down a uniform format for visas. This Regulation has since been amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 334/2002 of 18 February 2002 which introduced new technical requirements for the uniform format for visas and maintained the mandate of the Article 6 Committee.

  The Committee has met four times during the last 12 months.
  804W
  United Kingdom representation on the Committee usually comprises the Inspector and a Chief Immigration Officer from the Immigration Service National Forgery Section (the Immigration Service centre of expertise on travel document security and abuse) and a representative from the United Kingdom Visas (a joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office unit responsible for visa related matters).

  Precise figures for the annual cost of the Committee's work on public funds are not available. However, travel costs to meetings for one member of the United Kingdom delegation are reimbursed by the Commission.

  Currently under consideration by the Committee is its standing mandate of a general review of security and standards of performance of the uniform format visa with a view to enhancement of security safeguards as considered appropriate and necessary. In particular at present, the Committee is considering technical specifications to implement Council Regulation (EC) No. 334/2002 which requires integration into the visa of a photograph produced according to high security standards. The Committee is also currently mandated by Council Regulation (EC) No 333/2002 for a uniform format for a form for affixing the visa issued by a member state to a person holding a travel document not recognised by that member state. The Regulation requires the Committee to set specification for the form that meet high technical standards, in particular as regards safeguards against counterfeiting and falsification.

  Regulations covering the mandate of the Committee have been considered and cleared by parliamentary scrutiny.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets he sets for his Department to respond to a request for information from an overseas post in cases for applications for a settlement visa for spouses of UK nationals. [58049]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: The internal target for responding to requests for information from posts abroad is 90 per cent. within two weeks of receipt of the request. The earliest outstanding request was received on 14 February 2002.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time is for a response to a request for information from the Democratic Republic of Congo in cases for applications for a settlement visa for spouses of UK nationals. [58050]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: Performance information in this area of work is not collated on a country of origin basis.

  Correspondence
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Guildford of(a) 14 December 2001, (b) 7 April and (c) 10 April. [57934]

  Beverley Hughes
  I replied to the hon. Member's letters on 7 June 2002.
  805W
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters of 11 February, 12 March and 21 April from a constituent, Ronald Glover of Minster. [57992]

  Beverley Hughes
  Mr. Glover's letter of 11 February 2002 was received in the Home Office on 7 March 2002. It was transferred to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) for response. The National Asylum Support Service, one of the directorates in IND, subsequently replied to him on 25 April 2002. I apologise for the delay in providing my hon. Friend's constituent with a substantive reply.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter of 6 December 2001 from the hon. Member for Torbay regarding Mr. Ian Broom of Torquay. [58747]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 7 June 2002.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 25 April from the hon. Member for Woking concerning Morreale, ref M1098006. [58810]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: My officials wrote to the hon. Member on 22 May 2002.

  Asylum Seekers (London)
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sums have been made available to London boroughs to cover the additional costs of asylum seekers returning to London. [57632]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has not provided any funding to London boroughs to cover additional costs of asylum seekers returning to London from dispersal areas. NASS is responsible for meeting the direct costs of providing support to asylum seekers who are destitute. NASS is not responsible for providing funding for other services such as education and health. Asylum seekers returning to London can apply to NASS to change their support package from subsistence and accommodation to subsistence only. But asylum seekers could not, as a matter of routine, request that accommodation be provided in London. London is not a dispersal area. Accommodation will be provided in London only in exceptional circumstances.

  European Security
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the nature of activities envisaged under paragraph 17 of the Laeken Conclusions, referring to the Specialist (Counter-Terrorist) Services. [57913]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Prior to the European Union (EU) Council Meeting in Laeken, excellent co-operation already existed between the specialist units of EU member states responsible for counter-terrorism. The events of 11 September emphasised the need for practical and effective international co-operation against terrorism, both within and outside the European Union. This need was reflected in the conclusions of the meeting. An example of such co-operation was the United Kingdom proposed 806W
  conference on the possible terrorist use of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear material held at Europol in January this year.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people are held under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; how long each has been held; how many face formal legal charges; how many have been convicted of a terrorist offence; and how many are being held in conditions where normal prisoners' rights do not apply; [57958]

  (2) how many people have been detained under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 since its introduction. [57957]

  Mr. Blunkett
  11 foreign nationals have so far been detained using powers in Part IV of the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001. Eight were detained in December 2001, one in February 2002, and a further two in April 2002. Of those detained two have left the United Kingdom voluntarily. The other nine remain in detention. Normal Prison Service rules apply in respect of all aspects of the detentions. It is long-standing Government practice not to discuss individual cases or the immigration status of individuals. If, however, an individual chooses to publicise their case, we would be able to confirm their name and nationality. This is a matter for the individual and their legal representative in the first instance.

  Plane-spotters (Greece)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the issue of the British plane-spotters tried in Greece was discussed by Ministers or officials with the Greek Justice Minister on his recent visit to London. [58132]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Greek Justice Minister has not recently visited London to discuss this or any other matter with Home Office Ministers or with Ministers or officials of other Government Departments.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the backlog of cases is at IND; and what the estimated length of time is that IND takes to reply to a letter from hon. Members. [58001]

  Beverley Hughes
  At the end of March 2002, there were 35,500 asylum cases awaiting an initial decision, including work in progress.

  Our latest estimate for appeals with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) waiting to be sent to the Immigration Appellate Authority, provided to my hon. Friend previously on 14 May 2002, Official Report, column 604W, gives a figure of 48,000, the majority of which are asylum appeals, including work in progress.

  Information on the number of asylum cases awaiting an initial decision is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Statistics on the number of cases awaiting an initial decision in all other divisions of the IND are not currently available.
  807W
  Information on the average length of time it takes for officials in the IND to respond to hon. Members' correspondence is currently not collated centrally and is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters are unopened at his Department's Public Enquiry Office in Croydon. [58002]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Croydon Public Enquiry Office (PEO) provides a fast-track, same-day service to personal callers with regard to straightforward immigration applications/inquiries as well as operating an urgent return of documents section. The small amount of incoming mail that PEO receives is opened during the working day. Each item is linked to its relevant Home Office file and/or allocated to a caseworking unit within 24 hours.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to secure a bilateral agreement with the French Government to permit the immediate return of cross-Channel illegal immigrants to France. [57601]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: A bilateral agreement for the return of illegal immigrants who do not claim asylum is already in place between the United Kingdom and France. Nearly 6,000 illegal immigrants are returned each year under this agreement.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in Greater London have less than two years' experience, broken down by borough; and if he will make a statement. [58560]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been provided by the Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis (Sir John Stevens QPM) and for the City of London Police (Mr. Perry Nove QPM) and is given in the table.

  In the Metropolitan police probationers formed 14 per cent. of borough strength. In the City of London police probationers formed 14.8 per cent. of the force's total strength.

  Police force performance does not depend solely upon the number of experienced officers available. The proposals in the White Paper "Policing a New Century: A blueprint for Reform" set out a radical and ambitious programme of reform, with the overall aim of reducing crime and the fear of crime and to tackle antisocial behaviour. The test of success will be whether the measures being put in place will make a real difference to the quality of life of individuals and communities up and down the country.

  The public have a right to expect the same high standards of service wherever they live and the Government propose to put a framework in place to ensure that all police forces come up to the standard of the best.
  808W

  Officers with less than 2 years experience as at 30 April 2002

  Metropolitan police, by borough

  Number

  Kensington and Chelsea

  78

  Westminster

  225

  Camden

  107

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  79

  Hackney

  94

  Tower Hamlets

  100

  Waltham Forest

  62

  Redbridge

  61

  Havering

  52

  Newham

  91

  Barking and Dagenham

  30

  Lambeth

  117

  Southwark

  95

  Islington

  94

  Lewisham

  92

  Bromley

  58

  Harrow

  46

  Brent

  96

  Greenwich

  88

  Bexley

  51

  Barnet

  79

  Richmond upon Thames

  35

  Hounslow

  51

  Kingston upon Thames

  36

  Merton

  40

  Wandsworth

  104

  Ealing

  90

  Hillingdon

  46

  Enfield

  72

  Haringey

  85

  Croydon

  94

  Sutton

  36

  Metropolitan police total

  2,484

  City of London police1

  114

  1 As at 1 May 2002

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many trainee Metropolitan police officers are housed in non-police force accommodation; what accommodation is being used; and if he will +make a statement. [58558]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan police informs me that all recruits currently undergoing training in the Metropolitan police recruit training school are housed in police accommodation.

  Video Identification
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on video identification as a replacement for identification parades. [58637]

  Mr. Denham
  The new provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) Codes of Practice, which came into force on 1 April 2002, will enable police forces to make more use of video technology to speed up the identification process. Video identification provides a fast and effective alternative to live identity parades. Problems in arranging "live" identification parades within a reasonable period of time have contributed significantly to delays in processing cases and such delays impact upon the quality of evidence and compromise the whole process of justice. Making better use of video identification technology will free up officer time to tackle crime and standardise police practices. It will also result in more
  809W
  positive identifications and benefit witnesses and victims, who will no longer have to re-live their ordeal by coming face-to-face with their attacker in a live identity parade.

  Rollout of video identification technology, for which the Government have provided £7.6 million, has commenced in the 10 police force areas participating in the Government's Robbery Reduction Initiative.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact of the decision to end the Special Voucher Scheme on the UK's obligations under the Fourth Protocol to the ECHR, with special reference to the duties of a signatory under the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. [58372]

  Beverley Hughes
  The abolition of the Special Quota Voucher Scheme did not infringe any obligations of the United Kingdom. We have not ratified Protocol 4 and have no obligations under it. And, because abolition of the Scheme will not prevent compliance with Protocol 4 if we do ratify it, we have not infringed our obligations under the Vienna Convention.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation to enable the UK to ratify the Fourth Protocol to the ECHR [58371]

  Beverley Hughes
  None at the present time.

  Parliamentary Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) names and (b) responsibilities are of parliamentary advisers appointed to serve his Department. [56980]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

  Security Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the establishment figure for(a) linguists, (b) administrative assistants, (c) generalists and (d) technicians in the security service is; how many are in post at each level; and what steps his Department has taken to increase recruitment. [57523]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: It has been the policy of successive Governments not to break down Security Service employment figures in any way that indicates Service capabilities so as not to impair its effectiveness in undertaking its vital statutory functions.

  The Security Service undertakes its own recruitment. In most cases it now advertises openly in the press.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the salary of administrative assistants working in the Security Service. [57522]
  810W
  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: The setting of salary scales is a matter for the Security Service itself, in consultation with Her Majesty's Treasury, to decide.

  Yarl's Wood
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detainees were present at Yarl's Wood Immigration Detention Centre on the evening of 14 February. [59253]

  Beverley Hughes
  385 detainees were present at Yarl's Wood Immigration Detention Centre on the evening of 14 February 2002.

  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis detainees who were present at Yarl's Wood Immigration Detention Centre on the evening of 14 February were selected for questioning by the police as part of the criminal investigation into the disturbances at Yarl's Wood. [59251]

  Beverley Hughes
  The selection of detainees who were present at Yarl's Wood Immigration Detention Centre on the evening of 14 February 2002 for questioning by the police as part of the criminal investigation into the disturbances at Yarl's Wood is a matter for Bedfordshire police.

  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detainees who were present at Yarl's Wood Immigration Detention Centre on the evening of 14 February have been(a) selected for questioning and (b) questioned by the police as part of the criminal investigation into the disturbances at Yarl's Wood. [59252]

  Beverley Hughes
  The criminal investigation being conducted by Bedfordshire police is wide ranging and has involved the questioning of witnesses from a variety of services, companies and agencies as well as detainees at Yarl's Wood. The selection of detainees who were present at Yarl's Wood Immigration Detention Centre on the evening of 14 February 2002 for questioning as part of the criminal investigation into the disturbances at Yarl's Wood is a matter for Bedfordshire police.

  Volunteering
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the provision of free checks for volunteers wishing to work with young and vulnerable people in the voluntary sector. [57048]

  Hilary Benn
  We are firmly committed to supporting and promoting all types of volunteering. Therefore the highest levels of disclosures issued by the Criminal Records Bureau—standard and enhanced disclosures, which include those working with children and vulnerable people—are issued free of charge to volunteers in any sector.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to visit India and Pakistan. [60571]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have no present plans to visit either India or Pakistan.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  City of London Corporation (Events)
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those functions, engagements and events which Ministers, his officials and advisers have attended which have been sponsored, funded, promoted and hosted by the City of London Corporation since 1997. [35705]

  Peter Hain
  The FCO does not keep central records of events, engagements or functions attended by its Ministers, officials and advisers. The cost of answering this question would be disproportionate.

  UK Passport Holders
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate how many UK passport holders are in permanent employment elsewhere in the EU. [57303]

  Peter Hain
  We do not hold information on the specific number of UK passport holders working in other EU countries. This is in keeping with the principle of freedom of movement within the EU, and the need to avoid arrangements which might interfere with individual workers' right to move to and work in other member states.

  European Union Satellite Centre
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the European Union Satellite Centre, with particular reference to co-operation with UK-based image analysis agencies. [57868]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The EU Satellite Centre supports decision-making under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, in particular the European Security and Defence Policy, by providing analysis of satellite imagery and collateral data. The UK-based image analysis agency, (Defence Geographical and Imagery Intelligence Agency (DGIA)) has no formal links with the Satellite Centre but the output of the two organisations is co-ordinated to provide the maximum benefit to the UK. As part of this co-ordination, the UK has placed some tasks on the Satellite Centre, including the update of hydrographic charts, evacuation planning and environmental projects.

  Israel
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has recently raised the matter of the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel with the Israeli Government. [57979]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Nuclear issues were discussed in depth during the latest round of non-proliferation talks with Israeli officials, held in March. They have not recently been raised at ministerial level.

  We continue to urge Israel to resolve international concerns about its nuclear status by acceding to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state.

  Departmental Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent by his Department on paying pensions to retired employees of his Department in 2001–02; if he will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in(a) five years' time, (b) 10 years' time, (c) 20 years' time and (d) 30 years' time; if he will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (i) unfunded pension schemes and (ii) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if he will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [57368]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 23 May 2002 by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Leslie), Official Report, column 561W.

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 62W, what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of unpaid advisers who have assisted the work of his Department since June 1997 but are not included in (i) the Cabinet Office's annual report 'Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews 2000–01' and (ii) his previous answer. [57036]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: I am aware of none.

  Yasser Arafat
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Her Majesty's Government's policy is towards the title and status of Mr. Yasser Arafat. [58656]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Yasser Arafat is President of the Palestinian National Authority and Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. The Arabic word for "Chairman" and "President" is the same. We use both.

  International Labour Conference
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues will be given priority by the Government's representatives on the UK delegation to the International Labour Conference in Geneva in June. [58374]

  Mr. MacShane
  As in previous years, the Government delegation will participate fully in a wide range of discussions and will be fully represented in all the relevant Committees at the International Labour Conference. Among the items to which it will give particular attention are: discussions which will lead to new international instruments on co-operatives, and on occupational diseases; a general discussion on the informal economy; the special sitting to discuss Burma/Myanmar; and this year's Global Report on Child Labour. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), who will be attending part of the Conference, will address a plenary session.
  813W
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government have taken to implement the resolution on Myanmar adopted at the 88th session of the International Labour Conference in 2000. [58375]

  Mr. MacShane
  HMG has over many years fully supported the ILO's efforts to permanently end forced labour in Burma. In 1997 the EC suspended Burma's GSP trading privileges in response to concerns about forced labour.

  In response to the ILO's recommendations of their 88th session, the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) wrote to employers and workers groups in the UK asking them to review their relations with Burma to ensure they were not assisting the continuance of forced labour in Burma. FCO Ministers also met with representatives of Trades Unions and the Director General of the ILO to discuss promoting the ILO's demands in Burma.

  Along with EU colleagues, we have welcomed the appointment of an ILO Liaison Officer in Burma and the recognition that this is an interim step towards the required ILO permanent presence.

  International Labour Organisation
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are taking to ensure that states sign the fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organisation. [58373]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK promotes the widest possible ratification of the ILO core conventions and recognises the need for their practical implementation to achieve real change. We take every appropriate opportunity within the ILO itself, and bilaterally, to urge member states to sign up to the 1998 Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work as well as ratify the core conventions.

  Middle East
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the legal status will be within the EU of the 13 Palestinians who were brought out of Palestine following the end of the siege of the Church of the Nativity. [58654]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The 12 Palestinians accepted by Belgium, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy and Portugal are received on a temporary basis and exclusively on humanitarian grounds. In accordance with the Common Position concerning the temporary reception by member states of the European Union of certain Palestinians, the Palestinians will receive a national permit to enter and stay in the territory of the relevant member state for a period of up to 12 months.

  India
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what action he is taking to bring to justice those who have murdered British citizens during the recent disturbances in the Indian state of Gujarat; [58384]
  814W
  (2) if he will press the Indian Government to bring to justice those who have murdered British citizens during the recent disturbances in Gujarat; [58385]

  (3) if he will publish the British High Commission report on the disturbances in the Indian state of Gujarat; [58380]

  (4) what discussions he has had with the Indian Government about the conclusions of the British High Commission report on disturbances in Gujarat; [58386]

  (5) what his estimate is of the (a) number of refugees living in camps in the Indian state of Gujarat and (b) number killed in the recent disturbances in Gujarat; [58381]

  (6) what assistance the British Government have provided (a) to help bring peace to the Indian state of Gujarat and (b) to help those made homeless by the recent disturbances there. [58382]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We share my hon. Friend's concerns over the recent communal violence and deaths in Gujarat. We have regularly raised our concerns with the Indian Government, both through the Foreign Secretary and via our High Commission in Delhi. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary most recently discussed the situation on 16 April with Jaswant Singh, the Indian Foreign Minister. The Indian Government have given us their assurances that they will take action to investigate the violence and to bring to justice perpetrators of the killings, including those who have murdered British citizens. We welcome these assurances. We do not plan to publish any internal reporting from our High Commission in New Delhi on Gujarat.

  An estimated 100,000 displaced people are currently living in refugee camps in Gujarat. According to official Indian Government figures, the number of deaths currently stands at over 900.

  The British Government, through the Department for International Development, are currently assessing the situation with the Government of India, the State Government of Gujarat, select international agencies and local partners. Together, carefully targeted interventions will address the changing needs of those now choosing to return, and those likely to remain in the camps through the monsoon season.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent presidential and parliamentary elections in Sierra Leone. [58745]

  Mr. MacShane
  The peaceful conduct of presidential and parliamentary elections in Sierra Leone was a remarkable achievement for a country just emerging from a brutal civil war. The elections mark an historic milestone on Sierra Leone's return to peace and democracy. Britain can be proud of its part in their success. The people of Sierra Leone have given President Kabbah a clear mandate to eradicate corruption, deliver good governance and rebuild the country's shattered institutions and infrastructure. This is an enormous challenge, which will require efforts by the new
  815W
  Government to foster a spirit of national unity, and the sustained commitment of the international community. Britain will continue to play a full part in helping the new Government of Sierra Leone to meet the aspirations of its people.

  Visas
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on permitting police officers charged with human rights abuses who request visas to come to the UK for official training. [58530]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Each visa application is considered on its individual merits and in accordance with the requirements of the Immigration Rules.

  EU Armaments Programme
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on Spanish proposals for an EU armaments programme. [58769]

  Date

  Destination

  Cost (£)

  Michael Williams

  4–5 April 2001

  Belgrade and Skopje

  182.06

  24–25 April 2001

  Montenegro

  6.37

  30 August 2001

  Macedonia

  1—

  5–6 September 2001

  Abuja

  392.29

  17–18 October 2001

  Luxembourg and Turkey

  33.74

  9–14 November 2001

  New York

  3,615.50

  2–23 November 2001

  Iran and Pakistan

  135.10

  21–23 January 2002

  Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi

  296.96

  26–28 February 2002

  India

  3,425.17

  Ed Owen

  11 June 2001

  Luxembourg

  12.43

  9 July 2001

  Paris

  1—

  11–12 July 2001

  Washington

  4,628.52

  17 July 2001

  Brussels

  380.00

  24–27 September 2001

  Jordan, Iran, Israel, Palestinian Authority and Egypt

  297.84

  23–24 October 2001

  Washington

  3,276.87

  19–20 November 2001

  Brussels and Barcelona

  126.19

  6–7 December 2001

  Gibraltar

  872.40

  31 January to 2 February 2002

  Washington

  4,537.36

  12–16 February 2002

  Turkey, Israel, Palestinian Authority and Afghanistan

  462.36

  21 February 2002

  The Hague

  1—

  1 No public cost

  Detained Palestinians
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what restrictions there are concerning visitors to those Palestinians under the supervision of British wardens in Jericho; and if this is consistent with the conditions of detention as stipulated under the agreement which ended Mr. Yasser Arafat's confinement to his office in Ramallah; [58958]

  (2) what access those Palestinians under the supervision of British wardens in Jericho have to (a) regular phones and (b) cellular phones; and if this is consistent with the conditions of detention as stipulated under the agreement which ended Mr. Yasser Arafat's confinement to his office in Ramallah. [58957]
  816W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As agreed at the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 13 May 2002, any co-operation on armaments issues will be directly linked to filling the shortfalls in the ESDP Helsinki Headline Goal through the European Capabilities Action Plan (ECAP). Co-operation will respect the principles of voluntary compliance, transparency and avoiding duplication. These steps to enhance European capabilities will make a significant contribution towards the success of ESDP.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions between 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [58723]

  Mr. Straw
  Between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002, special advisers in my Department travelled abroad to the following places. The cost for each visit is included. All travel by special advisers is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code, and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Mr. Straw
  Under the terms of the agreement, the six detainees should be held in continuous secluded custody. It is the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority to ensure the conditions of detention are met and to respond to any concerns raised about the detention arrangements.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conditions of detention of those Palestinians under the supervision of British wardens in Jericho. [58956]

  Mr. Straw
  The conditions of detention are the responsibility of the Palestinian authorities and are in line with Palestinian law. Under the agreement between Israel
  817W
  and the Palestinian Authority, the role of the supervisory warders is to verify that the six detainees remain in continuous secluded custody.

  Seville Summit
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the stage they wish the enlargement process to have reached by the European Council's meeting at Seville; and if he will make a statement. [59103]

  Peter Hain
  The EU has now agreed its position on the Regional Policy, Institutions and Budget chapters allocated to the Spanish Presidency, while leaving aside a limited number of issues that need to be addressed later in the year. We expect a similar approach to enable EU agreement on the Agriculture chapter by Seville, in line with the road map for negotiations.

  The EU remains on track to complete negotiations by the end of this year with those candidates who are ready, so that they can join the EU in 2004, in line with the objective first set by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in October 2000.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of ordinary written questions for his Department were answered within a week of tabling in each month since June 2001; and what proportion of questions for named day received a substantive answer on that day in each month since June 2001. [58977]

  Mr. Straw
  The proportions are as follows:

  Per cent.

  Month

  Named day

  Ordinary written

  June 2001

  99

  —

  July 2001

  95

  —

  October 2001

  96

  80

  November 2001

  91

  54

  December 2001

  94

  55

  January 2002

  83

  67

  February 2002

  87

  61

  March 2002

  71

  58

  April 2002

  79

  58

  May 2002

  75

  54

  Average

  88

  60

  Note:

  The FCO only started recording the time taken to answer ordinary written questions in October 2001. The statistics for ordinary written questions are compiled on the basis of working days rather than questions answered within a calendar week. The figures above are based on answers provided by the fifth working day after tabling.

  Yugoslav Federation
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had at the recent EU General Affairs and Defence meeting in Brussels on 13 and 14 May concerning progress on implementing the accord reached by Serbia and Montenegro to dissolve the Yugoslav Federation and form a new union. [59089]
  818W
  Mr. Straw
  At the 13 May General Affairs Council, EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana briefed EU Foreign Ministers on the current situation concerning the implementation of Serbia and Montenergro agreement. EU Ministers"underlined the priority … to quickly implement the 14 March agreement".

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent report he has received concerning the progress on implementing the accord reached by Serbia and Montenegro to dissolve the Yugoslav Federation and form a new union. [59087]

  Mr. Straw
  The UK supports the 14 March Agreement on Principles of Restructuring Relations between Serbia and Montenegro. We believe the Agreement will promote stability in the region, and Serbia and Montenegro's integration into European structures.

  The Serbian Parliament and the Montenegrin Assembly ratified the Agreement on 9 April 2002, and the Yugoslav Parliament adopted the Agreement on 31 May 2002. We now look forward to the formation of a commission to draft a constitutional charter. We are fully supporting the efforts of the EU's High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, Mr. Solana, to encourage the parties to make rapid progress.

  Departmental Sponsors
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the duties are of hon. Members appointed as sponsors to his Department; and what assistance is given by officials in his Department to them in carrying out these duties. [59983]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 362W.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which hon. Members have been appointed as sponsors to his Department since 7 June 2001; and when each of them were appointed. [59970]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), on 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 362W.

  East Timor
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last raised the imprisonment of Ngawang Sangdrol with his Chinese counterpart. [60071]

  Mr. MacShane
  The imprisonment of Ngawang Sangdrol is one of the individual cases that we regularly raise with the Chinese in the context of the biannual UK/China Human Rights dialogue. We most recently raised her case during the dialogue which took place in Beijing on 15 May. In their response, the Chinese said that her sentence had been reduced by 18 months. Her new release date is 3 November 2011.

  G8 Summit
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what preparations the Government have made in advance of the G8 Summit in June, with regard to(a) Zimbabwe and (b) Nepal. [60196]

  Peter Hain
  The Canadian chair of this year's G8 Summit wish to focus the agenda on the world economy, terrorism, and the G8' s response to the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). There are no plans to discuss Zimbabwe as such, though it may be mentioned in the context of NEPAD. There are at present no plans to discuss Nepal.

  Liberia
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he will take in relation to reports of Liberia's violations of the UN arms embargo on it. [60160]

  Mr. MacShane
  The involvement of President Taylor of Liberia in weapons trafficking and his support for armed groups continue to threaten regional peace and stability. We therefore fully support the decision of the United Nations Security Council of 6 May to extend sanctions against Liberia for a further 12 months through the adoption of resolution 1408(2002). The resolution was co-sponsored by the UK.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he has to apply pressure to the Zimbabwean Government to respect human rights and property rights. [60175]

  Mr. MacShane
  We are deeply concerned about violations of human rights and the continuing disregard for the rule of law in Zimbabwe.

  We will continue to discuss with EU, African and other international partners ways to promote respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates he has made of the number of persons(a) killed and (b) injured as a result of politically motivated violence in Zimbabwe in each month since January 2001. [60176]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Human Rights Forum, a Zimbabwean non-governmental organisation, has estimated the number of people killed or tortured as a result of politically motivated violence in Zimbabwe during the months in question is as follows:

  January 2001: 2 killed, 22 tortured;

  February 2001: 0 killed, 9 tortured;

  March 2001: 0 killed, 9 tortured;

  April 2001: 0 killed, 26 tortured;

  May 2001: 0 killed, 47 tortured;

  June 2001: 0 killed, 29 tortured;

  July 2001: 11 killed, 288 tortured;

  820W

  August 2001: 1 killed, 170 tortured;

  September 2001: 6 killed, 112 tortured;

  October 2001: 3 killed, 99 tortured;

  November 2001: 6 killed, 91 tortured:

  December 2001: 7 killed, 119 tortured;

  January 2002: 12 killed, 112 tortured;

  February 2002: 39 killed, 525 tortured;

  March 2002: 50 killed, 374 tortured;

  April 2002: 7 killed, 146 tortured;

  1–14 May 2002: 2 killed, 8 tortured.

  Back copies of the Forum's reports can be obtained from its website, www.hrforumzim.com.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates he has made of the number of members in farm workers' families who have been evicted from their homes in Zimbabwe in each month since January 2001. [60173]

  Mr. MacShane
  There are no firm estimates available for the number of farm workers and their families who have been displaced in Zimbabwe since 2001. But from media, NGO and other reporting the number can be measured in tens of thousands.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the farms from which he is aware of farm workers' families being evicted in Zimbabwe since January 2001. [60174]

  Mr. MacShane
  Farm workers have been displaced from a large number of commercial farms since 2001. But we do not have a specific list. The hon. Member may wish to contact Zimbabwe's Commercial Farmers' Union or the Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe, who may be able to provide him with details.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each NDPB and agency sponsored by his Department(a) the maximum retirement age adopted for most employees and (b) their practice on not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59453]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is for individual NDPBs to determine their own policies on the age-limits of those applying for employment, in accordance with existing equal opportunities legislation and good practice guidelines.

  Agencies are bound by the provisions of the Civil Service Management Code. Section 2.1 states:
  "Civil Service equal opportunities policy provides that all eligible people must have equality of opportunity for employment and advancement on the basis of their suitability for the work. There must be no unfair discrimination on the basis of age, disability, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, or (in Northern Ireland) community background."

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if(a) his Department and (b) its agencies have a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59454]
  821W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office recruits people to both the Diplomatic service and the Home civil service.

  Diplomatic servants must be between the ages of 21 and 52. This is to ensure that those joining the service can complete at least one home tour (usually 18 months) and one post abroad (usually three years), before they reach the normal retirement age of 60.

  Home civil servants must be between the ages 16 and 58. This again is to ensure that those joining can complete at least one tour (usually two years) before reaching the retirement age.

  FCO services based at Hanslope Park, Milton Keynes carry out their own recruitment. They recruit only staff for the Home civil service. Band A support staff must be aged between 16 and 63 and those within the Bands B and D must be aged between 16 and 61.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Gibraltar's legal status within the European Union; and what recourse Gibraltar has with regard to disputes with other member states. [59096]

  Mr. Straw
  Gibraltar is part of the EU by virtue of the UK's membership and Article 299(4) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC), which states that the treaty applies to 'European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible'. Certain provisions (including the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies and the VAT regime) do not apply, and Gibraltar is not part of the Common Customs Territory.

  The Commission has primary responsibility for ensuring that member states comply with their EU obligations, and may bring infraction proceedings under Article 226 TEC. In addition Article 227 TEC allows a member state which considers that another member state has failed to fulfil an obligation under the treaty to bring the matter before the European Court of Justice.

  Burma
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports his Department has received concerning the case of Dr. Salai Tun Than, a prisoner held in Insein Prison, Rangoon since 8 February. [59617]

  Mr. Straw
  Dr. Salai Tun Than was sentenced to seven years in prison for peacefully expressing his hopes for the swift arrival of democracy in Burma. On learning of his sentence, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, when Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the FCO issued a public statement condemning his sentence and calling for his immediate release.

  I welcome the release from detention of over 250 political prisoners in Burma since January 2001. But we now need to see the end of politically inspired arrests and the release of all political prisoners.
  822W
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on plans for international monitors to be sent to Burma to assess the human rights situation following the recent release from confinement of Aung San Suu Kyi. [59614]

  Mr. Straw
  The military authorities have long denied access to many parts of Burma. There is no indication of their policy changing at this point. We would welcome international access to all areas of Burma. The ethnic minorities who live in those areas kept closed to the international community suffer disproportionately from human rights abuses.

  The United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and international non-governmental organisations do have a presence in Burma. In addition, the UN special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma, Sergio Pinheiro, has made three visits to Burma in the last year.

  There is a wealth of information to confirm that the human rights situation is very poor. This was set out in the FCO Human Rights Report of 2001 and the EU co-sponsored resolution at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Burma on the human rights situation in Burma that was passed by consensus in April 2002.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of the United States Administration concerning human rights in Burma. [59620]

  Mr. Straw
  Officials in London, Rangoon and Washington meet frequently with US colleagues to share information and co-operate on all aspects of Burma policy.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what reports his Department has received concerning the case of Paw U Tun, a prisoner held by the Burmese Government in Sittwe, Rakhine state, since 1993; [59611]

  (2) what reports his Department has received on the case of Dr. Zaw Myint Maung, a prisoner held by the Burmese Government in Insein prison, Rangoon since November 1990; [59621]

  (3) what reports his Department has received concerning the case of Ko Thet Win Aung, a prisoner held by the Burmese Government in Kale prison since October 1998; [59613]

  (4) what reports his Department has received concerning the case of U Win Tin, a prisoner held by the Burmese Government in Insein prison, Rangoon since 1989. [59612]

  Mr. Straw
  Our latest information is that Dr. Zaw Myint Maung remains in detention. I welcome the release of over 250 political prisoners in Burma since January 2001. However, we have repeatedly called on the Burmese authorities to move quickly to release all political prisoners including Dr. Zaw Myint Maung.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports his Department has received concerning ASEM meetings Burma
  823W
  has (a) attended and (b) not attended in the past three years and the reason for Burma's non-attendance at that meeting. [59605]

  Mr. Straw
  Burma is not a member of ASEM and is therefore not entitled to attend its meetings.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of how many Burmese nationals attended university in Britain in 2000–01; and how many of these students received a scholarship. [59615]

  Mr. Straw
  Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) figures show that 90 Burmese nationals attended university in the UK in 2000–01. Seven of these received scholarships funded or part funded by the FCO. The British Council estimates that each year there are approximately 300 Burmese studying in the UK at all levels, including further education and schools.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department(a) has had and (b) plans to have with the Governments of (i) Malaysia, (ii) Thailand, (iii) Singapore, (iv) Japan, (v) India, (vi) China and (vii) the Philippines concerning human rights abuses by the Burmese Government. [59610]

  Mr. Straw
  We have regular discussions with international partners about human rights in Burma including all countries listed in the question. I raised the issue of Burma with the Government of India on 29 May.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to encourage Burmese students to attend universities in Britain. [59616]

  Mr. Straw
  The British embassy in Rangoon runs a small scholarships programme in Burma. There is a British council office in Rangoon which promotes British education in Burma. It runs a successful programme of English language teaching and in March held a well attended education fair.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which members of the Burmese Government are on the European Union targeted sanctions list; and what reports his Department has received concerning those on that list who have been turned away from Britain since the sanctions regime was implemented. [59607]

  Mr. Straw
  The EU visa ban stops the entry into the EU by senior members of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), the Burmese authorities in the tourism sector, senior members of the military and the Government or the security forces who formulate, implement or benefit from the policies that impede Burma's transition to democracy. The details were published in the Official Journal of the European Communities L122 of 24 May 2000, Annex II of Council Common Position 2000/346/CFSP.

  A number of those on the visa ban have applied for a visa to visit the UK. All have been refused.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to promote free and fair elections in Burma. [59622]
  824W
  Mr. Straw
  Our effort on Burma is focused on bringing about national reconciliation, respect for human rights and the return of democracy. Through the EU Common Position, associated domestic action to discourage trade, investment and tourism, and in the United Nations, we are maintaining concentrated international pressure to realise these goals. I raised the issue of Burma with the Government of India on my visit to New Delhi on 29 May.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what circumstances members of the Burmese Government on the European Union targeted sanctions list are allowed to enter Europe; and which international meetings they can attend. [59608]

  Mr. Straw
  There is an exemption in the EU Common Position whereby with the agreement of all member states the ban on the Burmese Foreign Minister may be waived where it is in the interests of the European Union. This was primarily intended to allow Burmese participation at EU/ASEAN Foreign Ministers meetings in Europe.

  EU member states have an obligation under the Charter of the United Nations (UN) to grant certain privileges and immunities to the representatives of other UN member states for the purpose of attending UN meetings held on their territory. A clause allowing EU member states to fulfil their obligations to the UN with reference to people listed on the Burma visa ban was inserted in October 2001 on the recommendation of the European Commission Legal Service.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of the European Union concerning human rights in Burma; and if he will make a statement on the European Union's policy towards human rights in Burma. [59619]

  Mr. Straw
  We are in constant contact with EU partners on the human rights situation in Burma. The EU negotiated and co-sponsored a resolution on Burma at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in April 2002. The resolution was passed by consensus. The resolution noted continuing grave concern over the situation in Burma despite limited improvements in some areas such as the release of political prisoners and the lessening of the pressure on the National League for Democracy.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with representatives of the Burmese National League for Democracy following the release from confinement of Aung San Suu Kyi. [59623]

  Mr. Straw
  British embassy staff in Rangoon have had full and frequent meetings with representatives of the National League for Democracy. Embassy staff have also met with Aung San Suu Kyi. These meetings will continue.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise human rights abuses in Burma at the Foreign Affairs, Industry and Energy meeting on 6 and 7 June in Madrid. [59618]

  Mr. Straw
  We expect the Asia-Europe Foreign Ministers' meeting in Madrid on 6–7 June to be attended by representatives of all Asian partners in the ASEM
  825W
  process. These do not include Burma. We expect the discussions to cover a wide range of issues, including regional developments in Asia, and will raise the situation in Burma as appropriate during these discussions. Burma's neighbours have an important role to play in encouraging positive developments there.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports his Department has received concerning cases in which an ASEM meeting has been boycotted by a member nation as a result of Burma attending that meeting. [59606]

  Mr. Straw
  Burma is not a member of ASEM and is therefore not entitled to attend its meetings.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports his Department has received concerning human rights abuses by the Burmese Government against the(a) Karen, (b) Karenni, (c) Shan, (d) Chin and (e) Kachin people. [59609]

  Mr. Straw
  The ethnic minorities, including the Karen, Karenni, Shan, Chin and Kachin, have suffered persistent abuse at the hands of the military authorities. The EU co-sponsored resolution on Burma at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in April 2002 catalogues these abuses and expressed the international community's grave concern.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Yemen) 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; [58474]

  (2) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EC-Albania) 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; [58502]

  (3) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Pakistan) 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; [58481]

  (4) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Macao) 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; [58487]

  (5) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Lithuania) 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
  826W
  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; [58512]

  (6) what the mandate of the EC-Uzbekistan Co-operation Committee 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; [58429]

  (7) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EC-Central Kingdom of Cambodia) 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; [58495]

  (8) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Uruguay) 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; [58476]

  (9) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Latvia) 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; [58510]

  (10) what the mandate of the EEC-Ukraine Co-operation Committee 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; [58423]

  (11) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EC-Palestinian Authority) 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; [58420]

  (12) what the mandate of the EC-Kyrgyzstan Co-operation Committee 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; [58430]

  (13) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Chile) 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

  827W
  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; [58492]

  (14) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-China) 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; [58491]

  (15) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EC-Laos) 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; [58488]

  (16) what the mandate of the Joint Co-operation Committee (EEC-ASEAN) 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; [58499]

  (17) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Estonia) 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; [58505]

  (18) what the mandate of the EC-Tunisia Association Committee 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; [58422]

  (19) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Vietnam) 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; [58475]

  (20) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EC-Japan) 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; [58489]

  (21) what the mandate of the EC-Morocco Association Committee 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; [58421]
  828W

  (22) what the mandate of the EC-Azerbaijan Co-operation Committee 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; [58431]

  (23) what the mandate of the EEC-Slovenia Co-operation Committee 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; [58435]

  (24) what the mandate of the EC-Moldova Co-operation Committee 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; [58428]

  (25) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Mexico) 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; [58485]

  (26) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Nepal) 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; [58483]

  (27) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EC-Romania) 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; [58479]

  (28) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-India) 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; [58490]

  (29) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Bulgaria) 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; [58496]

  (30) what the mandate of the EEC-Israel Association Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the

  829W
  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; [58418]

  (31) what the mandate of the EC-Armenia Co-operation Committee 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; [58433]

  (32) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Argentina) 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; [58503]

  (33) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Paraguay) 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; [58480]

  (34) what the mandate of the Joint Council (EEC-Countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council) 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; [58417]

  (35) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EC-former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) 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; [58427]

  (36) what the mandate of the EC-San Marino Co-operation Committee 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; [58424]

  (37) what the mandate of the Association Committees with the countries of central and eastern Europe (EEC-Hungary/Romania/Czech Republic/Slovak Republic/ Poland/Bulgaria) 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; [58434]

  (38) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Andean Pact) 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
  830W
  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; [58501]

  (39) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Andorra) 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; [58500]

  (40) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Brazil) 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; [58497]

  (41) what the mandate of the EC-Egypt Association Committee 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; [58419]

  (42) what the mandate of the Joint Co-operation Committee (EEC-Canada) 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; [58416]

  (43) what the mandate of the EEC-Russia Co-operation Committee 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 z and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement; [58426]

  (44) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Mongolia) 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; [58484]

  (45) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Sri Lanka) 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; [58478]

  (46) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Bangladesh) 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; [58498]
  831W
  (47) what the mandate of the EC-Georgia Co-operation Committee 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; [58425]

  (48) what the mandate of the EEC-Mercosur Joint Advisory Committee 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; [58486]

  (49) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Central America) 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; [58493]

  (50) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Turkey) 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; [58477]

  (51) what the mandate of the EC-Kazakhstan Co-operation Committee 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; [58432]

  (52) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EC-Greenland) 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; [58461]

  (53) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EC-Poland) 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; [58469]

  (54) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EC-Estonia) 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; [58506]

  (55) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Angola) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the
  832W
  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; [58457]

  (56) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Senegal) 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; [58473]

  (57) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Guinea Bissau) 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; [58463]

  (58) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Sao Tome and Principe) 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; [58471]

  (59) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EC-Latvia) 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; [58509]

  (60) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Cape Verde) 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; [58459]

  (61) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Morocco) 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; [58467]

  (62) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EC-Canada) 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; [58494]

  (63) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Guinea) 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

  833W
  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; [58462]

  (64) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Russia) 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; [58470]

  (65) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Cote D'Ivoire) 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; [58508]

  (66) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Comoros) 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; [58458]

  (67) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Madagascar) 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; [58466]

  (68) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EC-New Zealand Joint Committee) 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; [58482]

  (69) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Equatorial Guinea) 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; [58464]

  (70) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Seychelles) 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; [58472]

  (71) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EC-Lithuania) 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
  834W
  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; [58511]

  (72) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Argentina) 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; [58504]

  (73) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Gambia) 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; [58460]

  (74) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Mauritania) 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; [58468]

  (75) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Mauritius) 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; [58465]

  (76) what the mandate of the EEC-Denmark-Faroe Islands Joint Committee 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. [59042]

  Peter Hain
  The EU has external agreements with a large number of third countries. These agreements include an article establishing an official level committee to oversee implementation of the agreement. This committee is known as a joint or association committee depending on the nature of the agreement (ie whether it is a Trade and Co-operation Agreement or an Association Agreement). The mandate of the committee is to ensure the effective implementation of the agreement. Specific provisions for the powers or provisions of the committees are set out in the individual agreements.

  The range of work covered by such committees includes economic and trade issues, technical co-operation and, in the case of Association Agreements, political dialogue. The committees are required to meet at regular intervals, usually annually. The UK is represented at the committee at official level, normally by officials from the UK Permanent Representation in Brussels (when the meeting is in Brussels) or by British embassy or high commission officials (when meetings take place in the third country concerned). It is not possible to disaggregate the cost of the committees to public funds as they are part of the EU's wider relations with third countries. Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise each third

  835W
  country agreement. Mixed competence agreements have to be ratified by all member states. Community-only agreements are considered by the parliamentary Scrutiny Committees prior to their conclusion.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for Protection Against the Effects of the Extra-territorial Application of Legislation Adopted by a Third Country and Actions Based Thereon or Resulting Therefrom (anti-boycott) 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. [55391]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  It was intended that a Committee for Protection Against the Effects of the Extraterritorial Application of Legislation Adopted by a Third Country and Actions Based Thereon or Resulting Therefrom (anti-boycott) would be established in Brussels to assist EU companies affected by extraterritorial jurisdiction by third countries, and in particular those affected by the extraterritorial aspects of the US trade sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Libya.

  Thus far, the Committee has not been convened. UK companies are obliged to inform Her Majesty's Government and the European Commission of any extraterritorial action taken against them, but while it is clear who would be responsible for representing the UK at any meeting of the Committee, in these times of improved electronic communication, it has not been necessary in practice for it to meet.

  In addition, as part of the 1997 Understanding between the EU and the US, the US undertook to exempt European individuals and companies from the extraterritorial aspects of US legislation drastically reducing the number of cases occurring, thus further reducing the need for the Committee to meet.

  Annexe A—cash payments and receipts

  £ million

  Outturn

  Estimated outturn

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Gross payments1

  9,278

  8,603

  10,507

  9,207

  10,640

  9,213

  Public sector receipts

  -4,567

  -4,472

  -3,950

  -3,676

  -4,099

  -3,293

  UK abatement

  -2,418

  -1,563

  -2,447

  ,2,206

  -2,223

  -4,427

  Net contributions to EC budget2

  2,293

  2,567

  4,111

  3,325

  4,318

  1,493

  Contributions to reserves and capital of the EIB

  15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grants received from European coal and steel community

  -27

  -6

  3—

  3—

  3—

  -1

  Payments to EC budget attributed to the aid programme4

  -464

  -408

  -520

  -519

  -621

  -717

  Net payments to EC institutions (excluding overseas aid)2

  1,817

  2,153

  3,590

  2,807

  3,697

  776

  1 Gross payment figures include Traditional Own Resources payments at 90 per cent. (75 per cent. in March 2002). The remaining 10 per cent. (25 per cent. in March 2002) is retained by the UK to cover the costs of administering collection on behalf of the European Community.

  2 Due to rounding, totals may not exactly correspond to the sum of individual items.

  3 Signifies receipts of less than £0.5 million.

  4 For domestic/public expenditure planning purposes, part of the UK's contribution to the Community budget is attributed to the overseas aid programme. The aid programme also includes payments to the European Development Fund, not included here.

  Chemical Weapons
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the contributions that have been made to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons by the(a) UK and (b) US since it was formed. [57951]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was formed the UK and the US have each made full payments in respect of their annual assessed contributions.

TREASURY

  Council Tax
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is intended to publish the contents of the council tax lists on the internet. [60816]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am pleased to announce that the Valuation Office Agency have today published council tax lists on the internet. Council taxpayers will be able to access council tax bandings and make appeals online. This follows the Valuation Office Agency's successful online provision of the non-domestic rating lists in 2000 and is an other important step in the process of improving public access to information by electronic means.

  Financial Transactions
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next publish details of United Kingdom financial transactions with European Community institutions. [60377]

  Mr. Boateng
  In order to bring details of all UK financial transactions with the EC into a single publication, information which has previously been included in the departmental report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Department will now be published in the Government's annual White Paper "European Community Finances". This change will take effect from the White Paper to be published in the summer. However, in advance of that, updated versions of tables 14a and 14b from the 2001 departmental report are set out in the tables.
  837W

  Annexe B—forecast of the trend in the UK's contributions

  1£ million

  Plans

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Trended net contributions to European Community budget

  2,975

  3,225

  Contributions to reserves and capital of the EIB

  0

  0

  Grants received from European coal and steel community

  0

  0

  Payments to EC budget attributed to the aid programme2

  -813

  -861

  Net payments to EC institutions (excluding overseas aid)

  2,162

  2,364

  1 An exchange rate of £1 = 1.59 euro has been assumed.

  2 For domestic/public expenditure planning purposes, part of the UK's contribution to the Community budget is attributed to the overseas aid programme. The aid programme also includes payments to the European Development Fund, not included here.

  Juvenile Sex Abusers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures his Department takes to address the needs of children and young people who sexually abuse; and if he will make a statement. [57194]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Department of Health on 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 420W.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent by his Department on paying pensions to retired employees of his Department in 2001–02; if he will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in(a) five years' time, (b) 10 years' time, (c) 20 years' time and (d) 30 years' time; if he will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (i) unfunded pension schemes and (ii) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if he will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [57356]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: Pensions of retired civil servants are paid centrally by the Cabinet Office from an unfunded scheme, the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. For information on the PCSPS I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 23 May 2002, Official Report, column 561W.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many full-time equivalent staff of HM Customs and Excise were based in each county of the United Kingdom(a) in 1997 and (b) in 2001. [57540]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: Figures are not available in the form requested. Many Customs and Excise staff are not a static resource but highly mobile and deployed on a risk basis.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 May 2002, Official Report, column 90W, on customs officers, to what he attributes the rise in the proportion of complaints against HM Customs and Excise being upheld since 1997–98. [59098]
  838W
  Mr. Boateng
  Since 1996, Customs and Excise have increased their efforts to publicise their complaints system. The increase in the proportion of complaints upheld between 1997–98 and 1999–2000 followed accompanying measures taken internally to raise staff awareness of the value of complaints in improving customer service, and to improve training and guidance on handling them objectively.

  The increase in the proportion of complaints upheld in 2000–01 reflects technical problems during the transition from regional advice centres to National Advice Service contract centres, resulting in some businesses facing delays in getting through to an adviser. Following the resolution of these problems, there has been a significant reduction in the number of recorded complaints.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the activities pursued by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise that have had a particular impact on the Isle of Wight since 7 June 2001. [58362]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: The full range of Customs and Excise controls and assurance activities, across the VAT, excise, customs and anti-smuggling regimes, apply equally to the Isle of Wight as to other parts of the UK.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 May 2002,Official Report, column 806W, on national insurance contributions, if he will calculate for married women paying NICs at the reduced rate, (a) the value of the total employee contributions which would be paid by such women if they were subject to full rate class I contributions instead, (b) the actual value of employee class 1 contributions payable by such women and (c) the value of entitlement to contributory benefits attained by such women, on the same basis as these calculations are made for the self-employed. [58518]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: Estimates by the Government Actuary's Department, for married women paying at the reduced rate in 2001–02 are in the table.

  Amount: £ million

  The amount of primary class I contributions reduced rate women would pay if liable to full class 1 rate

  175

  Amount of primary contributions paid at the reduced class 1 rate

  125

  1 Includes £8 million allocated to the national health service.

  Married women who opt to pay the reduced rate do not receive contributory benefits in their own right, but can receive some benefits based on their husbands' contributions. Contributory benefits are financed on a pay-as-you-go basis, so it is not appropriate to quote a value for the total benefits foregone by married women paying at the reduced rate. This comparison is possible for the self-employed because the main element of the difference between the benefits they receive and those to which employees are entitled is SERPS (now state second pension) and the value of this is represented by the contracted-out rebate. No equivalent valuation, consistent

  839W
  with the nature of the national insurance fund, is possible for the rights to basic retirement pension forgone by married women optants.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he expects to raise from employers' national insurance contributions by nation and region of the UK for 2002–03. [59541]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government Actuary's Department estimate that around £38.5 billion will be received in 2002–03 in employer's national insurance contributions (including class 1A and 1B), this estimate is consistent with the April 2002 Budget.

  A reliable estimate by nation and region is not available.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total amount paid by Scotland's(a) health trusts and (b) local authorities in employers' national insurance contributions in (1) 2001–02, (2) 2002–03 and (3) 2003–04, assuming current levels of employment. [60068]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that the changes to employer NICs announced in the Budget will add around 0.7 per cent. to pay costs on average next year. The changes will help to fund improvement to public services and a real terms increase in spending on health over the next five years of over 40 per cent.

  I regret that it would be possible to provide more detailed reliable estimates only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the number of records on the National Insurance Recording System is lower than the number of national insurance numbers in existence. [58827]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are approximately 83 million national insurance numbers held on the Departmental Central Index (DCI), against approximately 70 million records held on the National Insurance Recording System (NIRS).

  DCI holds Child Reference Numbers of children under age 16 as well as national insurance numbers allocated to customers who are over retirement pension age. These records are not notified to NIRS, as there is no contribution activity.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he expects to raise from national insurance contributions from employers for the years 2001 to 2004 in(a) Scotland, (b) Northern Ireland, (c) England and (d) Wales. [60310]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates for employers' national insurance contributions (including class 1 A and 1B) are in the table. These estimates are consistent with the April 2002 Budget.

  Employer NICs receipts (including class 1A and 1B)

  Amount £ billion

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Great Britain

  36.9

  37.7

  43.6

  Northern Ireland

  0.8

  0.8

  0.9

  United Kingdom

  37.6

  38.5

  44.5

  840W
  Reliable estimates for Scotland and Wales are not available.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taking to ensure that there is parity of treatment between men and women in the application of the NIC rules. [60061]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Men and women pay national insurance contributions, on the same basis, on earnings from age 16 to pension age. Legislation has been introduced to fully equalise the pension age for men and women at age 65 from 2020.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he expects to raise from national insurance contributions from employees for the years 2001 to 2004 in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) Wales. [60311]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates for employees' national insurance contributions are in the table. These estimates are consistent with the April 2002 Budget.

  Employee NICs receipts

  Amount £ billion

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Great Britain

  25.4

  26.5

  31.3

  Northern Ireland

  0.6

  0.6

  0.7

  United Kingdom

  26.0

  27.1

  32.0

  Reliable estimates for Scotland and Wales are not available.

  Euro
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of British overseas trade takes place using the euro. [59111]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: Customs and Excise conduct an annual survey of trade invoices used by British business for the import and export of goods between the UK and the rest of the world. The survey indicates the extent to which UK traders use the euro as a means of payment for international trade.

  The most recent figures are for 2000 and show that 9 per cent. of EU trade was invoiced in euros, compared to 50 per cent. in sterling. For non-EU trade, 1 per cent. was invoiced in euros, compared to 54 per cent. in US dollars.

  The results for 2001 will be released by end June.

  Financial Services Authority
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Financial Services Authority about changes in fees charged to WI markets under the Registrar of Friendly Societies. [59434]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The Treasury maintains a regular dialogue with the Financial Services Authority to help both institutions discharge their responsibilities effectively. This has included discussion of fees for which the FSA is responsible in relation to its registration of industrial and provident societies (formerly registered by the Registrar of Friendly Societies).

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [60153]

  Ruth Kelly
  All public consultations undertaken by the Treasury are listed on the Treasury's website (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk).

  Data on consultations are not held centrally and could not be collected except at disproportionate cost.

  Bee Diseases Insurance Ltd.
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from Bee Diseases Insurance Ltd. regarding the impact of tax and regulatory costs. [60321]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government receive a number of representations from a variety of organisations regarding a range of different issues.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of men and women in England who will be at each age from 18 to 30 years in 2010. [59714]

  Ruth Kelly
  The latest projections of the number of men and women aged 18 to 30 in England in the year 2010 are given in the following table:

  Figures in thousands

  Age

  Males

  Females

  18

  348

  332

  19

  354

  339

  20

  350

  335

  21

  350

  337

  22

  356

  344

  23

  350

  340

  24

  350

  340

  25

  351

  341

  26

  341

  331

  27

  345

  332

  28

  345

  330

  29

  349

  333

  30

  352

  338

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department, 2000-based national population projections

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the numbers of(a) men and (b) women in England at each age from 18 to 30 years. [59713]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Barry Sheerman, dated 10 June 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question concerning the number of men and women in England at each age from 18 to 30 years. I am replying in his absence. (59713)
  842W
  The estimates of the number of people of these ages are available for mid-2000 on the National Statistics website at www.statistics.gov.uk. The specific address for the mid-2000 population estimates is: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/PENo3/PENo3_v3.pdf and from this page you should select Table 4 for the data you require.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the percentages of 17 year olds in England who reside(a) with both their natural parents, (b) with one parent and a step-parent, (c) with a single parent, (d) with adoptive or foster parents, (e) in custody or in care and (f) independently. [59709]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Barry Sheerman, dated 10 June 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the percentage of 17 year olds in England who reside (a) with both their natural parents, (b) with one parent and a step-parent, (c) with a single parent, (d) with adoptive or foster parents, (e) in custody or in care and (f) independently. I am replying in his absence. (59709)
  Estimates of the percentages of 17 year olds living in private households in 2001 in England in the first four of these categories may be made using the Labour Force Survey, and are shown in the table below.

  Percentages of 17 year olds living in private households in 2001

  Percentage

  (a) with both natural parents

  64

  (b) with one parent and a step-parent

  8

  (c) with a lone parent

  21

  (d) with foster parents

  0.2

  (e) other family and non-family situation

  7

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey

  Some information for category (e) is available from the Department of Health and the Home Office. The total number of 17 year olds in care (including those in foster care) in 2001 in England was 4,000, representing about 0.7 per cent. of the total. In addition, there were 1,456 young offenders aged 17 in custody in England and Wales in 2000, about 0.2 per cent. of the total.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the changes to the tax burden on unincorporated small businesses and of that on incorporated small businesses since 1997. [60319]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Since 1997 the Government have introduced numerous measures to help both incorporated and unincorporated business, including: making 40 per cent. first year capital allowances permanent, implementation of the Carter Review of payroll services, cutting the small companies rate of corporation tax from 23 per cent. to just 19 per cent., introducing a 10p starting rate of income tax and introducing measures to ease the impact of VAT on small business.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publicise the increased children's tax credit for families in which a child has recently been born. [58764]
  843W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has arranged for application forms for children's tax credit to be placed in "Bounty packs" which are given to mothers at around the time of the birth of their baby. Information is also including in the pack that Bounty provide for mothers during pregnancy and for when their baby is about three to five months old. Additionally, a parent may get an application form by ringing the Inland Revenue helpline on 0845 300 1036 or downloading it from the Inland Revenue's website at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people he expects to start claiming(a) the child tax credit and (b) the working tax credit, in (i) April 2003, (ii) October 2003 and (iii) April 2004. [58753]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the "The Child and Working Tax Credits" in the series 'The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System, Number 10, April 2002', which states that around 5¾ million families are expected to benefit from the child tax credit. Some of these families will also receive the working tax credit as will other low-income working households. Families with children receiving income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance will not need to make a separate claim for the new tax credits. During the transition period, they will continue to receive IS/JSA but with enhanced child premia rates.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on double taxation treaties of disallowing the discounting of financial costs against the supplementary charge on oil and industry corporation tax. [58744]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The supplementary charge should be creditable under most of the UK's double taxation agreements, but this is ultimately a matter for our treaty partners.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend the reduction in corporation tax to small companies that trade as unincorporated businesses; and if he will make a statement. [60245]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) on 20 May 2002, Official Report, column 2624W.

  Gas Pipelines
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the various rates of taxation for gas pipelines within the United Kingdom and on the rationale for the differences. [58896]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Since the special taxation regime for UK oil and gas was introduced in the 1970s, oil and gas pipelines associated with particular fields have received the same tax treatment as the fields themselves. This reflects the fact that the pipelines are an integral part of the overall development of the fields concerned. Because the tax regime that applies to a field, and therefore its associated pipelines, depends on the date on which the filed was given development consent, pipelines associated with different fields can have different tax treatments.
  844W
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue the Treasury has received from tax on gas pipeline tariffs in each year since 1997–98; and how much revenue the Treasury predicts it will receive from tax on gas pipeline tariffs in 2002–03. [58897]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Companies pay corporation tax on their overall profits, including those from the tariffing of oil and gas pipelines. From the data available reliable estimates of the tax attributable to gas pipeline tariffs cannot be made.

  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Treasury adjusted its oil revenue predictions after the discovery in January of the Buzzard field. [59537]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Oil was first discovered in the Buzzard field in June 2001. Data for the Buzzard field were included in the forecasts of North sea revenues for both the 2001 pre-Budget report and the 2002 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason he did not formally consult the oil industry prior to announcing changes to the fiscal regime in the 2002 Budget. [59539]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In 1998 the Government started consulting on the reform of North sea taxation. Ever since then the options for reform have been subject to detailed analysis and discussion.

  In last year's Budget the Chancellor said
  "as we consider the next steps for taxation in the North sea, our approach will be guided not by short-term factors but by the need for a regime that raises a fair share of revenue and promotes long term investment."

  It has become clear that the option of reintroducing PRT now would have imposed substantial compliance and administrative costs on the industry.

  The Government have therefore decided that the simpler approach of a supplementary charge buttressed by specific and generous investment incentives is the right one, and that to ensure certainty for the industry going forward it was right to announce this as a firm decision in the Budget.

  The Government are consulting on the appropriate timing of the abolition of the royalty.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what incentives exist for oil companies to increase their exploration and appraisal drilling in the North sea. [59538]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Before the changes announced in the Budget, companies were already entitled to 100 per cent. first year relief for exploration and appraisal drilling. In future, companies will also have 100 per cent. first year allowances for the capital expenditure on subsequent development of discovered oil and gas fields. This will increase the overall post-tax rate of return on exploration and appraisal.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which companies he has had discussions regarding planning to build new gas pipelines to Bacton. [58898]
  845W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Ministers and civil servants have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals as part of the process of policy development and analysis. As with previous Administrations it is not this Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 28W, on oil and gas industry (taxation), if he will publish data that have been agreed by the industry as not commercially sensitive. [60010]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury explained in full the methodology the Government used on 9 May 2002,Official Report, columns 362–63. The analysis was based on commercially sensitive information.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the vehicle excise duty on cars according to the carbon dioxide rating. [59373]

  Mr. Boateng
  All new cars purchased on or after 1 March 2001 are subject to the graduated system of vehicle excise duty (VED). Under this system, the amount of VED payable is related to carbon emissions, the lower the emission rate the lower the VED payable therefore providing an incentive to motorists to purchase cleaner, less polluting cars.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what vehicle excise duty concessions are allowed to owners of cars with a cc rating of less than 1549; and if he will make a statement. [59372]

  Mr. Boateng
  Cars registered before 1 March 2001 with engines of 1549 cc or less qualify for the reduced rate of vehicle excise duty which currently stands at £105 per year, £55 less than the standard rate. Cars first registered after 1 March 2001 are liable for VED on the basis of their carbon dioxide emissions, and many of those with engines up to 1549 cc will qualify for the lower bands of VED.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 30 April 2002,Official Report, column 732W, on excise duties, what the level was of receipts associated with forestalling of road fuel duties in April 2002; and if he will make a statement. [60032]

  Mr. Boateng
  As stated in paragraph C50 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report, it is estimated that around £0.2 billion in receipts was associated with the forestalling of road fuel duties. However, there is no direct way of measuring forestalling.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue the Treasury predicts it will raise from the aggregates levy by(a) nation and (b) region of the UK for 2002–03. [59540]
  846W
  Mr. Boateng
  Revenue forecasts for the aggregates levy were published in Table C.7 of the FSBR. These are not broken down by either national area or by region.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a review date has been set when the effectiveness of the aggregates levy at increasing the use of recycled aggregate will be assessed. [59401]

  Mr. Boateng
  As with all taxes, the effect of the levy will be continually monitored as part of the Budget process. Its effect on recycled aggregates will be evaluated in due course as data become available.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many full time staff members at HM Customs and Excise have responsibility for ensuring that questions from quarry operators regarding the provisions of the aggregates levy are answered. [59388]

  John Healey
  Customs has the equivalent of around 230 full-time staff nationally dealing with written and telephone inquiries about all Customs and Excise taxes, including the aggregates levy. In addition, there are about 30 environmental taxes assurance staff, who will deal with questions raised on aggregates levy visits. Complex questions may be referred to six specialist aggregates levy support staff.

  Scottish Devolution
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to transfer the administration of reserved powers and functions of the Treasury, its executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies within its remit from the Treasury to the Scotland Office. [59507]

  Mr. Boateng
  None.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many representations the Scottish Executive has made to his Department since May 1999 broken down by(a) Scottish Executive Department, (b) subject and (c) date; [59508]

  (2) how many times his office has made representations to the Scottish Executive since May 1999, broken down by (a) the Department approached, (b) subject and (c) date. [59509]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information is not available in the form requested. Both formal and informal contacts take place regularly between Government Departments, including the Treasury, and Departments of the Scottish Executive.

  Regional Organisations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what regional organisation his Department has; and if he will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [58940]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Treasury does not have a regional organisation.

  Whisky Duty
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is being done to bring whisky duty in to line with other alcohol tariffs by level of alcohol content. [59542]
  847W
  Mr. Boateng
  The duty on spirits has been frozen in the last five Budgets and a bottle of whisky is now 73p less expensive than it otherwise would have been. The freezes have narrowed the duty differential and the duty on spirits is now 34 per cent. lower (in real terms) than it was 20 years ago.

  The Chancellor will continue to take decisions on a Budget by Budget basis, taking into account all relevant factors including the position of UK spirits producers and various duty differentials.

  Government Borrowing
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated effect would be on UK net borrowing for the current year if the UK GDP grows at(a) 1.75 per cent., (b) 1.5 per cent. and (c) 1 per cent. rather than the projected rate. [59587]

  Mr. Boateng
  Paragraph C18 of Budget 2002 gives estimates of the relationship between net borrowing and the output gap.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Treasury classes as a prudent and acceptable level of(a) deficit spending for the UK Government and (b) total national debt as a percentage of GDP. [59389]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government set fiscal policy to meet their fiscal policy objectives and their two strict fiscal rules:

  the golden rule: that, over the economic cycle, the Government will borrow only to invest and not to fund current spending; and

  the sustainable investment rule: that public sector net debt as a proportion of GDP will be held, over the economic cycle, at a stable and prudent level, currently defined as below 40 per cent. of GDP.

  Further detail showing the Government are projected to meet their fiscal rules over the next five years can be found in Table 2.5 on page 31 of the April 2002 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what UK net borrowing was in each year since 1992; and what the predicted UK net borrowing in each year from the current year to 2008 is. [59390]

  Mr. Boateng
  The available estimates of public sector net borrowing for the UK, expressed in financial years and as a percentage of GDP, are set out in Tables C23 and C2 of Budget 2002.

  2001 Census
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest assessment is of the results from the 2001 Census; and if he will make a statement. [60075]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Edward Davey, dated 10 June 2002:
  The National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning what the latest assessment is of the results from the 2001 Census. I am replying in his absence. [60075]
  848W
  The first results from the 2001 Census in England and Wales, giving resident population counts for each local authority area, are planned to be published in later summer. The attached press release, issued on Thursday 30 May, gives further details. These counts will form the base for the Registrar General's mid-year estimates of the population for 2001. A summary of key statistics, covering a range of census topics, is planned for publication around the end of 2002. The full local area results will follow in several tranches throughout the first half of 2003.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will include a question on British Sign Language usage in the 2011 census, in the format of Question 9 in the 2001 census. [60115]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. James Gray, dated 10 June 2002:
  The National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales has been asked to reply to your recent question regarding the inclusion of a question on British Sign Language usage in the 2011 Census, in the format of Question 9 in the 2001 Census. I am replying in his absence. [60115]
  The questions to be included in any future Census, will be decided nearer the time. I would expect, as in previous censuses, that the final question content will reflect a widespread need for information not available from other sources and will be based on extensive consultation, including parliamentary debate.

  Credit Card Debt
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the average credit card debt owed by an adult in the UK. [58871]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Tom Harris, dated 10 June 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on average credit card debt. I am replying in his absence. (58871)
  Based on figures for amounts outstanding on credit cards of £43.2 billion at the end of March 2002, and a resident population of 46.7 million adults at mid 2002, credit card debt divided by adult population in the United Kingdom is about £900.

  Office for National Statistics
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses have been required to supply information on their returns to the Office for National Statistics in each of the past three years. [59187]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Brian Cotter, dated May 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking how many businesses have been required to supply information on their returns to the Office for National Statistics in each of the past three years. (59187)
  849W
  The total number of enterprises receiving forms for the three years you require is as follows:

  Year

  Number of enterprises

  1999

  262,232

  2000

  274,324

  2001

  270,045

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information businesses are required to supply to the Office for National Statistics; and in which legislation this requirement lies. [59192]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Brian Cotter, dated May 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what information businesses are required to supply to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and in what legislation this requirement lies. (59192)
  The ONS requires businesses to supply information on their structure, level of employment and the earnings of its employees, and financial data such as their turnover, sales, prices, stocks and capital expenditure. This information is collected through a range of monthly, quarterly and annual business surveys, with the short term surveys asking for aggregate level data, while the annual surveys seek more detailed structural data. Each business survey is subject to regular review to reassess its continued need. The sample size for each survey is set at the minimum level consistent with the need to produce aggregate statistics for use by the Government in its economic monitoring and planning. Full details of all the business surveys carried out by the ONS are included in the ONS Compliance Plan for 2002 to 2004 which will be available on the ONS website www.statistics.gov.uk/other on the 29th of May.
  The information sought from businesses by the ONS is collected under the provisions of the Statistics of Trade Act 1947. The Schedule to the 1947 Act allows for the collection of the following:
  The nature of the undertaking (including its association with other undertakings) and the date of its acquisition; the persons employed or normally employed (including working proprietors), the nature of their employment, their remuneration and the hours worked; the output, sales, deliveries and other services provided; the articles acquired or used, orders, stocks and work in progress; the outgoings and costs (including work given out to contractors, depreciation, rent, rates and taxes, other than taxes on profits) and capital expenditure; the receipts of and debts owed to the undertaking; the power used or generated; the fixed capital assets, the plant, including the acquisition and disposal of those assets and that plant and the premised occupied.
  The Statistics of Trade Act (Amendment of Schedule Order) 1963, allows for the collection of data relating to assets (other than fixed capital assets) and liabilities of the undertaking, including the acquisition and disposal of those assets and the incurring and discharge of those liabilities; prices of articles and services.
  The Statistics of Trade Act (Amendment of Schedule Order) 1987 allows for cases where the undertaking is related to a body situated outside the United Kingdom: the nature and extent of the relationship; the nature and extent (and any changes therein) of the financial interest of the one body in the other; the country in which the related body is situated; particulars in respect of issued share capital, minority shareholders' interests, loans, reserves and provisions as recorded in the accounts of the undertaking or such particulars in respect of the related body where it is under the control of the undertaking; net gains or losses of the undertaking attributable to changes in exchange rates, being gains or losses arising out of the
  850W
  relationship; where the undertaking is not a company incorporated in the United Kingdom, its net value to the related body and where the related body is not a body corporate, its net value to the undertaking.
  The Statistics of Trade Act (Amendment of Schedule) Order 1990 allows for the collection of data relating to income (including rents, interest and investment income) received or receivable by the undertaking; dividends and interest paid or payable; profits; losses; taxes paid or chargeable on income or gains; services acquired or used.

  Still Births
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 to allow the parents of children who die between 18 and 24 weeks gestation to register a still birth. [59689]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Ian Lucas, dated 10 June 2002:
  The Registrar General and National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary question concerning what plans there are to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act to allow parents of children who die between 18 and 24 weeks gestation to register a still-birth. I am replying in his absence. (59689)
  There are no plans to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 to redefine the gestational age at which a still-birth which must be registered.

  Adoption Orders
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many adoption orders were made in each year since 1991. [60572]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 10 June 2002:
  The National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales has been asked to reply to your recent question, concerning the number of Adoption Orders made in each year since 1991. I am replying in his absence. (60572)
  I refer you to Mr. Cook's letter of 22 May which answered PQ 57193 (Hansard vol. 386 no. 152), concerning the number of Adoptions since 1990. The granting of an Adoption order effectively means the same as an Adoption being registered in the Adopted Children Register, since the order is the legal basis for the registration.

  Family Historians
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the availability of the Registrar General's information to family historians. [60577]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Martin Caton, dated 10 June 2002:
  The National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning what plans there are to increase the availability of the Registrar General's information to family historians. I am replying in his absence. (60577)

  851W
  The Government's proposals for modernising civil registration in England and Wales are contained in the White Paper "Civil Registration: Vital Change" published on 22 January 2002, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House. The White Paper sets out a new framework for access to information about births, marriages and deaths held by the Registrar General.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) boys and (b) girls were born in England in each year from 1980 to 1992. [59712]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Barry Sheerman, dated 10 June 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of (a) boys and (b) girls born in England in each year from 1980 to 1992. I am replying in his absence. (59712)
  The figures are given in the table below.

  Total number of live births by sex in England1, 1980 to 1992

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1980

  316,441

  301,930

  618,371

  1981

  307,134

  291,029

  598,163

  1982

  302,764

  286,947

  589,711

  1983

  304,936

  288,319

  593,255

  1984

  307,436

  293,137

  600,573

  1985

  317,809

  301,492

  619,301

  1986

  319,585

  304,024

  623,609

  1987

  330,027

  313,303

  643,330

  1988

  334,898

  319,465

  654,363

  1989

  332,583

  316,774

  649,357

  1990

  341,353

  325,567

  666,920

  1991

  338,715

  322,091

  660,806

  1992

  334,365

  317,419

  651,784

  1 Births are to mothers who were resident in England at the time of the birth

  Source:

  Key population and vital statistics—Series VS.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters were received by each Minister in his Department in each month since June 1997. [59306]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information in the detail requested is not kept or readily available.

  Broadband
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Office of Government Commerce Broadband Feasibility Group's report on the aggregation of public sector demand will be published. [60067]

  Mr. Boateng
  Ministers will make an announcement on the key recommendations from the OGC broadband procurement feasibility study in the summer.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of additional households 852W
  which will become eligible for the working families tax credit when the children element of the tax credit is increased by £2.50 in June. [59747]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to provide such an estimate as the surveys on which such an estimate would be made are too small to provide a reliable estimate of the number of families newly eligible because of the increase of £2.50 in the basic element of the working families tax credit.

  Ministerial Direction
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times in each year since 2000 his Department has been notified of a ministerial direction as provided for in the procedures set out in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the Treasury document entitled, "The Responsibilities of an Accounting Officer"; and if he will make a statement. [60004]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer to the answer given by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on 8 May 2002,Official Report, column 253W and to my own further answer of 10 June 2002, Official Report, column 1037W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons paragraph 42 of his Department's guidance notes on parliamentary questions dated March states that briefings should include supportive statements from members of the Opposition; and if he will make a statement. [59598]

  Ruth Kelly
  In order to present as complete a picture as possible of the issue concerned.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of draft parliamentary answers that his Department prepared in January were amended by special advisers prior to final approval by the Minister; and if he will make a statement. [59600]

  Ruth Kelly
  Ministers are responsible for the answers they give to parliamentary questions.

  The Treasury does not maintain records relating to the number of occasions on which Special Advisers have contributed to the drafting of answers. It would, in any case, be inappropriate to disclose information concerning internal consultations on parliamentary questions, as provided for by Exemption 2 of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information".

  Departmental Sponsors
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which hon. Members have been appointed as sponsors to his Department since 7 June 2001; and when each of them was appointed; [59965]

  (2) what the duties are of hon. Members appointed as sponsors to his Department; and what assistance is given by officials in his Department to them in carrying out these duties. [59980]
  853W
  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 372W.

  LIBRA Project
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis the LIBRA project was described as completed in his Department's evidence to the Treasury Committee in January 2000; and if he will make a statement. [59690]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Lord Chancellor's Department's project LIBRA was a Treasury Taskforce Significant Project. The LIBRA contract was signed in December 1998. Annexe B of the Treasury's memorandum dated 1 November 1999 to the Treasury Committee, showed progress on Treasury Taskforce Significant Projects. Those projects where the contract had been signed, and thus the Treasury taskforce's involvement had been successfully completed, were noted as being "completed".

  White Papers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in the past 12 months confidential final revise proof copies of White Papers have been made available under embargo to(a) the Lobby and Upper Gallery and (b) members of other organised groups of correspondents, before publication; and if he will make a statement. [59877]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 584W.

  Public Services Productivity
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1106W, on public services productivity, what seminars his Department plans on the paper; what research his Department plans to commission on the paper; and if he will make a statement. [60003]

  Mr. Boateng
  In preparing the paper, as with the public services agenda more widely, the Treasury is taking account of the wide range of expertise and research findings, including the advice of the Public Services Productivity Panel. The Treasury organises seminars on a variety of issues where such discussions can help guide policy.

  Growth and Stability Pact
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the French Government about the operation of the growth and stability pact. [60591]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 574W.

  Greater London Economy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with business representatives on the performance of the Greater London economy; and if he will make a statement. [60711]
  854W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers meet regularly with business representatives from all regions and countries of the UK, including Greater London. These discussions cover a wide range of issues, and the Government values the insights gained.

  Poverty
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the role of international trade in the reduction of poverty in the poorest countries. [60559]

  Ruth Kelly
  In the last 40 years those developing countries which have managed to be more open and trade more in the world economy have seen faster growth rates than those which have remained closed. From the early 1970s to the early 1990s, developing countries that were able to pursue growth through trade grew at least twice as fast as those that kept their tariffs high and their doors closed to imports and competition.

  Full trade liberalisation could lift at least 300 million people out of poverty by 2015. Even diminishing protection by 50 per cent. in agriculture and in industrial goods and services would increase the world's yearly income by nearly $400 billion: a boost to growth of 1.4 per cent. All countries and regions stand to benefit, with developing countries gaining an estimated $150 billion a year and higher than average increases in GDP growth.

  The WTO's new trade round, referred to as the Doha Development Agenda, contains a package of commitments to progress in areas that will lead to major gains for developing countries and the poorest people in these countries.

  We need an approach which ensures that Poverty and Social Impact Assessments are undertaken of key reforms, including trade, to ensure that policy options and trade-offs are discussed, and that reforms are properly designed. Where negative consequences exist, appropriate measures should be put in place to protect vulnerable countries and people from an overly rapid transition to a system of liberalised trade. The IMF and World bank have committed to undertake Poverty and Social Impact Assessments of reforms, and to promote the integration of trade into developing countries' poverty reduction strategies. We are working hard to support this process.

  Capital Modernisation Fund
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what total funding allocation has been awarded to the Capital Modernisation Fund for the financial years(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02, (c) 2002–03 and (d) 2003–04; and what the breakdown of expenditure was in monetary terms and percentage terms per annum for (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland. [60635]

  Mr. Boateng
  Table 1.11 in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2002–03 (CM 5401) sets out the Capital Modernisation Fund allocations made to each Department and to the devolved Administrations. The allocations to the devolved Administrations relate to devolved matters only and are calculated according to the Barnett formula.

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the performance targets that his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004; and if he will specify for each target(a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. [60463]

  Ruth Kelly
  Performance targets are set out in each Department's Public Service Agreement and supported by detailed Service Delivery Agreements. Other targets devised by Departments, their agencies and non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) do not fall within the framework of "performance targets" as established by the Treasury. All the formal performance targets for HM Treasury and its agencies—the Debt Management Office, the National Investment and Loans Office and the Office of Government Commerce—are set out in HM Treasury's 2002 departmental report (Cm 5425), which is due to be published shortly. The NDPBs for which the Chancellor is responsible—the Public Services Productivity Panel, the Statistics Commission and the Royal Mint Advisory Committee on the Design of Coins, Medals, Seals and Decorations—publish information, following best practice, on their role and achievements in their annual reports, but do not have performance targets that are within the framework as defined above.

  Wales

  England2

  Scotland

  Barnett

  Non-Barnett3

  Northern Ireland

  (£000)

  (Percentage)

  (£000)

  (Percentage)

  (£000)

  (Percentage)

  (£000)

  (Percentage)

  (£000)

  (Percentage)

  2000–01

  60,444

  87.3

  4,997

  7.2

  2,269

  3.3

  —

  —

  1,561

  2.3

  2001–02

  61,073

  81.8

  8,802

  11.8

  4,189

  5.6

  325

  0.4

  318

  0.4

  2002–03

  69,080

  87.3

  5,702

  7.2

  2,665

  3.4

  —

  —

  1,717

  2.2

  1 This table give the total amount allocated to projects for their duration, this will not necessarily be the amount drawn down by Departments in that year.

  2 This includes ISB projects with a UK wide scope.

  3 Projects with only Welsh police as partners.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on the Community's own resources 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. [58437]

  Ruth Kelly
  The roles and responsibilities of the Advisory Committee on the Communities' Own Resources are set out in Articles 20 and 21 of Council Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No. 1150/2000.

  During the past 12 months, the committee has met on five occasions (two for Traditional Own Resources, one for VAT, one for Forecasting and one for Audit). In accordance with Article 20 of Regulation No. 1150/2000, each member state shall be represented on the committee by no more than five officials. The UK is usually represented by one or two officials from HM Customs and Excise except in the case of the Forecasting meeting which is usually attended by two officials from HM Treasury and one from HM Customs and Excise.

  Invest to Save Budget
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what total funding allocation has been awarded to the Invest to Save Budget for the financial years(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02, (c) 2002–03 and (d) 2003–04; and what the breakdown was of expenditure in monetary terms and percentage terms per annum for (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland. [60636]

  Mr. Boateng
  In the years 2000–01,2001–02,2002–03 funding was allocated to projects in England, with funds allocated to the other regions in accordance with the Barnett consequentials calculations. The exceptions to this were projects whose scope encompassed the UK. It should be noted that projects led by the police in Wales are eligible for funding under the allocation for England as the Police Service for England and Wales is still a unitary body.

  Allocations for England in 2003–04 are dependant on the successful bids from the fifth bidding round of ISB. With allocations to the other regions being decided in accordance with the Barnett consequentials calculations. The maximum budget for 2003–04 is £50 million for all regions.

  Allocations in 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03 were as follows (figures rounded up)1

  The information regarding the annual cost of the Committee's work to public funds can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  The items currently under consideration by the Advisory Committee are questions concerning the application of the regulation especially in relation to financial statements and irregularity reports provided by member states, inspection from the Commission, and audit procedures.

  Accountability and transparency to Parliament is ensured by the regular EU scrutiny process. After consulting the Advisory Committee the Commission produces a summary report for the previous financial year which is sent to the European Parliament and Council. The report is submitted to Parliament with an Explanatory Memorandum which is examined by the Scrutiny Committees.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Confidentiality of Statistics Committee 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
  857W
  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. [58445]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Bercow, dated May 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the European Union Confidentiality of Statistics Committee. (58445)
  The roles and responsibilities of the Confidentiality of Statistics Committee are set out in articles 7 and 8 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) 1588/90 of 11 June 1990.
  Since the start of May 2001, the Committee has met twice. The UK is represented by one senior official from the Office for National Statistics.
  The information regarding the annual cost of the Committee's work to public funds can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  The Committee is purely advisory. It deals with general issues relating to ensuring that data provided in European releases to the public and researchers maintain the confidentiality of individual's information and advises the Commission accordingly.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Committee on monetary, financial and balance-of-payments statistics 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. [58443]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Bercow, dated May 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the European Union Committee on Monetary, Financial and Balance of payments statistics (CMFB). (58443)
  The role and responsibilities of the CMFB are set out in European Council Decision 91/I15/EEC of 25 February 1991, amended by Council Decision 96/174/EC of 26 February 1996.
  Since the start of May 2001, the Committee met twice. The UK is represented by one senior official from the Office for National Statistics and one representative from the Bank of England.
  The information regarding the annual cost of the Committee's work to public funds can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  Items currently under consideration include statistical requirements for the conduct of monetary policy in the euroarea, financial services statistics, structural indicators, public finance statistics, quality indicators and developments in balance of payments statistical collection systems.
  The Committee is purely advisory with its opinion published alongside relevant Eurostat Decisions.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Committee on the European Communities Statistics Programme 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 858W
  its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [58439]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Bercow, dated May 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the European Union Statistical Policy Committee. (58439)
  The role and responsibilities of the Statistical Policy Committee (SPC) are set out in Council Decision 89/382/EEC(Eurotom) of 19 June 1989.
  Since the start of May 2001, the SPC met four times. As National Statistician I am the UK representative, with the Committee rules allowing an alternate.
  The information regarding the annual cost of the Committee's work to public funds can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  The Committee is currently discussing a range of issues related to the requirements for European statistics. In addition, the SPC is the nominated comitology committee for a range of EU statistical legislation.
  Proposals for significant statistical legislation are subject to co-decision. They are submitted to Parliament along with Explanatory Memoranda and are examined by the Scrutiny Committees. Minor changes are subject to comitology procedures.
  Together with Member States, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the European Advisory Committee on statistical information in the economic and social spheres (CEIES) 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. [58442]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Bercow, dated May 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the European Advisory Committee on Statistical Information in the Economic and Social Spheres (CEIES). (58442)
  The role and responsibilities of the CEIES are set out in Decision 91/116/EEC of 25 February 1991. As National Statistician I am a member of CEIES. In addition, the Council may appoint 2 representatives from each member state. These members act in a personal and honorary capacity.
  The information regarding the annual cost of the Committee's work to public funds can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  CEIES is purely advisory. It assists the Council and Commission to undertake statistical policy decided by the EU. They advise on the objectives, priorities, and nature of information require to support EU policy.

  859W
  Since the start of May 2001, the committee met once in plenary and organised thematic seminars as follows:

  Labour market statistics—towards enlargement 14–15 November 2002

  Innovative solutions to providing micro-data 26–27 September 2002

  Active aging 13–14 May 2002

  The economy: Key measurement issues 4–5 March 2002

  Agricultural statistics and consumer information—meeting new needs 19–20 November 2001

  Inflation in Europe—different measures and their uses 45 October 2001

  Measuring lifelong learning 25–26 June 2001

  Health and safety at work EU statistics 10–11 March 2001

  Attendance at thematic seminars organised by the Committee is by open invitation.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the mandate of the EEC-Latvia Customs Co-operation Subcommittee 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; [59032]

  (2) what the mandate of the Customs Co-operation Committee (EEC-Turkey) 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; [59047]

  (3) what the mandate of the Customs Section of the Joint Committee (EEC-Norway) 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; [59053]

  (4) what the mandate of the EEC-Slovak Republic Customs Co-operation Subcommittee 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; [59026]

  (5) what the mandate of the Customs section of the Joint Committee (EEC-Switzerland-Liechtenstein) 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; [59051]

  (6) what the mandate of the Customs Section of the Joint Committee (EEC-Iceland) 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;
  860W
  if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement; [59052]

  (7) what the mandate of the European Economic Area Joint Committee 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; [59041]

  (8) what the mandate of the EEC-Poland Customs Co-operation Subcommittee 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; [59030]

  (9) what the mandate of the EEC-San Marino Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee 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; [59043]

  (10) what the mandate of the EEC-Cyprus Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee 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; [59045]

  (11) what the mandate of the EEC-European Free Trade Association Joint Committee (and working parties) 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; [59050]

  (12) what the mandate of the EEC-Canada Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee 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; [59049]

  (13) what the mandate of the EEC-Malta Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee 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; [59044]

  (14) what the mandate of the EEC-Korea Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee 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;

  861W
  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; [59048]

  (15) what the mandate of the EEC-Russia Customs Co-operation Subcommittee 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; [59027]

  (16) what the mandate of the EEC-Czech Republic Customs Co-operation Subcommittee 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; [59029]

  (17) what the mandate of the EEC-Estonia Customs Co-operation Subcommittee 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; [59034]

  (18) what the mandate of the EEC-Romania Customs Co-operation Subcommittee 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; [59028]

  (19) what the mandate of the EEC-Hungary Customs Co-operation Subcommittee 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; [59033]

  (20) what the mandate of the EEC-Andorra Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee 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; [59046]

  (21) what the mandate of the EEC-Bulgaria Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee 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; [59035]

  (22) what the mandate of the EEC-Albania Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation
  862W
  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; [59036]

  (23) what the mandate of the EEC-Slovenia customs Co-operation Subcommittee 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; [59025]

  (24) what the mandate of the Joint Committee (EEC-Switzerland) on the simplification of inspections and formalities (and working party) 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; [59037]

  (25) what the mandate of the Joint Committees with the countries of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) 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; [59040]

  (26) what the mandate of the EEC-Lithuania Customs Co-operation Subcommittee 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. [59031]

  Mr. Boateng
  All of the committees listed have been set up by the council in accordance with obligations under agreements between the EC and the third country or economic grouping in question. They normally meet annually (one year Brussels, the following year in the subject country). Their aim is to maintain co-operation agreements in the customs field, particularly in exchanging information.

  HM Customs attends preparatory council meetings (approximately six per year) which co-ordinate, as part of a wide ranging agenda, for the bilateral EC/third country committee meetings.

  Travel expenses for two officials are reimbursed by the Commission. The usual cost of overnight accommodation and subsistence per day per official is 217.95 euro (£134.70). HM Customs officials do not normally attend the bilateral meetings.

  In the Customs area, the EC has exclusive competence and leads in the bilateral meetings, normally accompanied by the member state holding the presidency. If, exceptionally, there is a point of direct interest to the UK, representatives from the permanent representation in Brussels would attend the meeting.
  863W
  Accountability and transparency to Parliament are ensured by the regular EU scrutiny process. Prior to agreement at the various councils (ECOFIN, JHA, GAC), documents are submitted to Parliament along with explanatory memoranda and are examined by the European Scrutiny Committees.

  EEC-Albania Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59036)

  Customs Section of the Joint Committee (EEC-Iceland) (59052)

  EEC-Romania Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59028)

  EEC-Malta Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59044)

  European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) (59040)

  EEC-Latvia Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59032)

  EEC-Korea Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59048)

  EEC-Poland Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59030)

  EEC-Andora Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59046)

  EEC-Slovak Republic Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59026)

  EEC-Estonia Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59034)

  EEC-European Free Trade Association Joint Committee (and working parties) (59050)

  Joint Committee (EEC-Switzerland) on the simplification of inspections and formalities (and working party) (50937)

  Customs Section of the Joint Committee (EEC-Norway) (59053)

  EEC-Czech Republic Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59029)

  EEC-Cyprus Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59045)

  EEC-Slovenia Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59025)

  European Economic Area Joint Committee (59041)

  EEC-Hungary Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59033)

  EEC-Canada Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59049)

  EEC-Lithuania Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59031)

  Customs Co-operation Committee (EEC-Turkey) (59047)

  EEC-Russia Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59027)

  EEC-San Marino Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59043)

  EEC-Bulgaria Customs Co-operation Sub-Committee (59035)

  Customs section of the Joint Committee (EEC-Switzerland-Liechtenstein) (59051).

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Committee on the harmonisation of the compilation of gross national product at market prices 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. [58444]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Bercow, dated May 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the Harmonisation of the Compilation of Gross National Product at Market Prices Committee. (58444)
  The role and responsibilities of the Harmonisation of the Compilation of Gross National Product at Market Prices Committee are set out in Council Directive 89/130 EEC (Euratom) of 13 February 1989.
  The GNPmp committee has met twice since May 2001. The UK is represented by one senior official from the Office for National Statistics.
  864W
  The information regarding the annual cost of the Committee's work to public funds can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  The committee is currently discussing a range of issues relating to methodologies used in constructing the estimate of GNP and outstanding reservations under ESA79. It also ratified member countries' GNP returns prior to submission to the European Court of Auditors. In addition, the Committee is the nominated comitology committee for a range of EU National Accounts statistical legislation.
  Proposals for significant statistical legislation are subject to co-decision. They are submitted to Parliament along with Explanatory Memoranda and are examined by the Scrutiny Committees. Minor changes are subject to comitology procedures.
  Together with Member States, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/ 468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Corn (2001) 783 Final.

  Suicides
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many suicides took place(a) on the Isle of Wight and (b) in (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [60531]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Andrew Turner, dated 10 June 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many suicides took place (a) on the Isle of Wight, (b) in (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. I am replying in his absence. (60531)
  The most recently available information is for deaths in 2000. Figures for each year from 1997 to 2000 are given in the table below.

  Number of deaths from suicide and undetermined whether purposely inflicted or not1 occurring (a) on the Isle of Wight and (b) in (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland, 1997 to 20002

  Calendar year

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  (a) Isle of Wight

  9

  20

  22

  15

  (b)(i) England

  4,685

  4,830

  4,857

  4,618

  (ii) Scotland

  874

  878

  874

  876

  (iii) Wales

  296

  324

  331

  303

  (iv) Northern Ireland

  139

  144

  145

  194

  1 Causes of death were defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes E950–E959 and E980–E989 excluding E988.8 in England and Wales, E950–E959 and E980–E989 in Northern Ireland, and E950–59 and E980–E989 in Scotland for 1997 to 1999. For Scotland data for 2000 were defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes X60–X84 and Y10–Y34

  2 Figures for England and Wales are for deaths occurring in each calendar year. Figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are for deaths registered in each calendar year.

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many penalty notices for £0.00 have been issued by the Inland Revenue in respect of late submission of
  865W
  self-assessment forms in each year for which figures are available since the self-assessment regime was introduced. [59904]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not hold details of the number of nil penalty notices issued in respect of self assessment returns submitted late.

  The Budget
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the amounts(a) in current prices, (b) in constant 2000–01 prices and (c) as percentages of personal income taken by (i) income taxes, (ii) national insurance contributions, (iii) value-added tax, (iv) other central Government indirect taxes, (v) the aggregate of (i) to (iv), (vi) average council tax payments and (vii) the aggregate of (i) to (iv) for (1) a single person, (2) a married couple without children, both working and (3) a married couple with two children, husband in work, wife not working, in each case as at (A) 50, (B) 75, (C) 100, (D) 150 and (E) 200 per cent. of average earnings for the financial year 2001–02, taking account of changes announced in his Budget statement and previously announced changes and for each of the years (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000, (e) 2000–01 and (f) 2001–02. [51785]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The measures announced in the most recent Budget (including those measures announced just prior to the Budget) have no impact on the years from 1996–97 to 2001–02.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are expected to pay income tax in each of the next four years. [55413]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Available estimates of the number of income taxpayers are given in the table.

  Year

  Number (thousands)

  1999–2000

  27,000

  2000–011

  27,900

  2001–022

  27,800

  2002–032

  28,300

  2003–042

  29,700

  1 Provisional

  2 Projected

  These estimates are based upon the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the April 2002 Budget.

  Consultation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many consultation documents and consultative drafts of legislation have been issued by his Department since January 2001; and what proportion of these have observed Criterion 5 of the Code of Practice on Written Consultation. [57010]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has issued 37 consultation documents since January 2001. A list of consultations including their launch dates and closing dates is available on the Treasury's website at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.

  Royalty Tax
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what legislative arrangements are necessary for the abolition of royalty tax on UK oil and gas production. [58743]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government intend, subject to consultation on the appropriate timing, to abolish North sea royalty. Royalty is paid as one of the considerations for petroleum production licences issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but only in respect of production from oil and gas fields for which development consent was given before 1 April 1982. The Government propose that the abolition of North sea royalty from these fields will be achieved by an irrevocable renunciation of the right to take royalty from licensees from the date chosen for abolition. I expect to issue a consultation paper on this subject to industry in the near future.

  Energy Efficiency
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost to the Treasury will be(a) at the outset of its introduction and (b) projected in the next three years of moneys redirected from the Climate Change Levy revenues to the Carbon Trust, broken down into (i) the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme, (ii) the Environment and Energy Helpline, (iii) Administration of the Enhanced Capital Allowance Scheme for investments in energy-saving technologies, (iv) the Low Carbon Innovation Programme and (v) other programmes or schemes. [53737]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Carbon Trust was set up in April 2001 by the UK Government to help UK business and public sectors to move towards a sustainable, low carbon economy while maintaining business competitiveness. The Carbon Trust has initial allocations of around £31 million per year of climate change levy (CCL) receipts for its first three years.

  The allocation of expenditure by the Carbon Trust between its activities is a matter for the Carbon Trust, subject to ministerial approval of its overall programme. However, I understand that the Carbon Trust expects to allocate around £75 million to the Low Carbon Innovation Programme over three years, subject to annual approval.

  In addition the trust expects to allocate approximately £1.5 million of CCL receipts this financial year to manage, develop and promote the Enhanced Capital Allowance scheme which the trust is soon to take over. The remainder of the Carbon Trust CCL receipts will be used to support the development and enhancement of its other programmes, including the Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme, for which it will receive separate funding from DEFRA.

  The Carbon Trust will he regularly assessing the effectiveness of its programmes and expects to revisit the funding allocations between its activities under review.

  Tax Concessions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for
  867W
  Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 24 April 2002, Official Report, column 336W, on tax concessions, what the time scale is for the review; whether there will be a specific review team; whether there will be (a) external and (b) independent advisers; and whether external consultations will be carried out. [59864]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor announced a review of the residence and domicile rules as they affect the tax liabilities of individuals in his Budget statement. The work of the review is being undertaken by the Inland Revenue and HM Treasury. They are facilitating consultation by writing directly to representative bodies and other interested parties, inviting their contributions. They would also be pleased to hear from other sources. The Government will report on this issue in time for the pre-Budget report.

  Earnings and Income
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many non-domiciled residents of the UK are residents for tax purposes in the UK and have earnings and income in other tax jurisdictions. [60014]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that this information is not available.

  National Insurance Fund
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the surplus in the National Insurance Fund was in each of the last five years. [59813]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The available figures for Great Britain are provided in the table. These figures were provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  Year

  Surplus (£ million)1

  1997–98

  1,871

  1998–99

  2,669

  1999–2000

  2,161

  2000–2001

  4,841

  2001–02

  4,793

  1 Excess of receipts over payments

  Self-employment
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of self-employed likely to incorporate as a result of the corporation tax changes and changes to national insurance contributions for the self-employed announced in the Budget. [60588]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Possible behavioural responses to Budget measures, including increased levels of incorporations, informed the careful analysis of the Exchequer effects set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. It is not normal Government practice to give details of the underlying analysis.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the non-revenue benefits for(a) the self-employed and (b) the Treasury which derive from the trend of greater incorporation of self-employed businesses. [60589]
  868W
  John Healey
  Businesses themselves are best placed to assess the relative benefits of different legal structures, and to decide which is most appropriate for them. Incorporation, self-employment and partnership each offers a range of benefits to small businesses. The choice as to whether to incorporate or not is influenced by multiple factors, many of which are firm-specific, for example the personal circumstances of the owner(s).

  Government policy is to raise UK productivity by creating an environment which stimulates enterprise. Our economy will benefit from successful, growing businesses whatever structure those businesses choose to use.

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  David Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the policy of the Government on changing the fees paid by industrial and provident societies; and if he will make a statement. [60760]

  Ruth Kelly
  The setting of fees is the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority in relation to the duties it performs under the relevant industrial and provident societies Acts. The Government are aware of concerns that have been expressed about the fee structure being developed by the FSA. However, the new level of fees has not yet been finalised and through consultation the FSA is seeking to ensure that the interests of the sector are fully considered.

  Highly Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money is held in trust for highly indebted poor countries. [60287]

  John Healey
  As of the end of 2001. the UK has been holding in trust a total of £1,057,200 for six countries. We continue to use international and bilateral meetings to urge other creditors to follow our lead on this policy.

  Projected Revenues
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2002,Official Report, column 933W, on projected revenues, what proportion of the change in forecast capital receipts is due to the maturing of capital gains tax taper relief; and if he will make a statement. [60395]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Table C7 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report shows capital gains tax receipts are forecast to fall from £2.9 billion in 2001–02 to £1.8 billion in 2002–03. Around 20 per cent. of this forecast reduction in receipts is attributable to the maturing of capital gains tax taper relief.

  Stamp Duty
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 May 2002,Official Report, column 886W, on stamp duty, how many properties in financial year 1999–2000 were sold in designated wards where the consideration did not exceed £150,000; and if he will make a statement. [60416]
  869W
  John Healey
  The stamp duty relief for disadvantaged areas came into force on 30 November 2001. Since that date we have exempted from stamp duty properties in qualifying areas where the consideration or premium for a lease does not exceed £150,000. We estimate the number of properties sold in 1999–20000 for a consideration of less than £150,000 in the subsequently qualifying wards to be in the region of 120,000 (of which about 40,000 are estimated to have a consideration of greater than £60,000).

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the European Commission investigation into stamp duty relief for deprived areas; what steps are being taken to ensure a speedy resolution of the investigation; what impact the continuation of the investigation has on the implementation of his policy on stamp duty relief for deprived areas; and if he will use other forms of financial support for development in these areas. [59815]

  John Healey
  The extension of the stamp duty relief for disadvantaged areas for non-residential property above the £150,000 limit is currently subject to a state aid investigation by the Commission. Such investigations are normal for an innovative scheme such as this which does not conform precisely with any existing Commission guidelines. The investigation is necessary to establish whether the measure will adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest and it gives interested parties, including other member states, a chance to comment. We are working closely with the European Commission to progress matters as quickly as possible. Those purchasing property for amounts up to £150,000 in the areas which qualify for the relief are already benefiting from the measure. In addition to the stamp duty relief, the Urban White Paper fiscal measures package provided a cut in VAT to 5 per cent. to encourage renovation and conversion of existing property; 100 per cent. capital allowances for creating flats over shops, 150 per cent. accelerated tax credits to help clean-up contaminated land; and the Government are now implementing the Community Development Venture Fund which will also support enterprise and regeneration in these areas.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research his Department has carried out to ascertain whether fuel duty differential encourages people to buy more environmentally friendly cars. [59707]

  John Healey
  Fuel duty differentials have proved very successful in encouraging the introduction of cleaner fuels such as ultra-low sulphur petrol and diesel throughout the UK. In addition, favourable duty rates for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) combined with purchase grants through the Government sponsored PowerShift programme have led to a substantial increase in the number of LPG vehicles from less than 6,000 in 1996 to around 65,000 now.

  Labour-only Subcontractors
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many labour-only subcontractors are registered in the United Kingdom; and how many were registered in(a) 2000 and (b) 1999. [59651]
  870W
  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that it would be possible to provide an answer only at disproportionate cost.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total revenues were he would have received during 2001–02 as a result of the climate change levy, had all those eligible paid the levy at the full amount. [60479]

  John Healey
  Projected revenue and revenue outturns from the climate change levy were published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2002 in Table C.7. Projected revenues from individual measures (including exemptions) are in Table A.1 and are discussed on page 167. There is no reliable estimate for the cost of the reduced rate for energy intensive users and horticultural producers.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  "Open to Change"
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the "Open to Change" advertisements have cost to run in national and local media; and if he will make a statement. [41340]

  Mr. McCartney
  The cost of the "Open to Change" campaign is £2.78 million.

  "Open to Change" builds on two successful earlier campaigns to promote the DDA and the Disability Rights Commission. This campaign was designed to increase awareness and understanding of the DDA among specifically small and medium sized service providers. In particular, "Open to Change" publicises how these providers will have to make their services accessible to disabled people under the final phase of the Act, which comes into force in 2004.

  The campaign encourages service providers to take action, seek advice on how their business could be adapted to meet legal requirements and improve the services they offer to disabled customers. It signposts SMEs to the Disability Rights Commission as a source of advice and support.

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make it his policy that rail journeys undertaken by staff in his Department should ordinarily be on standard class tickets. [40449]

  Mr. McCartney
  DWP staff are advised to use the most efficient and economic means of travel having regard to the management benefit and the needs of disabled people. The guidance issued has regard to these principles outlined in section 8 of the Civil Service Management Code.

  Within DWP the use of public transport is encouraged as part of our environmental programme and rail travel is ordinarily standard class. However, senior executive officer grades and above who are a minority of the total number of staff undertaking business journeys in DWP are entitled to travel first or executive class as one of their 'Terms and Conditions' of Employment. This is approved on the basis that the additional space and less crowding

  871W
  enables these people to work while they are travelling as well as affording greater privacy for the handling of sensitive papers. For long distance peak-time services the additional cost involved is more than offset by the work produced and time saved. All staff are expected to travel standard class when the length of the journey is insufficient to enable them to work productively.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was spent by departmental special advisers on food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks for official entertainment purposes in each of the last five years. [46850]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 9 April 2002]: Nothing. Special advisers are not permitted to authorise such expenditure.

  New Deal
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance he issues on the proportion of money allocated to training under the new deal to be spent on(a) administration and (b) training delivery. [53744]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  No guidance is issued on the proportion of money allocated to new deal training which may be spent on administration and delivery.

  Contracting staff in Jobcentre Plus follow guidance on how to evaluate and approve bids from organisations interested in delivering new deal provision. The guidance contains criteria against which the quality of how a provider intends to deliver their services are measured. This guidance, the Approved Provider Procurement and Contracting Guidance, is commercial in confidence. However, organisations wishing to contract with Jobcentre Plus are provided with supporting information at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the contracting process. This includes a high level overview of both the evidence required to support the application to gain 'approved' status and the evaluation criteria used within the competitive bidding round

  The providers who win the contracts are monitored during the life of the contract to ensure that they deliver to the standards they proposed in their bids and to support continuous improvement in the quality of their delivery.

  In addition, new deal provider guidance supplements the delivery, quality and administrative requirements which are set out in provider contracts by detailing the records providers need to retain to support audit trail requirements.

  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Battersea constituency found permanent employment as a result of New Deal for(a) long-term unemployed 25 plus, (b) lone parents, (c) disabled people and (d) 50 plus in each of the years since they were introduced. [55802]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the table.
  872W

  Total number of people entering sustained employment1 in Battersea, up to the end of January 2002

  New Deal 25 plus2

  New Deal for Lone Parents3

  New Deal 50 plus3

  1998–99

  37

  8

  4—

  1999–2000

  72

  62

  4—

  2000–01

  70

  69

  12

  2001–02

  54

  49

  22

  Total

  233

  188

  34

  1 Sustained employment is defined as employment lasting more than 13 weeks.

  2 In April 2001 New Deal 25 plus was extended and enhanced, to provide a flexible, more individually-tailored service to help more people get jobs and remain in them.

  3 Figures for sustained employment are not available for the New Deal for Lone Parents and the New Deal 50 plus. The figures given are therefore the total number of jobs gained.

  4 Figures not available as the New Deal 50 plus was only introduced nationally from April 2000.

  Note:

  Information on the New Deal for Disabled People is not available at constituency level.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Battersea constituency have benefited from the New Deal. [55801]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Our New Deal programmes have helped nearly 1,000 people into work in Battersea. Detailed information is in the table which follows. As well as those who have been helped to jobs, many more have benefited from the programmes in other ways. The New Deals give people the skills, experience and confidence to improve their prospects of getting a job in the future.

  Programme

  Total number of participants up to the end of January 2002

  Total number of people entering jobs up to the end of January 2002

  New Deal for Young People

  11,274

  467

  New Deal 25 plus

  11,243

  284

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  508

  188

  New Deal 50 plus

  34

  34

  1 A number of these participants will have remained on the programmes beyond January, and of these many will enter jobs as a result of their participation.

  Note:

  Information on the New Deal for Disabled People and the New Deal for Partners is not available at constituency level.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Benefit Administration Costs
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the(a) total cost and (b) cost per claimant of administering (i) retirement pension, (ii) winter fuel payments, (iii) free television licences for the over 75s, (iv) minimum income guarantee, (v) child benefit, (vi) family credit and (vii) housing benefit. [50989]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information is not held in the format requested. The Department accounts for its administrative, and programme, expenditure in accordance with its key objectives, which are published in the Department's Public Service Agreement (PSA), and the individual Requests for Resources (RfRs), which are published in the Department's Main Estimate.

  Advisory Commission Mandate
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the mandate of the Audit Board of the Administrative Commission on social security for migrant workers 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. [55236]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Audit Board works under the authority of the Administrative Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers, which has issued Decisions defining its composition and working methods as specified in Article 101 of Regulation (EEC) 574–72. The functions of the Audit Board are set out in Article 102 of that Regulation. Its duties in practice relate exclusively to health care costs. Specifically, it is tasked to collect the data and perform the calculations required by Title V of Regulation 574–72, to give the Administrative Commission details of the implementation of Regulations (EEC) 1408–71 and 574–72 particularly as they relate to health care finance, to submit to the Administrative Commission proposals on the calculation of annual average healthcare costs in respect of each member state, to lay before the Administrative Commission each year a statement of the healthcare costs claims position between the member states, and to carry out such other work as may be referred by the Administrative Commission.

  The Audit Board normally meets twice a year in Brussels. It is chaired by the presidency of the day, and UK representation is normally two or three officials from the Department of Health. Costs to UK public funds are limited to expenses of approximately £550 per person for a one-day visit and £700 for a two-day visit, less any reimbursement provided by the European Commission.

  The next meeting of the Audit Board will last one day and will consider the annual average cost papers submitted by seven member states together with work on the annual statement of claims. Any proposals made by the Audit Board to the Administrative Commission would, if subsequently adopted by the European Commission, then be subject to UK parliamentary scrutiny.

  Domestic Violence
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has to amend regulations to provide benefits to survivors of domestic violence subject to the one year immigration rule; [58595]

  (2) what plans he has to amend regulations to exempt survivors of domestic violence subject to the one year rule on immigration from the non-recourse to public funds rule. [58597]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Provisions already exist to allow victims of domestic violence to claim social security benefits. Provided that the Home Office is satisfied that a874W
  marriage has broken down due to domestic violence, it can apply a concession to the one year immigration rule, giving the victim indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, and therefore access to the benefits system.

  We have no plans to introduce regulations to give people who are subject to the one year immigration rule access to benefits before the Home Office has considered the particular circumstances of a case and has proof of domestic violence. To do so would undermine the general principle that those who are subject to immigration control have no access to the benefits system.

  Verification Framework
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 23 April 2002,Official Report, column 202W, on the verification framework, if he will place a copy of 'The Cost of the Verification Framework', DSS Operational Research, Analytical Services Division 2A, published in April 2001, in the Library. [59320]

  Malcolm Wicks
  A copy of the survey report has been placed in the Library.

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans his Department has in place to educate benefits claimants regarding the use of automated credit transfer when it is introduced for payments in 2003. [59191]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department is currently planning an information campaign to give customers the information they need about the move to paying directly into bank/building society accounts.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many families with children in Glasgow, Cathcart constituency have moved out of poverty since 1 May 1997. [58876]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Poverty is a complex multidimensional issue, affecting many aspects of children's lives—including income, health, housing, the quality of their environment and opportunities to learn. There is therefore no single measure of the number of families with children that have moved out of poverty in the Glasgow, Cathcart constituency.

  Departmental Sponsors
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which hon. Members have been appointed as sponsors to his Department since 7 June 2001; and when each of them were appointed. [59971]

  Mr. McCartney
  Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will answer the questions regarding SchlumbergerSema and his plans to publish the Department's report on medical services' performance against quality targets tabled on 1 May. [59294]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave to him on 23 May 2002, Official Report, column 541W.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to the question from the hon. member for Northavon, of 17 April, ref, 50989. [60519]

  Mr. McCartney
  I have answered the question today.

  Table of consultation

  Number of respondents

  Percentage of those specifically consulted who responded

  Amending the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979

  13

  15

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

  29

  51.7

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

  17

  30

  Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Contracting-out)—draft miscellaneous amending regulations

  75

  47

  Changes to Invalid Care Allowance

  133

  30

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

  140

  19

  Private Pensions Simplification

  119

  53

  Bulk transfer of accrued pensions rights without member consent

  19

  43

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

  1

  Consultation exercise on Pension Scheme Trustees, Independent Custodians and Encouraging Shareholder

  102

  120

  Activism

  232

  31

  Member nominated trustees and directors

  22

  30

  1 Overall

  1 GB

  3 Northern Ireland

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list for each NDPB and agency sponsored by his Department(a) the maximum retirement age adopted for most employees and (b) their practice on not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59297]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) sponsors 10 Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs), as follows:

  Non Departmental Public Bodies Sponsored By DWP

  Executive Bodies

  Disability Rights Commission (DRC)

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra)

  Pensions Compensation Board (PCB)

  Remploy Ltd

  Advisory Bodies

  Disability Employment Advisory Committee (DEAC)

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board (DLAAB)

  Industrial Injury Advisory Council (IIAC)

  National Employment Panel (NEP)

  Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC)

  Tribunal Bodies

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [60147]

  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 for Education and Employment. The data requested are included in the table. Consultation documents are issued directly to interested parties which the Department recognises have a special interest in the issue. In accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice they are also published on the departmental and UK online websites.

  Of these, only the Executive Bodies actually employ staff.

  Disability Rights Commission (DRC)

  DRC employ staff directly and have no restriction on the age at which employees retire. In addition they have no upper age limit for applicants.

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra)

  Opra directly employ staff and also have a number of DWP staff (civil servants) on loan:

  For those staff directly employed by Opra there is no maximum retirement age. However, these staff are part of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme and as such will be governed by the pension scheme rules. The rules for DWP staff on loan are the same as for the rest of the department, namely that they can choose when they retire between ages 60 and 65.

  There is no maximum age restriction for new staff recruited by Opra (as DWP staff on loan to Opra leave, they are replaced by Opra employees).

  Pensions Ombudsman (PO)

  The staff employed by PO are actually civil servants and are therefore covered by the PCSPS rules, ie the normal retirement age being 60, but with staff having the option of staying on up to 65.

  Remploy

  Remploy directly employs staff and the maximum retirement age for most employees is 65. They have no restrictions on the age of people recruited.

  877W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his Department enforces a maximum retirement age for most staff; and whether it has a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59296]

  Mr. McCartney
  Civil Service equal opportunities policy provides that all eligible people must have equality of opportunity for employment and advancement on the basis of their suitability for the work. There must be no unfair discrimination on the basis of age, disability, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, or (in Northern Ireland) community background.

  All L/C in DWP, below the Senior Civil Service, are able to choose to remain in employment beyond the age of 60 for any period of time up to the age of 65. Staff over age 60 are subject to the same terms and conditions as staff under age 60. No special reviews of performance are applied.

  The Department's flexible approach to age retirement allows staff to continue to work in their current grade and, subject to business need, to seek promotion to a higher grade or voluntarily to downgrade. Subject to business need staff may also choose to work full or part time.

  In line with the Civil Service equal opportunities policy, applications for employment or reinstatement are considered from individuals up to the retirement age of 65.

  British Sign Language
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to recognise British Sign Language as an official language; and if he will make a statement. 160117]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to the hon. Member for Coventry South, (Mr. Jim Cunningham), on 14 May 2002,Official Report, column 582W.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to have British Sign Language recognised as an official language. [60714]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 14 May 2002,Official Report, column 582W.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will commission an independent study of the demography of the British Sign Language community. [60118]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department has undertaken some feasibility work into a research project on the incidence and demography of BSL use. This involved discussions with research organisations, academics, and a meeting with representatives of organisations of and for deaf people. The work identified concerns about the robustness of the data which such a project might produce, its 878W
  acceptability to stakeholders including deaf people themselves and the length of time it would take. We are considering what other research might be undertaken which would add to our understanding of the extent of BSL use and demography.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many British Sign Language interpreters there are in the UK. [60116]

  Maria Eagle
  There is no central record of the number of people working as British Sign Language interpreters in the UK. The Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People, The Association of Sign Language Interpreters, and the Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters all maintain directories of BSL interpreters registered with their respective organisations. These do not, however, provide a comprehensive record of interpreters both active and available for assignment. The Department will shortly publish a research report that includes an examination of BSL interpreter provision in England, Scotland and Wales. The field work was undertaken in 1999 and 2000. Preliminary estimates are that 257 qualified and trainee interpreters were available for work in England and Wales and 27 in Scotland.

  Benefit Payment Methods
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to pay state benefits weekly into bank or building society accounts; and if he will make a statement on his policy in this regard. [60177]

  Malcolm Wicks
  From 2003, customers will be able to receive payments into their bank/building society accounts on a weekly, fortnightly, four-weekly, 13-weekly or yearly basis. The precise frequency will depend on the payment rules which apply to the particular benefit they are receiving.

  Housing Benefit
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what representations he has received to review the operation of housing benefit rules, with specific reference to the clawback threshold; [60059]

  (2) what representations he has received on the amendment of the housing benefit rules in respect of accommodation for homeless people. [60060]

  Malcolm Wicks
  When a homeless person in temporary accommodation provided by a local authority claims housing benefit, the local authority must pay the full amount of benefit in respect of the rent for which the homeless person is liable. However, the amount of subsidy paid to reimburse local authorities for benefit paid in these circumstances is subject to a threshold above which only a proportion of benefit is reimbursed, and a cap, above which nothing is reimbursed. These limits are intended to ensure that the tax-payer does not subsidise unreasonably expensive accommodation. However, there are no circumstances in which we will "claw back" subsidy.
  879W
  From April 2002, we introduced changes to the subsidy limits to encourage local authorities to use better quality accommodation in housing homeless people, and to ensure that even more families have the chance of a more permanent home. From that date, the subsidy rate for privately-leased accommodation was increased, while the rate for board and lodging accommodation remained the same.

  There have been no formal representations about these changes.

  New Direct Bank
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer of 20 May 2002,Official Report, column 48W, on the New Direct Bank, what the basis was for the statement by Baroness Hollis on 23 April, regarding benefits being paid via new direct banks. [60450]

  Malcolm Wicks
  This was a convenient turn of phrase used by my noble Friend the Minister for Children and the Family (Baroness Hollis), during the Second Reading of the Tax Credits Bill in another place. It was not intended to intimate an official name change for the universal banking services package currently being developed by the Post Office.

  Pension Service
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) of 20 May 2002,Official Report, column 32W, on the Pension Service, if he will list the areas in which a direct local service has been introduced since 1 April. [60518]

  Mr. McCartney
  The local service is being introduced on a phased basis from 1 April 2002 and, on current planning assumptions, will be in place nationwide by October 2002. In the meantime we will continue to provide a full service to our customers as we do currently, for example home visits, caller services in DWP offices, local information/outreach work and the central claims lines. Our customers will continue to deal with their local social security office until the national service is in place.

  At this early stage, we are undertaking preparatory work and are making good progress. Recruitment is well under way and a full training programme is also in place to ensure that our staff are equipped with the necessary tools to provide an improved and dedicated service to our customers.

  Pensions
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of the basic

  £

  National pay range

  Outer London pay range

  Inner London pay range

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Administrative assistant

  9,120

  11,940

  10,940

  13,880

  11,750

  14,700

  Administrative officer

  11,020

  14,710

  12,920

  16,880

  13,720

  17,700

  Executive officer

  14,770

  19,920

  16,050

  21,860

  16,850

  22,680

  880W
  state pension in (a) 2010, (b) 2020, (c) 2030, (d) 2040 and (e) 2050 if increased in line with (i) prices and (ii) earnings. [41194]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is in the table.

  Expenditure on basic state pension

  £ billion

  Price up-rating

  Earnings up-rating

  2010

  42.5

  49

  2020

  46.5

  63

  2030

  56.5

  91

  2040

  61.5

  118.5

  2050

  61

  139

  Notes:

  1. Price up-rating column is consistent with Government policy of up-rating by 2.5 per cent. or inflation, whichever is the greater.

  2. 2002–03 price terms.

  3. Figures rounded to nearest £0.5 billion.

  4. Based on figures supplied by Government Actuary's Department.

  5. Real earnings growth from 2012–13 is assumed to be 1.75 per cent.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was spent by his Department on paying pensions to retired employees of his Department in 2001–02; if he will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in(a) five years' time, (b) 10 years' time, (c) 20 years' time and (d) 30 years' time; if he will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (i) unfunded pension schemes and (ii) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if he will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [57372]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Leslie) on 23 May 2002, Official Report, columns 561–63W.

  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the starting salary is for a decision maker within the Department. [58606]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: The function of decision making is delegated by the Secretary of State to people in the Department who are suitably trained and have the requisite skills and experience to do the job. The salary for people making decisions is not decided directly by their role but by the normal rules governing salary progression. The salaries of people undertaking decision making duties will therefore depend upon their level of seniority and length of service and could be at any point on the salary scale.

  The following table gives the lower and upper limits of the appropriate salary scales.

SCOTLAND

  Mental Health Services
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans her Department has to regulate counselling, psychotherapy and clinical psychology services provided in Scotland. [59899]

  Mrs. McGuire
  There are no such plans at present. The Health Professions Council, established on 1 April 2002, can propose the extension of its remit to health professions which are not currently regulated. Under the Health Act 1999, any orders to implement such a proposal would have to be approved by the UK and Scottish Parliaments.

  Scottish Criminal Review Commission
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will place in the Library a copy of the annual report of the Scottish Criminal Review Commission. [60388]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Copies of the first and second annual reports of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, covering the periods 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 and 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001, will be placed in the Library as soon as possible. I understand that the report for 2001–02 is due to be published shortly.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Petrol Retailers Association
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) when the Minister of State will write to the Director of the Petrol Retailers Association following the meeting held at Stormont on 24 September 2001; [39852]

  (2) what the outcome of the meeting held between the Minister of State and the Petrol Retailers Association on 24 September 2001 was; and if he will make a statement. [39851]

  Jane Kennedy
  I met with the Petrol Retailers Association in September last year and subsequently looked into the issues raised with me about the illicit oils market in Northern Ireland. I wrote to the Petrol Retailers on 30 April responding to the points raised. My letter included the latest estimate of United Kingdom revenue loss from legitimate cross border shopping and from all types of fraud in the Northern Ireland fuels sector; the steps taken by Customs to address fraud in the Northern Ireland fuels sector, with an illustration of the results being achieved; and the measures included in this year's Budget to further address the problem.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the outcome was of the meeting between the Petrol Retailers Association and the Minister of State on 24 September 2001; and if he will make a statement. [50023]
  882W
  Jane Kennedy
  I met with the Petrol Retailers Association in September last year and subsequently looked into the issues raised with me about the illicit oils market in Northern Ireland. I wrote to the Petrol Retailers on 30 April responding to the points raised. My letter included the latest estimate of United Kingdom revenue loss from legitimate cross border shopping and from all types of fraud in the Northern Ireland fuels sector; the steps taken by Customs to address fraud in the Northern Ireland fuels sector, with an illustration of the results being achieved; and the measures included in this year's Budget to further address the problem.

  Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Claims)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in settling post-traumatic stress disorder and other psychiatric illness claims; what method he has adopted to process these claims; how many have been completed and at what cost; what target he has drawn up for maximum time to be taken in dealing with individual claims; and how many new claims have been submitted in the past 12 months. [41238]

  Jane Kennedy
  To date the PSNI has registered 2,512 post-traumatic stress disorder claims from serving or retired officers, 2,012 of the claims have been received within the last 12 months. None has yet been finalised. The majority of the cases are to be taken forward by way of a group action, rather than individually. It is not possible to indicate likely timescales for dealing either with the group action or individual claims as decisions on the cases will be taken after due consideration with legal advisers/counsel.

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41060]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department does not separate hotel costs from other overnight subsistence. The following totals include other allowances payable for staying overnight while working away from home.

  Details of the Department's1 total expenditure on overnight subsistence in each of the last four financial years

  £

  1998–99

  392,086

  1999–2000

  394,997

  2000–01

  369,316

  2001–02

  2276,799

  1 Including its agencies, but excluding NDPBs as we do not have access to a breakdown of their expenditure.

  2 To date. Estimate for full year is £301,962.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many special advisers were employed by him(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive; and what the total amount spent on special advisers by the Department was in each of those years. [41254]
  883W
  Jane Kennedy
  The number of special advisers employed between May 1997 and 2001 are as follows:

  Number

  May 1997 to September 1999

  2

  October 1999 to October 2000

  0

  November 2000 to January 2001

  1

  February 2001 to September 2001

  1

  October 2001 to December 2001

  2

  All special advisers have been paid a salary in accordance with the centrally agreed arrangements applying at the time. In addition the Department meets the travel and accommodation costs required on official business.

  Television
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of subscriptions to(a) digital terrestrial, (b) digital satellite and (c) digital cable television held by his Department for services in any departmental building from which Ministers work, stating for each subscription its (i) cost and (ii) purpose. [48349]

  Jane Kennedy
  There is one subscription to digital satellite in a departmental building from which Ministers work. The cost of the subscription is £10.00 per month and it is used for operational purposes. There are no subscriptions to digital terrestrial or digital cable.

  Project Sponsorship
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship since 1997, including(a) details of the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project, (c) the date of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [48397]

  Jane Kennedy
  Details of the Northern Ireland Office projects which have received sponsorship since 1997 are as follows:

  1997–98

  (a) Hughes and Co. Insurance Brokers

  (b) Public Awareness campaign (reprint and distribution of free crime prevention booklet)

  (c) In three phases throughout the year

  (d) £39,063.16

  (e) £8,000.

  1998–99

  None

  1999–2000

  None

  2000–01

  None

  2001–02

  None.

  999 Calls
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 16 April 2002,Official Report, column 839W, on 999 calls, how many 999 calls for each emergency were received at Belfast
  884W
  regional control centre on each day of the Christmas week in 2001; what the standard target is for number of rings before a call is answered by each service; how many calls failed to reach this target on each day; and what targets are set by the PSNI in North Belfast to respond to emergency calls. [57156]

  Jane Kennedy
  The PSNI performance target in relation to 999 calls is to answer 98 per cent. of all 999 calls within 10 seconds.

  In North Belfast, as with all areas in Northern Ireland, the PSNI respond to 999 calls as quickly as possible given the resource availability at any given time.

  The following table shows the number of 999 calls received at Belfast Regional Control during the period 20–26 December 2001 and the answer rate.

  Date

  Number of calls

  % answered in 10 seconds or less

  Average time to answer each call (seconds)

  20 December 2001

  389

  87.1

  6

  21 December 2001

  451

  81.6

  7

  22 December 2001

  532

  84.0

  7

  23 December 2001

  391

  90.8

  6

  24 December 2001

  378

  88.9

  6

  25 December 2001

  338

  88.8

  6

  26 December 2001

  449

  92.9

  5

  HM Inspectorate of Constabulary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what basis Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary makes visits to Northern Ireland; how many visits inspectors have made in each of the past three years; what the terms of reference are for the visit of an inspector; on how many occasions in the past three years specific terms of reference have been drawn up for a visit; what the recommendations were of the inspector's report after each visit; how many of these recommendations were accepted by the RUC/PSNI; and what reasons were given for each rejected recommendation. [53866]

  Jane Kennedy
  Section 41(2) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 requires Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary to inspect and report on efficiency and effectiveness of the police in Northern Ireland at least once every year. To that end, HMIC has carried out an inspection in each of the past three years. Prior to each inspection, the Inspectorate have liaised with the police service, Police Authority and NIO to agree the terms of reference for the areas to be reviewed. The recommendations made after each inspection are contained in the published report, copies of which are laid in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. All of the recommendations made have been accepted by the RUC/PSNI.

  Rosemary Nelson
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the duties are of Colin Port; how many officers and staff are assigned to assist him in each
  885W
  duty; how many arrests have been carried out by officers attached to the investigation of the murder of Rosemary Nelson; and how many charges have arisen. [53920]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable has advised that, as the officer in command of the Rosemary Nelson murder inquiry, Colin Port, the Deputy Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary, determines the overall strategy for the investigation. The numbers of officers involved in the investigation has varied to accommodate the needs of particular lines of inquiry; staff work as a team and are not assigned to specific duties except where there are particularly sensitive lines of inquiry or specialist functions. As some persons have been arrested more than once it could be misleading to attempt to put an overall figure on arrests made by officers attached to the investigation of this murder. While there have been no charges in connection with Mrs. Nelson's murder, this investigation has led to charges against nine people.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost is to date of the investigation of the murder of Rosemary Nelson; to whom the written report of the investigation will be sent; and what considerations he has given to publication of the report. [53921]

  NDPB

  Code of Practice

  Availability

  Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland

  Under development1

  —

  Equality Commission for Northern Ireland

  Yes

  On request from Equality Commission for NI, Equality House, 7–9 Shaftesbury Square, Belfast BT2 7DP

  Juvenile Justice Board

  No2

  —

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

  Yes

  On request from Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Temple Court, 39 North Street, Belfast BT1 1NA

  Northern Ireland Policing Board

  Yes

  On request from NI Policing Board, Waterside Tower, 31 Clarendon Road, Laganside, Belfast or on its website at www.nipolicingboard.org.uk

  Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland

  Under development

  —

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  Yes

  On request from Probation Board for Northern Ireland, 80–99 North Street, Belfast BT1 1LD

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel for Northern Ireland

  Under development3

  —

  1 This body meets very infrequently, the last time was in 1994.

  2 This is a temporary body which will become an executive agency later this year.

  3 This is a new body whose members have yet to be appointed.

  Departmental Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent by his Department on paying pensions to retired employees of his Department in 2001–02; if he will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in(a) five years' time, (b) 10 years' time, (c) 20 years' time and (d) 30 years' time; if he will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (i) unfunded pension schemes and (ii) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if he will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [57369]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Cabinet Office has responsibility for the Principal Civil Service Pensions Scheme (PCSPS)—the occupational pension arrangement for Home civil servants, and have replied to this question.

  The Department of Finance and Personnel has responsibility for the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS)—the occupational pension arrangement for Northern Ireland civil servants. The total amount on
  886W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable has advised that the cost to date of the investigation into the murder of Rosemary Nelson is £5,817,104. Colin Port is carrying out his investigation at the request of the Chief Constable of the PSNI and any report will be to the Chief Constable, with appropriate reports to the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to pending prosecutions. I have no plans to publish any police reports in this investigation.

  Disclosure of Interests
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what rules apply to the disclosure of interests on the part of those serving on public bodies which are responsible to his Department. [56451]

  Jane Kennedy
  All advisory and executive non-departmental bodies are required to adopt a board members' code, based on guidance produced by the Cabinet Office, and they should have registers of interest. The definition of interests is ultimately for individual Departments since they are best placed to decide what might be thought to influence members of their NDPBs.

  The following table lists the NDPBs sponsored by this Department and in each case indicates what the relevant Code of Practice is and where it is available.

  paying pensions in 2001–02 in respect of Northern Ireland civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office was £4,246,235.19. Answers to the remaining questions could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The PCSPS is an unfunded public service scheme made under the Superannuation Act 1972. All payments of pension and related benefits to former members of the PCSPS or their dependants are made from the Civil Superannuation Vote.

  Forensic Science Agency
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the target staff complement is of the Forensic Science Agency; how many vacancies and at what levels are unfilled; and how many individuals have(a) left, (b) retired from and (c) joined the agency in each of the last three years. [59862]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Office does not hold target staff complements. Staffing levels are dictated by administrative costs.
  887W

  Staff vacancies

  Grade

  Number

  Higher scientific officers

  9

  Scientific officers

  4

  Assistant scientific officers

  5

  Grade B1 accountant

  1

  Support Grade Band 1

  1

  Support Grade Band 2

  2

  Temporary staff

  2

  Total

  24

  Staff movements

  (a) Left

  (b) Retired

  (c) Joined

  1999

  10

  1

  12

  2000

  10

  1

  15

  2001

  14

  0

  25

  Total

  34

  2

  52

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Research and Development
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the impact of the merger of MAFF and DOE on her spending plans for research and development, as set out in Forward Look 2001. [58379]

  Mr. Morley
  The merger has brought together research, monitoring, surveillance and advisory programmes totalling in excess of £250 million annually. We are currently reviewing our science programmes and strategy following the recent appointment of a new chief scientific adviser and in the light of the aims and objectives of the new Department.

  Capita Group
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by the Department. [39347]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA came into being on 8 June 2001. From information held centrally the Department has one contract for the provision of recruitment services with Capita Business Services Ltd.

  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many contracts the Department has with Capita; and how much they are worth. [38377]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA came into being on 8 June 2001. From information held centrally the Department has one contract with Capita Business Services Ltd. with a value in the period 12 June 2001 to 26 March 2002 inclusive of £401,740.62.

  Whales
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on Article VIII of the International Convention in the Regulation of Whaling. [57498]
  888W
  Mr. Morley
  The UK recognises that Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling provides for any contracting Government to grant any of its nationals a special permit authorising that national to kill, take or treat whales for purposes of scientific research.

  We regret, however, Japan's continued use of this provision to carry out large scale, lethal "scientific" whaling. The UK believes that Japan's activities serve to undermine the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) moratorium and, at this year's IWC meeting which took place in Shimonoseki between 20–24 May, we called upon them to discontinue their lethal research programme.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent activities have been undertaken by her Department to improve scientific knowledge about whale numbers. [57501]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK delegation participates fully in the IWC's Scientific Committee including work to provide in-depth assessments of whale stocks.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what preparations her Department made for the International Whaling Commission annual meeting in Japan; [58577]

  (2) what action her Department took before the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission to build support for the continuation of the ban on commercial whaling. [58578]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK Government is opposed to all whaling except by some subsistence whaling by indigenous people. We strongly support the current moratorium on commercial whaling.

  Before the start of the 54th annual IWC meeting we held a meeting of the Consultative Forum on Whaling with non-government organisations to discuss the UK line to take and strategy on key issues. In conjunction with the FCO we also undertook extensive lobbying of all IWC member states to build support for the continuation of the moratorium.

  Future of Farming and Food
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Treasury about funding for the recommendations of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food; and if she will make a statement. [57515]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government intends to produce a Strategy for Sustainable Food and Farming in England in the autumn. Funding for the strategy forms part of this year's Spending Review discussions. The strategy will incorporate a definitive response to the Policy Commission's recommendations, although not all of these fall to, or involve expenditure by Government.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many households had benefited from the New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme by the end of 2001. [51974]
  889W
  Mr. Meacher
  Since the launch of the New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme in June 2000 to 31 December 2001, over 305,000 households had work completed under the Scheme.

  Press Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost of running the Department's press office was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [46799]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Retrospective information for 1996–97 can not be supplied as DEFRA did not exist prior to June 2001.

  Our records show a total operational running cost for the DEFRA Press Office, for the financial year 2001–02 of £1.6 million.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many press releases were issued by her Department or its predecessor(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [40044]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA was created in June 2001. For the period ending the 31 Dec 2001 the Press Office issued 319 press releases.

  Retrospective identification and enumeration of the press releases issued prior to June 2001 by the Home Office and the former DETR and MAFF Press Offices on policy subjects now covered by DEFRA would be disproportionately costly to produce.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many press officers there were in her Department on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) the latest available date. [46891]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: DEFRA, as a Department, did not exist prior to June 2001. The DEFRA Press Office is responsible for providing media

  Contract

  Project title

  Start

  End

  Specialion, bioavailability, biopotency and functional markers for D vitamers

  1 June 1998

  31 March 1999

  Development of methods to detect protein standardisation of cows' drinking milk

  1 September 1998

  30 November 1999

  Methods for the detection of rectified grape and apple juice in fruit juices

  1 April 1999

  30 September 1999

  The immunological determination of meat content

  1 May 1997

  31 October 1998

  Evaluation of a DNA Method for Meat Species Identification

  1 April 1997

  31 March 1998

  A novel method for the detection of neuronal tissue from beef by the identification of tissue specific DNA modification

  1 April 1997

  30 September 1998

  Differentiation of species of meat in particular cooked products by DNA methods

  1 April 1998

  30 September 1999

  Evaluation of a suite of methods to distinguish cheese analogues from genuine cheese

  1 April 1998

  31 March 1999

  Optimisation and validation of DNA assay for detect of select non-muscle tissues in meat products using tissue specific DNA modification

  1 November 1998

  30 November 1999

  Vitamin B6 improvements in extraction and determination—Resolving inaccuracy and bias from its measurement

  1 April 1997

  31 March 1998

  Development and validation of two analytical procedures for the quantitative determination of fatty acids

  1 April 1997

  31 March 1998

  Further studies on the determination of heme and non-heme iron

  1 April 1998

  31 March 1999

  Develop and validate a routine HPLC method for the determination of folates and folic acid in foods

  1 April 1999

  30 June 2000

  Development and validation of rapid viable pathogen testing and enumeration by a simple and low cost new method

  1 October 1997

  23 August 1998

  An improved analytical method for gellan gum

  1 June 1998

  31 March 1999

  Development and validation of procedures to detect and quantify the use of dimethyl dicarbonate in non-alcoholic drinks

  1 September 1998

  31 August 1999

  Biomarker assessment of benzoate consumption

  1 May 1999

  31 March 2000

  A regiospecific immunoassay screening test for contaminants from food contact plastics

  1 April 1997

  31 March 1999

  890W
  support to the Environmental Protection Directorate and the Wildlife and Countryside Directorate of the former DETR, the hunting and animal welfare policy issues transferred from the Home Office and the full range of former MAFF activities. To provide media liaison support for these policy and operational directorates of DEFRA, the Press Office has currently a staff of 21 press officers.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people were employed in a press or public relations function in her Department and its predecessor on 1 January in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002. [39938]

  Mr. Morley
  When DEFRA was created on 8 June 2001 it brought together the Environmental Protection Directorate and the Wildlife and Countryside Directorate of the former DETR, together with the full range of former MAFF policies and operational activities and certain hunting and animal welfare interests of the Home Office.

  Of the retrospective statistics that have been requested, such of those as could be obtained would not provide a valid comparison of these staff resources. Moreover, such information could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  In DEFRA at present the number of staff engaged in Press Office activities is 27. This comprises 21 press officers and six support staff.

  LGC
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 584W, on LGC, if she will list (a) the dates of each contact and (b) the amount spent on each contract by her Department. [52245]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: Pursuant to the answer of 11 February 2002, Official Report, columns 88–89W, on LGC, the dates of each contract are as follows:
  891W

  Contract

  Project title

  Start

  End

  Develop a novel molecular typing method for comparison of food borne pathogens using VTEC as a model organism

  1 May 1999

  30 April 2001

  Efficacy testing of disinfectants used in the food industry against a range of pathogens including E coli 0157

  1 May 1998

  31 October 1999

  Processing LINK Offers of Grant

  1 August 1999

  31 July 2002

  Organochlorine residues in poultry resulting from the use of hyperchlorinated water in poultry washes

  28 October 1997

  27 April 1998

  Chain of custody audit at Institute of Animal Health

  1 October 2001

  31 March 2002

  Development of a Sensitive and Specific Molecular Typing Method for the Epidemiological Study of Salmonella

  1 January 2000

  31 March 2002

  Investigation of glufosinate residue analysis in potatoes, soya products, legume and maize

  1 November 2000

  31 August 2001

  Development of methods for the determination of thyreostats in poultry and bovine livers

  1 January 2001

  31 March 2001

  BSE Testing in Cattle

  1 November 2001

  31 October 2002

  Analytical Work on Veterinary Residues in Foodstuffs of Animal Origin

  1 January 1999

  31 December 2003

  National Scrapie Plan 'Blood Sampling'

  8 October 2001

  7 October 2004

  Feasibility Study of the Determination of Oestrone, etc. in Drinking Waters

  20 May 1998

  20 June 1998

  Analysis of Oestrone, Oestradiol and Ethynyl Oestradiol—Supervision of Performance Tests

  16 October 1998

  31 October 1999

  Investigation of Solvent Contamination Incidents and Provision of Scientific Advice on Drinking Water. Quality and Health Issues

  16 October 1998

  31 August 2001

  Leaching of Lead from Approved u-PVC Water Supply Pipes

  21 January 1999

  5 July 1999

  Consolidate two GCMS methods for the determination of three oestrogen steroids in water and review of the potential for determining the same steroids using LCMSMS

  6 March 2000

  31 May 2000

  Exposure to chloropropanol isomers via polyamines

  15 October 2001

  31 March 2002

  The amount spent on each contract cannot be disclosed for reasons of commercial confidentiality. From information held centrally the total value of the contracts is £15,750,792. Inquiries on the values of individual contracts should be directed to the Chief Executive of the Laboratory of Government Chemist.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) cost per point of priority score, (b) average agreement cost and (c) average area for the Countryside Stewardship Scheme was in the last year for which figures are available. [55747]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: The score given to applications as part of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme assessment procedure ensures that agreements which are eventually funded achieve the maximum environmental value, based on their likely contribution to the scheme's objectives for wildlife, landscape, history and access. The application score is therefore related directly to the environmental benefits likely to be achieved and is not expressed in terms of cost of the eventual agreement.

  The average 10-year cost of an agreement starting in 2000 was £52,707 and the average area was 32.29 hectares.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of priority score data for approved countryside stewardship agreements was not logged on the Countryside Stewardship Scheme database in each year since the scheme's introduction. [55746]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: All data relevant to approved Countryside Stewardship Scheme agreements are formally recorded, either on the Stewardship database or on file. These include a record of the score given to applications as part of the assessment procedure.
  892W
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the administrative costs of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme as a proportion of its total expenditure have been in each year since its introduction. [55745]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: The proportion of the total Countryside Stewardship budget spent on administrative costs since its introduction is as follows:

  Percentage

  Year

  Proportion of budget

  1991–96

  1—

  1997–98

  31

  1998–99

  28

  1999–2000

  26

  2000–01

  32

  2001–02

  215

  1 Figures for the period 1991–96, when the scheme was operated by the Countryside Commission are not available.

  2 2001–02 figures are provisional and not strictly comparable with previous years, due to the creation of the Rural Development Service on 1 April 2001 and the diversion of staff to foot and mouth disease duties.

  Swietenia Macrophylla
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she has received a copy of the memorandum dated 26 March from the European Commission concerning imports of swietenia macrophylla from Brazil; and if she will make a statement. [50457]

  Margaret Beckett
  We received a copy of the memorandum of 26 March from the European Commission. This advice will be fully taken into account should another cargo of Brazilian mahogany arrive for clearance into the Community via the UK. We have also asked the Timber Trade Federation to advise their members not to import Brazilian mahagony until the present situation is clarified.

  Mahogany
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to publicise the opinion of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Secretariat contained in a memorandum dated 13 March, regarding the import of mahogany from Brazil; and if she will make a statement. [50498]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: We are aware of advice sent by the CITES Secretariat to the German management Authority on 13 March. This formed the basis of a subsequent note from the European Commission to all member states on 26 March. We have passed this on to the Timber Trade Federation and to other Government Departments with an interest in this issue. I attach a copy.

  We are not aware of any shipments of mahogany from Brazil to the UK since the Commission's letter was issued. Consideration of any future shipment will take account of this or any subsequent view taken by the Commission and submitted to all Member States.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has received concerning action taken by Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands in relation to trade in Brazilian mahogany since 19 October 2001; and if she will make a statement. [50456]

  Margaret Beckett
  We understand from the German CITES Management Authority that, since the moratorium, three cargoes of Brazilian mahogany have been cleared by German customs and one has been detained at Hamburg. We understand from the Dutch CITES Management Authority that one cargo has been detained at Vlissingen. To date we have received no relevant information from the Belgian authorities.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if big leaf mahogany (swietenia macrophylla) is classified as an endangered species; and what measures she is taking to ensure that illegally logged mahogany is not used in the United Kingdom. [50459]

  Margaret Beckett
  Big leaf mahogany (Swietenia Macrophylla) is listed on Appendix III by certain range states. This means that it is not classified by CITES as endangered but is subject to regulation.

  Our main line of defence against the use of illegally logged big leaf mahogany is the CITES and European Union controls on the import of such mahogany. All imports into the Community for the first time must be accompanied by appropriate CITES documentation. Mahogany requires a valid export permit or certificate of origin and a completed import notification. Failure to present such documentation could render any cargo liable to seizure, and illegal trading in CITES listed timber is subject to strict penalties. We are also exploring with our EU partners whether there are changes in EU regulations which would secure better regulation of this trade; and we have made clear to the Brazilians our concern to support their efforts to prevent illegal logging. The Government's Green Guide for Buyers, first issued in 1998 and updated
  894W
  last year, gives detailed guidance on implementing the Government's policy to purchase its timber and timber products from legal and sustainable sources.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she was notified of the Brazilian Environment Agency's ban on trade in swietenia macrophylla. [50460]

  Margaret Beckett
  My Department was made aware of the moratorium on 29 October 2001.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many reports of swietenia macrophylla there have been since 19 October 2001; and what the volume of imports was on each occasion since that date. [50461]

  Margaret Beckett
  We are aware of three cargoes of Brazilian mahogany which entered the European Community via the UK. These are as follows:

  Date of import

  Metres3

  26 January 2002

  11.328

  8 February 2002

  874.7

  5 March 2002

  198.18

  Total

  1,084.208

  There may be other shipments of mahogany which have entered the UK having been previously cleared into the Community via another member state. Neither my Department nor HM Customs and Excise would be aware of these as no clearance documentation would be required for such intra-Community movement.

  Veterinary Medicines
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there were for the illegal use of veterinary medicines by (i) type and (ii) purpose in each of the last five years; [58609]

  (2) how many cases of the illegal use of veterinary medicines have been identified by (a) type and (b) the purpose for which they were used, in each of the last five years. [58608]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: The veterinary medicines directorate's unauthorised medicines section receives complaints about illegal use and improper advertising of veterinary medicinal products. Records are not kept in a format that would allow the specific numbers requested to be provided. However, on average 300 complaints were received in each of the last five years. Each of these is investigated and where there is sufficient evidence of a breach of legislation a prosecution is sought.

  In the last five years there have been three prosecutions relating to offences of illegal administration (use) of veterinary medicines. All three cases resulted in successful convictions. Two cases related to illegal importation and administration of vaccines by dog breeders. The third related to the illegal importation and administration by a farmer of an anti-bacterial product for sheep.
  895W
  There have also been a further 15 prosecutions resulting in 13 successful convictions for offences relating to the placing on the market of a veterinary medicinal product contrary to the Marketing Authorisation Regulations 1994.

  A further eight prosecutions have begun and are still with the courts.

  Veterinary Service
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many veterinary surgeons have(a) entered and (b) left the Department and its predecessor in the last 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [54225]

  Mr. Morley
  Details of numbers of permanent veterinary surgeons at Grade 6 level and below(a) entering and (b) leaving the state veterinary service and the reasons for their departure during the past 10 years, are set out in the table.

  Number of veterinary staff joining SVS

  Number of veterinary staff leaving SVS

  Reasons for departure

  1992

  15

  9

  Retirement (5)

  Resignation (3)

  Death in service (1)

  1993

  8

  12

  Retirement (4)

  Resignation (6)

  Death in service (1)

  Transfer to OGD (1)

  1994

  4

  11

  Retirement (4)

  Resignation (4)

  Death in service (2)

  Transfer to OGD (1)

  1995

  6

  16

  Retirement (10)

  Resignation (5)

  Death in service (1)

  1996

  15

  12

  Retirement (8)

  Resignation (4)

  1997

  24

  8

  Retirement (3)

  Resignation (3)

  Death in service (2)

  1998

  9

  13

  Retirement (8)

  Resignation (3)

  Death in service (1)

  Transfer to OGD (1)

  1999

  14

  6

  Retirement (3)

  Resignation (3)

  2000

  19

  14

  Retirement (4)

  Resignation (9)

  Transfer to OGD (1)

  2001

  10

  11

  Retirement (6)

  Resignation (4)

  Death in service (1)

  2002 to date

  21

  6

  Retirement (3)

  Resignation (3)

  Imports of Exotic Animals
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many import 896W
  licences she has authorised for the import of consignments of exotic animals, broken down by month, in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [57669]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, more commonly known as CITES, aims to protect certain plants and animals by regulating and monitoring their international trade to prevent it reaching unsustainable levels.

  We can confirm that import permits used for all CITES species in the following years were:

  Number

  1997

  4,612

  1998

  4,958

  1999

  4,235

  2000

  5,743

  2001

  5,237

  It would involve a disproportionate cost to attempt to break these down into monthly totals for exotic animals imported. Recent statistical surveys indicate that about 16 per cent. of import applications concern non-indigenous animals, including birds, reptiles, fish, insects and mammals. However, that figure also includes privately owned pets.

  Bali Pre-conference
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the criteria are for the(a) level and (b) cost of hotel accommodation for the Ministers and officials travelling to Bali. [57840]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The venue for the fourth preparatory meeting for the World Summit on Sustainable Development was chosen by the Indonesian Government. The hotels for delegations were recommended by the UN and the Indonesian Government. The hotel accommodation was chosen for its proximity to the conference centre, to provide easy access to the hotel after late night negotiating sessions, and for the business facilities to allow constant contact with the UK.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many hotel rooms have been booked for the WSD Conference in Bali by(a) her Department and (b) the UK delegation; and at what cost to public funds. [57836]

  Mr. Meacher
  Thirteen hotel rooms have been booked for members of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. There are 27 hotel rooms booked for the total delegation to the fourth preparatory meeting for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. This will include representatives from DEFRA, DFID, DTI, FCO and the Cabinet Office; the total cost for the hotel rooms will be approximately £48,000.

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the annual investment plan for spending is(a) on maintenance of flood defences, (b) to meet the guideline defence standards and (c) to account for possible climate change following the 'National Appraisal of Assets at Risk from

  897W
  Flooding and Coastal Erosion, including the Potential Impact of Climate Change'; and what further allocations the Government plans to make in each of the next three years. [54272]

  Mr. Morley
  With the benefit of Central Government funding, total expenditure by the Environment Agency, Local Authorities and Internal Drainage Boards on flood and coastal defence is forecast as follows:

  £ million

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Capital

  219

  232

  Maintenance

  90

  90

  Other

  105

  112

  Total

  414

  434

  DEFRA has asked operating authorities to take the indicative results of the National Assessment of Assets at Risk from Flooding and Coastal Erosion into account insofar as it is practicable to do so in this timescale. The level of Central Government funding for the next three years will depend on the outcome of the Spending Review.

  Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 11 April 2002,Official Report, column 598W, what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of unpaid advisers who have assisted the work of her Department since June 1997 but are not included in the Cabinet Office's annual report 'Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews 2000–01'. [57041]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: As my answer to you of 11 April made clear, Ministers in this Department have not appointed any unpaid advisers other than those accounted for in the list of task forces, reviews and other ad hoc advisory groups.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many special advisers were employed by her and her predecessor(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive; and what the total amount spent on special advisers by the Department was for each of those years. [41257]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA was created on 8 June 2001, and has two special advisers. The number of special advisers employed by the former Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food was also two.

  For special adviser costs, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 11W.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) names and (b) responsibilities are of parliamentary advisers appointed to serve her Department. [56986]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.
  898W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the number and expected cost to her Department of special advisers in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [43268]

  Mr. Morley
  There are currently two special advisers.

  For special adviser costs, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 20 March 2002, Official Report, column 325W.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many times special advisers have accompanied Ministers on overseas visits in each of the last five years; which countries were visited; and what the total cost of each individual visit was. [47146]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 270W.

  Details of special adviser travel for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published shortly.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Standing Committee on zootechnics 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 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. [57482]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Standing Committee on Zootechnics is to carry out the duties delegated to it by provisions adopted by the Council in the zootechnical field. It may also consider any question arising in this field and referred to it by the Chairman either on his own initiative or at the request of a member state. It has met once over the last 12 months. The UK representation are the officials in DEFRA responsible for policy matters on Zootechnics. Annual cost to public funds in the last twelve months has been approximately £250.

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

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final. As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Standing Committee on seeds and propagating material for agriculture, horticulture and forestry is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the
  899W
  United Kingdom 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. [57487]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry is to carry out the duties devolved to it by the Council Directives on the marketing of seeds and propagating material. The Committee has met 11 times during the past 12 months. UK representation at the Committee has varied but averages two officials per meeting and the cost of representation has been around £22,300.

  The major item under discussion is the EU Commission's legislative proposals to introduce thresholds for the adventitious presence of genetically modified seeds in non-genetically modified seeds. The Committee is also considering measures that would implement exemptions and derogations contained within the Council Directives on the marketing of seeds.

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

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

  As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Standing Veterinary Committee 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 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. [57483]

  Mr. Morley
  The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, formerly known as the Standing Veterinary Committee, is a regulatory committee established under Council Decision (1999/468/EC) of 28 June 1999.

  Between May 2001 and April 2002 the Committee met twenty-seven times. The United Kingdom is usually represented by two delegates (a veterinarian and an administrator both from DEFRA). Other officials from DEFRA, FSA or the devolved administrations may also attend when necessary. The Commission pays the travel costs of one delegate: remaining costs are met from Department funds. The approximate cost to DEFRA between May 2001 and April 2002 was £16,500.
  900W
  The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health deals with a wide range of animal health and public health issues and the agenda for a typical two day meeting may cover as many as 50 items. Some items will be for discussion alone, others will be for a vote leading to the introduction of new Community legislation in accordance with powers provided for in existing Directives. For example, recent agenda items have covered such diverse subjects as: monitoring and categorisation of the status of BSE; European identification marking on fishery products originating from third countries; import of products of animal origin from China; falsification of health certificates from certain third countries; veterinary checks at Border Inspection Posts; review of the list of third countries from which the import of fishery products is authorised for human consumption; establishing a list of third countries fulfilling equivalence conditions for the production and placing on the market of bivulve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods.

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

  In the light of this decision on the working of committees, the first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com 2001) 783 Final.

  As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisation of agricultural markets for cereals 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. [55246]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisation of agricultural markets for cereals is laid down in Article 23 of Council Regulation 1766–92. It normally meets on a weekly basis. Meetings are attended by officials from DEFRA and additionally as necessary by officials from the other UK Agriculture Departments or the Rural Payments Agency. The direct annual cost to UK public funds consists of the travel and subsistence allowances of the UK officials attending, which were approximately £45,000 over the last 12 month period. The items currently under consideration are the regular adjudications for the export of cereals to third countries and the implementing rules for the export of cereals to applicant countries with whom the EU has negotiated reciprocal trade arrangements.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line

  901W
  with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (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 agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisation of agricultural markets for poultrymeat and eggs 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. [55255]

  Mr. Morley
  The Management Committee for Poultrymeat and Eggs implements measures relating to the common organisation of the markets in eggs, poultry and albumins. The Committee also implements measures to improve the production and marketing of honey.

  The Committee has met on 11 occasions over the past 12 months. The UK representation usually consists of the Head of Eggs and Poultry Branch and, if required, a supporting officer. A representative from Horticulture and Potatoes Division may also attend when honey issues are on the agenda. The annual cost amounts to approximately £6,745 and attendance takes approximately 50 staff days per annum.

  In addition to routine market reports and trade mechanism items, the Committee is currently considering amendments to the Marketing Standards for Poultrymeat and a draft decision on measures to be funded under the national honey programmes for 2003.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (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 agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisation of agricultural markets for milk and milk products 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. [55251]
  902W
  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products is to facilitate the implementation of measures relating to the common organisation of the market for these products.

  The Committee has met 22 times over the last 12 months. The UK representation usually consists of the Head of Milk Branch or his deputy, and, if required, a supporting officer. Others attend as necessary. The annual cost amounts to some £16,000 in travel and subsistence expenses, and the meetings, including preparation time and activities following the meetings, take approximately 100 staff days per annum.

  In addition to routine market reports and trade mechanism items, the Committee is currently considering the modification of the nomenclature for export refunds, amendments to the legislation on export licences and export refunds, and reports by member states on their methods for control of the composition of milk powders. Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Corn (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisation of agricultural markets for beef and veal 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. [55252]

  Mr. Morley
  Under Article 42 of Council Regulation 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, the Commission is mandated to establish a Management Committee to deal with market management of the sector and any matters arising for which the Commission has competence.

  Within the previous 12 months the Management Committee has met on 24 occasions. The UK delegation for the Committee normally comprises two officials from DEFRA; on occasion officials from the Rural Payments Agency and the devolved administrations also attend.

  The normal work of the Beef Management Committee involves consideration of the market situation (including production, consumption, imports and exports) and adjudication of intervention tenders.

  Currently, the Beef Management Committee is also considering proposals for amendments to a number of Regulations relating to tariff quotas for imports of beef and live cattle from third countries.
  903W
  The travel and subsistence costs over the previous 12 months relating to meetings of the beef management committee totalled some £25,000. Until February 2002 the Commission reimbursed the travel costs of two delegates per meeting; since February travel costs for only one delegate have been reimbursed.

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

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Commission Document 5685/02).

  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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Community Committee on the farm accountancy data network 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. [55242]

  Mr. Morley
  The Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network was set up to support the information needs of the Common Agricultural Policy, specifically for determining farm incomes, for analysing the state of farm businesses and to contribute to the annual report on the situation of agriculture in the Community.

  The United Kingdom is allowed up to five representatives on the Committee but in practice is represented by one or two officials from my Department and from the devolved administrations. The Committee has met four times during the last 12 months. The direct cost incurred by the Department in the last 12 months, including staff time, was £3,600.

  The following topics have been considered during the last twelve months:

  1. Legislation to relax the lower size threshold for the UK and three other member states

  2. Steps to be taken by candidate countries in setting up their own accountancy networks

  3. Analysis of alternative dairy support mechanisms to contribute to the 2003 mid-term review

  4. Study on phasing out milk quotas in Germany

  5. Use of farm accountancy data for policy evaluations

  6. New computer system for online transmission of farm accounts over the internet

  7. Review of reimbursements to member states

  8. Agreement to defer UK deadline for data delivery following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease

  9. Agreement to launch a public version of the database on the Commission's website

  10. Studies on milk and beef enterprise costs

  904W

  11 Need to revise definition of farm types in the light of the shift from first to second pillar support

  12. How to provide detailed low-level data to member states without disclosing details of individual farms

  13. Contribution of accountancy data to agri-environment indicators.

  The last three have not yet been concluded.

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

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (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 agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisation of agricultural markets for sugar 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. [55248]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisation of agricultural markets for sugar is laid down in Article 42 of Council Regulation 1260/2001. It normally meets on a weekly basis. Meetings are attended by officials from DEFRA and additionally as necessary by officials from the other UK Agriculture Departments or the Rural Payments Agency. The direct annual cost to UK public funds consists of the travel and subsistence allowances of the UK officials attending, which were approximately £23,000 over the last 12-month period. The items currently under consideration are the regular adjudications on sugar export refunds, sugar balance sheets for both current and future years, cane refining aid and imports from the western Balkans.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (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 agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.
  905W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisation of agricultural markets for sheep and goats 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. [55253]

  Mr. Morley
  Under Article 25 of Council Regulation 2529–2001 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat the Commission is mandated to establish a management committee to deal with market management of the sector and any matters arising for which the Commission has competence.

  Within the previous 12 months the management committee has met on seven occasions. The UK delegation for the committee normally comprises two officials from DEFRA; on occasion officials from the Rural Payments Agency and the devolved Administrations also attend.

  Since the significant reforms of the common organisation of markets for sheepmeat and goatmeat agreed in December 2001, the need for management committees has been much reduced. The sheepmeat management committee is due to meet in two months' time to review the market situation and the impact of the recent reforms.

  The travel and subsistence costs over the previous 12 months relating to meeting of the sheepmeat management committee totalled some £7,000. Until February 2002 the Commission reimbursed the travel cost of two delegates per meeting; since February travel costs for only one delegate have been reimbursed.

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

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Commission Document 5685–02).

  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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisation of agricultural markets for pigmeat 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. [55254]
  906W
  Mr. Morley
  The mandate for the Management Committee of the common organisation of agricultural markets for pigmeat was given under Regulation (EEC)

  2759–75 of the Council, of 29 October 1975, on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat.

  The committee has met on 11 occasions over the past 12 months. The UK representation usually consists of the Head of Pigs Branch and, if required, a supporting officer. The annual cost amounts to approximately £308 and attendance and preparation time takes approximately 30 staff days per annum.

  In addition to routine market reports and trade mechanism items, the committee is currently considering outbreaks of classical swine fever (CSF) in Western Europe and carcass grading for the European Community.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (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 agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Joint Meetings of Management and/or Regulatory Committees in the promotion of agricultural products 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. [55664]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of this joint management committee is to run generic promotional schemes for European agricultural products to third countries and on the internal market, as an instrument to help member states face the challenges presented by the new world trading environment created by the WTO/GATT agreements.

  It has met 10 times over the past 12 months and is represented by two departmental officials. The annual cost of this committee's work to public funds is £10,000.

  Items currently under consideration by this committee are applications received under the current round from member states trade organisations for funds to promote specified products to third countries and on the internal market.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisations of agricultural markets for wines 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
  907W
  under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55672]

  Mr. Morley
  The Wine Management Committee is mandated by Council Regulation 1493–1999 to maintain and improve the balance between the supply and demand for wine on the Community market and to enable the sector to become more competitive in the longer term. It considers draft Commission legislation and gives its formal opinion on Commission proposals.

  For the period 1 May 2001 to 30 April 2002, it met thirty times, a reflection of the workload flowing from the introduction of the revised wine regime from 1 August 2000. For all but two of these meetings the UK was represented by two officials from the department (from 1 April this year only one person has been representing the UK at this Committee unless the agenda warrants additional attendance).

  The estimated cost to public funds for this period is £29,000.

  Besides its on-going management of the wine sector, the Committee is currently looking at amendments to regulations on market mechanisms and production potential, in light of market experience.

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

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

  As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Implementation Committee on aromatised wine-based drinks 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. [55665]

  Mr. Morley
  The Aromatised Wine Implementation Committee is mandated by Council Regulation 1601–91 which lays down general rules for the definition, description and presentation of aromatised (flavoured) wines, aromatised wine-based drinks and aromatised wine-product cocktails.

  The Committee meets very infrequently, with one person attending from the Department, and has not met at all in the last four years. Costs for any future meetings are unlikely to exceed £500 per annum.

  There are currently no items under the Committee's consideration.
  908W
  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

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

  As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Implementation Committee for spirit drinks 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. [55666]

  Mr. Morley
  The Spirit Drinks Implementation Committee (SDIC) is mandated by Council Regulation 1576–89 and is responsible for the implementation of the general rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks as laid down in that Regulation. It considers draft Commission legislation and gives its formal opinion on Commission proposals.

  The SDIC met twice during the last 12 months. UK representation consisted of two officials. The estimated annual costs to UK public funds for this period is £2,000.

  Current issues being addressed by the SDIC concern EU enlargement, bilateral spirits agreements between the EU and third countries and consideration of the need for amendments to Regulation 1576–89.

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

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

  As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the adaptation to scientific and technical progress and implementation of the Directive on waste is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the
  909W
  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. [56837]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Committee's mandate is determined by Articles 17 and 18 of the Waste Framework Directive, Article 9 of the Hazardous Waste Directive and Article 11 of the End-Of-Life Vehicles Directive. In summary, its mandate is to assist the European Commission to adapt aspects of those directives in the light of scientific and technical progress.

  The Committee met on 6 July 2001, 30 January 2002 and 22 May 2002. The UK's representation is determined by the agenda for each meeting but the basic representation is usually two officials. The cost to public funds comprise travel and subsistence costs incurred in attending a one day meeting in Brussels (approximately £650 per meeting) and staff costs (around £700 per meeting). The Commission reimburses the travelling costs for one official's attendance at each meeting.

  The agenda for the meeting on 22 May included several matters relating to the End-Of-Life Vehicles Directive and presentations and reports on a range of other waste issues.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the adaptation of technical and scientific progress and implementation of the directive on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically-modified organisms; 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. [56821]

  Mr. Meacher
  The mandate of the Committee is to assist the Commission in functions to be undertaken in respect of Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to the environment. Specifically, these functions are: the establishment of the format of summaries of information to be exchanged under the directive; the establishment of a list of Community legislation covering products to which the directive does not apply; the taking of decisions in respect of the placing on the market of GMOs; the provisional restriction or prohibition on the use or sale of certain products; and the adaption to technical progress of information required under the directive. UK representation on the Committee is by an official from my Department.

  The Committee has not met over the last 12 months and has resulted in no costs to public funds during that period. The Committee has been superseded by a Committee constituted under Directive 2001/18/EC, which replaces Directive 90/220/EEC and will meet for the first time on 12 June 2002. The main item on the initial programme of work of the new Committee will be the agreement of guidance notes on risk assessment and monitoring under the directive.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the group of experts appointed by the Euratom Scientific and Technical Committee to address radioactive 910W
  effluents (Article 37) 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. [56827]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Group of Experts appointed under Article 31 of the Euratom treaty advises the European Commission, among other things, in preparing its opinion on each plan submitted by member states under Article 37 for the disposal of radioactive waste.

  The group have not met during the past 12 months. The majority of their work is carried out by correspondence. Members of the group are independent scientists and are not representatives of their respective Governments. Four of the 43 members of the group are from the UK. Their expenses are met by the European Commission and therefore the work of the group makes no demands on public funds in the UK.

  Within the past 12 months the Commission have received 14 submissions from EU member countries of general data under Article 37 on which it has requested the views of the group. Six of these submissions were from the UK. Copies of the Commission's opinions on UK Article 37 submissions are placed in the Library of the House. The Group of Experts' reports are attached as an annex to these opinions.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Statistics 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. [58438]

  Mr. Morley
  The Standing Committee on Agricultural Statistics was set up by a Council Decision (72/279/EEC) on 31 July 1972. It makes detailed decisions on implementing EU legislation as set out in each case using the delegated authority provided by the EU "Comitology" process.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com(2001) 783 Final.

  The Standing Committee on Agricultural Statistics includes representatives from all member states and is chaired by the Commission. Separate meetings are set up for each subject normally linked to the appropriate working group or meeting of officials. The appropriate statisticians from the UK Departments attend.

  There have been two Standing Committee meetings this year. The forthcoming items for decision will include the definition and deadlines for statistics in the forthcoming

  911W
  2005 EU Structure Survey; the development initiatives on the "Improving Community Agricultural Statistics Programme"; the 2003 survey of ground points across the EU and the rules of procedure of the Standing Committee.

  The work on Agricultural Statistics is subject to the Direction of the European Parliament, Council, the Statistical Programme Committee meeting of heads of each National Statistical Services and the Agricultural Statistics Committee Meeting.

  It is not possible to separately identify the specific annual cost of the Committee's work to public funds without incurring disproportionate costs.

  New or significant changes to EU legislation are already subject to Parliamentary Scrutiny. We provide information on agricultural statistics work in National Statistics reports and plans, which are published on the internet.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisation of agricultural markets for fresh fruit and vegetables 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. [55256]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Management Committee for fresh fruit and vegetables is to assist the Commission in the management of the common organisation of the market in fresh fruit and vegetables, as established by Article 46 of Council Regulation (EC) 2200/96. The Committee has met 15 times over the last 12 months, generally on the same day as the processed fruit and vegetables Management Committee. The meetings are normally attended by two officials at a total cost for the year of about £6,000 for each committee. A wide range of routine items are discussed, such as the setting of export refunds, as well as rules implementing the regulation, including arrangements for assisting producer organisations.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (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 agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisation of agricultural markets for products processed from fruit and vegetables 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 912W
  its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55257]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Management Committee for products processed from fruit and vegetables is to assist the Commission in the management of the common organisation of the market in products processed from fruit and vegetables, as established by Article 29 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/96. The Committee has met 13 times over the last 12 months, generally on the same day as the fresh fruit and vegetables Management Committee. The meetings are normally attended by two officials at a total cost for the year of about £6,000 for each Committee. Items discussed include reductions in aid for products grown for processing and rules implementing the regulation.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (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 agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisations of agriculture markets for raw tobacco 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. [55671]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Management Committee for raw tobacco is to assist the Commission in the management of the common organisation of the market for raw tobacco as established by Article 22 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92. The Committee has met four times over the last 12 months and one official attends; the cost of this attendance to public funds over the last year was £2000. The Committee considers matters relating to the management of the market for raw tobacco.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (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 agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.
  913W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisations of agricultural markets for live plants and floriculture products 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. [55668]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Management Committee for live plants and floriculture products is to assist the Commission in the management of the common organisation of the market in live trees and other plants, bulbs, roots and the like, cut flowers and ornamental foliage, as established by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 234/68. The Committee has met once over the last 12 months, attended by two officials at a cost of about £1.000. Items discussed included market statistics and EU enlargement.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (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 agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisations of agricultural markets for bananas 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. [55667]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Management Committee for bananas is to assist the Commission in the management of the common organisation of the market for bananas, as established by Article 27 of Council Regulation 404/93 as amended.

  The Committee has met seven times over the last 12 months at a total cost of £4,200. Meetings are normally attended by one official. The items discussed include arrangements for licensing imports and other market management issues.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was
  914W
  deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Corn (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the mandate of the Management Committee for the Fisheries and Aquaculture sector 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; [56744]

  (2) what the mandate of the Management Committee for Fisheries products 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. [56742]

  Mr. Morley
  The Management Committees for Fisheries and Aquaculture and Fisheries Products have been established under the Common Fisheries Policy for the management of fishing activity and the common organisation of the market for fish and fish products respectively. Both committees meet on average once a month. The UK is normally represented by officials from DEFRA and the Scottish Executive. In keeping with standard practice for this type of meeting, the travel costs of those attending are reimbursed by the EU.

  At the last meeting of the Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture, on 30 April, the two agenda items were the extension of the fourth Multi-Annual Guidance Programme (MAGP IV) and the provision of information to the Commission under its new data collection arrangements.

  At the last meeting of the Management Committee for Fisheries Products on 16 May, the three main agenda items were the provision of import price data by member states, the application of common market rules and the review of the operational programmes of producer organisations.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees like these into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of the committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee on evaluation and control of the risks
  915W
  of existing products 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. [56823]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Committee of the regulation concerning the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances has met twice over the last 12 months. UK attendance is usually one representative from the Health and Safety Executive or my Department depending on the nature of the issue. The cost to public funds is approximately £1,000 per year for travel and subsistence, which is largely met by the European Commission. The Committee is not currently considering any issues.

  The work of the Committee has been to agree the publication in the Official Journal of the results of risk assessments and risk reduction strategies carried out under Council Regulation 793/93/EEC and to agree the scope of additional testing requirements. Any such recommendations are the subject of new proposals from the European Commission for European Parliament and Council Directives as appropriate.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the directive on water intended for human consumption 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. [56795]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Drinking Water Directive 1998, requires the Commission to review drinking water quality standards in Annex I to the directive "in the light of scientific and technical progress" and to make proposals for any necessary amendments. At least every five years, the Commission is to adapt Annexes II and III (monitoring and methods of analysis) to scientific and technical progress. A management committee was established under Article 12, to assist the Commission.

  The Article 12 Committee has met three times: in June 1999, when the Committee adopted its rules of procedure, in November 2001 and in April 2002. It is too soon to carry out full reviews of the Annexes. However, the directive also stipulated that certain provisions, particularly on sampling methods for the lead, nickel and copper parameters, and some radioactivity provisions, remained to be added.

  The additional work, carried out by the Committee, has included:

  producing a guidance document on standardised methods of sampling and analysis for lead

  advice on sampling for the copper and nickel parameters

  advice on monitoring for radioactivity

  advice on pesticides breakdown products [relevant metabolites].

  The Committee's Rules of Procedure permit a delegation of three officials from each member state. At the meetings in November 2001 and April 2002, the UK's membership
  916W
  comprised a technical assessor from the Drinking Water Inspectorate, a DEFRA policy administrator, and a representative of the Scottish Executive.

  The costs incurred by my Department in contributing to the Committee's work are largely travel and subsistence costs of approximately £1,000 per meeting. Officials consider a wide range of matters in connection with the directive. Therefore it is not possible, except at a disproportionate cost, to identify or apportion the costs arising out of the particular technical issues on which the Article 12 Committee assists and advises the Commission.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of the provisions on the removal of technical barriers to trade in the sector of dangerous substances and preparations 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. [56824]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress of Directive 76/769/EEC on the restrictions on the Marketing and Use of Dangerous Substances and Preparations has met twice in the last 12 months. UK attendance is usually one representative from either Health and Safety Executive, Department of Trade and Industry or my Department depending on the nature of the issue. The cost to public funds is approximately £1,000 per year for travel and subsistence, which is largely met by the European Commission.

  The Committee is currently considering proposals to adapt to technical progress Council Directive 89/677/EEC, which amended for the eighth time Directive 76/769/EEC placing restrictions on arsenic and Commission Directive 1999–51 adapting to technical progress Directive 76/769/EEC placing restrictions on cadmium.

  The work of the Committee is to bring forward amendments, in the light of the latest scientific information, to existing legislation where the main policy has already been agreed by Council and Parliament for protection of health and the environment.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisations of agriculture markets for hops 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. [55670]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Management Committee for hops is to assist the Commission in the management of the common organisation of the market in hops, as established by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1696–71. It has met twice over the last 12 months in the margins of other Management Committees, incurring no additional costs to public funds. Items
  917W
  discussed included fixing aid for the supply of hops to the Azores and Madeira, French Overseas Departments and the Canary Islands.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (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 agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisation of agricultural markets for dehydrated fodder 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. [55247]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Management Committee for dehydrated fodder is to assist the Commission in the management of the common organisation of the market for dehydrated fodder as established by Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) 603–95. The Committee has met once in the last 12 months and was attended by two officials at a cost of about £560. The meeting discussed the rate of aid for dehydrated fodder for 2000–01.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (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 agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on the transportation of radioactive waste (surveillance and control) 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. [56722]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have not been able to identify this committee from the information supplied in the hon. Member's question.
  918W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Standing Committee on feedingstuffs 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 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. [57484]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that as from 21 February 2002, in accordance with European Committee Regulation 178–2002, the EC Standing Committee for Feedingstuffs was replaced by the animal nutrition section of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. These Committees have met nine times in the year ending 30 April 2002.

  The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health is a regulatory committee composed of representatives of the member states and chaired by the Commission. The United Kingdom is normally represented at the animal feed meetings by officials of the Food Standards Agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which is an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The main annual cost of its work to UK public funds which can be quantified is made up of travel and subsistence costs totalling around £14,000, part of which was reimbursed by the Commission. The Committee is currently considering a number of legislative measures on animal feeds, including the authorisation of a number of feed additives.

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

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

  GM Crops
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of public attitudes towards the commercial growing of genetically modified crops; and if she will make a statement. [54348]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: I asked the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) to advise on how best to take forward a public debate on GM issues including GM crops. They provided their advice on 26 April and we are now considering their proposals.
  919W
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many GM crop trials are being carried out in each nation and region of the UK; [58131]

  (2) which GM crops are being field-tested in each nation and region of the UK. [58130]

  Mr. Meacher
  The following tables set out the types of GM crops, and number of field trials currently being carried out, by nation and county. The first table includes the 100 UK sites in the 2001–02 round of the Farm Scale Evaluations (33 maize, 16 beet, 26 spring sown oilseed rape, 25 winter sown oilseed rape). The sites for the final round of winter sown oilseed rape will be announced later this year. The second table shows the small scale field trials carried out by companies developing GM crops.

  Farm scale evaluation sites

  Number/county

  Crop

  Number of sites

  England

  Cambridgeshire

  Beet

  1

  Cheshire

  Maize

  1

  Winter oilseed rape

  1

  City of Sunderland

  Spring oilseed rape

  1

  Cumbria

  Beet

  1

  Dorset

  Maize

  8

  Spring oilseed rape

  2

  Winter oilseed rape

  2

  Durham

  Maize

  1

  Spring oilseed rape

  2

  Winter oilseed rape

  3

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Maize

  1

  Spring oilseed rape

  4

  Winter oilseed rape

  2

  Essex

  Maize

  2

  Gloucestershire

  Beet

  2

  Maize

  1

  Spring oilseed rape

  2

  Winter oilseed rape

  2

  Herefordshire

  Maize

  2

  Winter oilseed rape

  1

  Hertfordshire

  Spring oilseed rape

  1

  Winter oilseed rape

  1

  Kent

  Maize

  1

  Winter oilseed rape

  1

  Leeds

  Maize

  1

  Leicestershire

  Spring oilseed rape

  1

  Lincolnshire

  Beet

  2

  Maize

  4

  Spring oilseed rape

  3

  Winter oilseed rape

  5

  Norfolk

  Beet

  6

  Maize

  4

  Spring oilseed rape

  2

  Winter oilseed rape

  3

  North Yorkshire

  Beet

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  Spring oilseed rape

  1

  Oxfordshire

  Maize

  1

  Winter oilseed rape

  1

  Telford and Wrekin

  Maize

  1

  Spring oilseed rape

  1

  Shropshire

  Maize

  2

  Spring oilseed rape

  2

  Winter oilseed rape

  2

  South Gloucestershire

  Beet

  1

  Suffolk

  Beet

  1

  Warrington

  Maize

  1

  Warwickshire

  Spring oilseed rape

  1

  Winter oilseed rape

  1

  Wokingham

  Maize

  1

  Worcestershire

  Beet

  1

  Maize

  1

  920W

  Farm scale evaluation sites

  Nation/county

  Crop

  Number of sites

  Scotland

  Aberdeenshire

  Spring oilseed rape

  2

  Winter oilseed rape

  3

  Fife

  Spring oilseed rape

  1

  Ross-shire

  Winter oilseed rape

  1

  Small-scale research field trails

  Nation/county

  Crop

  Number of sites

  England

  Berkshire

  Wheat

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  Beet

  1

  Potato

  1

  Winter oilseed rape

  4

  Essex

  Winter oilseed rape

  1

  Gloucestershire

  Winter oilseed rape

  1

  Hertfordshire

  Wheat

  2

  Winter oilseed rape

  2

  Lincolnshire

  Winter oilseed rape

  1

  Norfolk

  Barley

  1

  Beet

  1

  Winter oilseed rape

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  Winter oilseed rape

  1

  Suffolk

  Beet

  2

  Winter oilseed rape

  1

  Scotland

  Aberdeenshire

  Winter oilseed rape

  3

  Dundee

  Potato

  1

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent meetings she has had with the Scottish Executive Department of Rural Affairs on the subject of GM crops; and if she will make a statement. [58129]

  Mr. Meacher
  Neither the Secretary of State nor I have had any recent meetings with the Scottish Executive on this subject. However, our officials meet frequently to discuss these issues.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive regarding plans to change the procedure for approval of GM foods and seeds. [58545]

  Mr. Meacher
  Neither my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, nor I have had any recent meetings with the Scottish Executive on this subject. However, our officials meet periodically to discuss changes proposed by the European Commission to the legislation governing the approval of GM food and seeds.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if live samples of the foot and mouth virus have been legally imported into the United Kingdom in the last four years. [202]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: As the OIE/FAO World Reference Laboratory for foot and mouth disease the Institute for Animal Health at Pirbright receives many imported samples for testing for foot and mouth disease each year, some of which will contain live

  921W
  foot and mouth disease virus. Testing is carried out only under licence in strictly controlled conditions in high containment facilities. Pirbright Laboratory is the only laboratory to have imported material containing foot and mouth disease virus in the last four years.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letters sent to her on 12 and 21 March written on behalf of Devon County Council regarding the reinstatement of the Ash Moor mass burial site, the Ascott Farm pyre and holding site and the intended holding site at Westlake Farm. [58326]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no record of receipt of these letters and have therefore been unable to trace them. If copies of the letters could be sent to the Department, we will of course respond to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 727W, with reference to the note to table iv, from which counties (a) the 100 dangerous contact cases, (b) the 120 contiguous premises cases and (c) the 54 slaughter on suspicion cases originated. [57144]

  Margaret Beckett
  DEFRA's exercise to cleanse and fully complete the data on the Disease Control System (DCS) database means that the original figures of 100 dangerous contact cases and 120 contiguous premises cases now stand at 158 dangerous contact cases and 115 contiguous premises. The figure of 54 slaughter on suspicion cases returning positive laboratory results and converting to infected premises remains the same. I will place a breakdown, by county, of the figures in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what quantity of ash resulting from foot and mouth pyres was buried on farms in(a) England, (b) Devon and (c) Cornwall; what quantity has since been dug up; on which farms; and what has happened to this ash. [58066]

  Mr. Morley
  Figures for the tonnage of ash buried on-farm are not available since in most cases the pyre ash was buried on-site by further excavating the pyre trench and scraping the ash into the hole and no assessment of the tonnage was made. The Environment Agency risk assessments and Groundwater Authorisations issued to DEFRA are based on the number of animals burnt and not the tonnage of ash buried.

  The following is a listing by county of the number of sites from which ash has been removed. The list is by county, since the Department is constrained by the provisions of the Data Protection Act from providing full addresses of all the sites.

  Devon—16

  Cornwall—3.

  To date, approximately 150,000 tonnes of pyre ash and soil have been removed and disposed of in licensed landfill sites in the UK. A further 1,205 tonnes has been removed and re-incinerated.
  922W
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice her Department has received on the desirability of re-incinerating ash from foot and mouth pyres before disposal. [58067]

  Mr. Morley
  Advice was obtained from the Environment Agency (EA), other Government Departments and a risk assessment was commissioned from DNV Consulting Ltd. Advice was also sought from a specially convened Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) Working Group on 24 May 2001, attended by experts from the Department of Health, Food Standards Agency, Environment Agency, Health and Safety Executive and MAFF.

  The working group recommended that the choice of disposal option should be made on a site-by-site basis. Leaving the ash unburied in-situ was likely to be associated with a higher risk than alternative routes such as incineration, on-site burial or burial in landfill. Disposing of ash from pyres by on-farm burial was regarded as a preferred low risk option. Where on-site burial was not possible, SEAC's preferred disposal option was re-incineration. The working group noted however that landfilling also represented a low-risk option and that the limited availability of high temperature incineration capacity in the UK meant that incineration of pyre ash might not be practical. Given that leaving the material unburied in-situ or in storage prior to incineration was not a risk-free option, the working group's advice indicated that landfill also represented an appropriate risk minimisation option.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much meat and bonemeal was generated as a result of the foot and mouth disposal process; how much of this is stored; and at what(a) locations and (b) cost. [58068]

  Mr. Morley
  42,289 tonnes of meat and bonemeal was produced from animals killed and rendered under the FMD and associated Welfare Disposal Scheme culls. This material is currently stored at two sites (one in Lincolnshire the other in Devon) pending incineration capacity becoming available later this year. Storage costs are approximately £17,500 per week (excluding VAT).

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what quantity of animal hides was disposed of as a result of foot and mouth; by what means; and at what cost. [58061]

  Mr. Morley
  Records indicate that during the recent foot and mouth disease outbreak approximately 430 tonnes of sheepskins and hides were disposed of for disease control purposes. A range of disposal routes were utilised including burning at a mass burn site, rendering, incineration and burial at licensed landfill sites. The total cost of disposal (including VAT and landfill tax where appropriate) is estimated to be £90,000. A number of other hides from animals entering the livestock welfare disposal scheme were recovered for leather production.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total value is of goods and materials recovered by her Department's value recovery team in the wake of foot and mouth; what has happened to these goods and materials; and what the total cost of this operation was. [58064]
  923W
  Mr. Morley
  Approximately £3,400,000 has been recovered to date by the value recovery team. Contracts have been terminated in the case of hirings and the goods returned to the suppliers. Items have been sold through the Government's Disposal Services Agency, by auction or by locally arranged sale according to Government guidelines. Other goods have been redeployed for official use within the Department.

  The total cost of the operation is currently being calculated.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much coal and timber was recovered unused from foot and mouth operations and how much(a) was resold, (b) was landfilled and (c) is still stored. [58065]

  Mr. Morley
  11,500 tonnes of coal have been recovered unused from foot and mouth operations by the Government's Disposal Services Agency. This has been resold. Approximately 51,500 railway sleepers and 2,650 tonnes of wood have been resold. 616 tonnes of sleepers and wood have been sent to landfill.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received on her Department's interim contingency plan for foot and mouth; and if she will place them in the Library. [57445]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The Interim Contingency Plan has been circulated to other Government Departments and key stakeholders for their comments. Two meetings have been held to provide them stakeholders with an opportunity to discuss their views. The plan has also been publicised by a news release and has been placed on the DEFRA website with a mailbox.

  Comments received have centred on issues of communication, allocation of personnel and resources, involvement of local authorities, enforcement, disposal capacity, and accountability and audit trails.

  I will place a list of the comments, without attribution, that we have received in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) number and (b) value of claims for foot and mouth disease compensation are outstanding in respect of animals subject to (i) confirmed infection and (ii) 3 km cull. [57566]

  Mr. Morley
  As at 21 May there were five claims outstanding in respect of animals subject to confirmed infection. These claims amount to £2,826,177. All claims relating to the 3 km cull have been paid.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 2 May 2002,Official Report, column 938W, on foot and mouth, if she will list the road haulage contractors, apart from Snowie, involved in the foot and mouth contract; by what tendering and procurement means the Snowie contract was awarded; whether she considered (a) the corporate structure, (b) the directors and (c) the shareholding pattern of Snowie before awarding the contract; if her Department is satisfied with Snowie's performance under its contract; how many other contractors bid for the £38 million contracts available to Snowie; and if she will make a statement. [55727]
  924W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 May 2002] [pursuant to the answer, 2 May 2002, Official Report, c. 938] the road haulage contractors involved in the foot and mouth contract were Banks; Yuill and Dodds; NDMR; Whitkirks; Beverley Ridley; and Blakeys Haulage. The Snowie contract was awarded through the use of the negotiated procurement procedure without the prior publication of an Official Journal (OJEU) notice and by competitive tendering. The eligibility, economic and financial standing of Snowie were considered before awarding the contract. The Department is satisfied with Snowie's performance under its contract. From information held centrally, over 35 contractors bid for the £38 million of contracts available to Snowie.

  Snowie were one of the main contractors used by DEFRA during the FMD outbreak. Their contractual performance was subject to ongoing review and management by quantity surveyors, forensic accountants and other technical specialists retained by DEFRA.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department will make a decision regarding the future use and full restoration of(a) the Ash Moor site, (b) the Arscott Farm pyre and holding site and (c) the intended holding site at Westlake Farm. [58321]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: My officials have had a series of meetings with officers of Devon county council to discuss the restoration and future use of the Ash Moor site. A Notice of Proposed Development seeking approval for its restoration will be submitted to the council shortly. The restoration of both South Arscott Farm and Westlake Farm cannot proceed until agreement has been reached with the respective land owners. Proposals have been submitted to them and we await their responses.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if a Minister from her Department will meet Devon county council to discuss the future use and full restoration of(a) the Ash Moor site, (b) the Arscott Farm pyre and holding site and (c) the intended holding site at Westlake farm. [58272]

  Mr. Morley
  I wrote to Mr. Jackson of Devon county council on 4 April 2002 offering to meet representatives from the council to discuss issues relating to the Ash Moor site and am awaiting his reply.

  My officials have had a series of meetings with officers of Devon county council to discuss the restoration and future use of the Ash Moor site. A Notice of Proposed Development seeking approval for its restoration will be submitted to the council shortly. The restoration of both South Arscott Farm and Westlake Farm cannot proceed until agreement has been reached with the respective land owners. Proposals have been submitted to them and we await their responses.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Congleton dated 29 January on behalf of Anthea McIntyre of Shrewsbury, concerning foot and mouth disease. [54983]

  Mr. Morley
  I am sorry for the delay in replying to the hon. Member's letter. A reply was sent on 2 May.
  925W
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the cost of storing and disposing of meat and bonemeal since the over 30 months scheme began; and when the backlog will be disposed of. [58069]

  Mr. Morley
  By mid-May some 428,000 tonnes of MBM from the Over Thirty Month Slaughter Scheme (OTMS) had been incinerated at a cost of £41.2 million (£49 million including transport). MBM storage costs since the commencement of the scheme are estimated at £60 million.

  RPA achieved its target to have incinerated 60 per cent. of OTMS MBM produced by 31 March 2002. RPA continues to operate a disposal programme which should ensure that stocks are reduced to low levels by 31 March 2004.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to(a) amend and (b) lift the 20 day standstill requirement that was introduced following the foot and mouth disease outbreak. [59280]

  Mr. Morley
  The 20 day standstill is at the centre of the interim livestock movement restrictions currently in force to guard against a future outbreak. Scientific and veterinary advice is that it aids detection of disease and slows disease spread. A number of exemptions from the standstill have been introduced, on veterinary advice, in order to help livestock farmers without causing an unacceptable increase in disease risk. These interim arrangements are currently under review, but whatever changes may be made to the interim rules this summer the Government intend to take full account of any relevant findings from the FMD inquiries before it reaches a final view on the role that a 20 day standstill might play in the long-term controls over livestock movements.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her most recent estimate is of the total cost of establishing, operating, managing and monitoring the foot and mouth disease burial site at Throckmorton; and if she will make a statement. [59272]

  Mr. Morley
  Latest cost estimates for the period ending 31 March 2002 indicate that the site has cost £15.3 million to acquire and establish the mass burial facility. Budgeted future costs for leachate removal, site remediation, landscaping and other essential works such as capping and re-profiling are £3.3 million. On-going management and monitoring of the site for a further 10 to 15 years are estimated to be a further £4 million.

  Total estimated costs for the site are therefore approximately £22.6 million.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will respond to the letters from the hon. Member for Croydon, South of 16 August 2001, November 2001 and January 2002 concerning points raised by Mr. G. W. Thynne, a constituent, about inquiries into foot and mouth. [54615]

  Mr. Morley
  I am sorry for the delay in replying to the hon. Member's letters. A reply was sent on 29 May.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Burney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers enforcement officers have been given to stop suspected illegal meat importers. [53704]

  Mr. Morley
  We amended legislation on May 2001 to make it easier for local authorities to take action where meat, which could have been imported illegally, is found. With effect from 22 May 2002, enforcement officers' search powers have been extended to include all commercial consignments and personal baggage.

  This is one of many measures set out in the action plan published on the 28 March to tackle the problem of illegal imports. The action plan is available in the House Libraries.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the French ban of British beef; and what action her Department is taking to encourage the French Government to lift the ban. [57821]

  Mr. Morley
  The Secretary of State has made it clear that we expect France to lift its ban as soon as possible. It is for the Commission to take action to enforce EU law and it has asked France for an explanation of its failure to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This is the first stage in a process which may lead to a further ECJ case against France and the imposition of penalties for failure to comply with the court's judgment in December 2001 that the French ban on imports of UK beef exported under the data based export scheme is illegal.

  Press Subscriptions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the newspapers subscribed to(a) Monday to Saturday and (b) on Sunday by her Department, stating for each subscription (i) the number of copies taken, and (ii) the annual cost. [52821]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: Centrally managed newspaper subscriptions for the HQ divisions of DEFRA cost £25,212.94 for the financial year 2001–02. The newspaper titles are shown in the table.

  DEFRA regional service centres and agencies undertake local purchasing of newspapers. The information relating to this expenditure is not held centrally and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Newspaper title

  Daily1

  Sunday

  The Business

  2

  —

  Derby Evening Telegraph

  5

  —

  The Express (Monday-Friday)

  30

  —

  The Express (Saturday)

  3

  —

  Daily Mail (Monday-Friday)

  50

  —

  Daily Mail (Saturday)

  4

  —

  Daily Mirror (Monday-Friday)

  40

  —

  Daily Mirror (Saturday)

  3

  —

  Daily Star (Monday-Friday)

  15

  —

  Daily Star (Saturday)

  2

  —

  Daily Telegraph (Monday-Friday)

  80

  —

  Daily Telegraph (Saturday)

  3

  —

  927W

  Newspaper title

  Daily1

  Sunday

  Evening Standard2

  45

  —

  Financial Times (Monday-Friday)

  240

  —

  Financial Times (Saturday)

  10

  —

  Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

  5

  —

  Glasgow Herald

  5

  —

  Guardian (Monday-Friday)

  110

  —

  Guardian (Saturday)

  5

  —

  Independent (Monday-Friday)

  90

  —

  Independent (Saturday)

  4

  —

  Independent(Sunday)

  —

  3

  International Herald Tribune

  5

  —

  Jewish Chronicle (Friday)

  1

  —

  Farmers Weekly

  7

  —

  Le Figaro (Monday-Friday)

  5

  —

  Le Figaro (Saturday)

  1

  —

  Le Monde (Monday-Friday)

  10

  —

  Mail on Sunday

  —

  2

  Morning Star (Monday-Saturday)

  8

  —

  News of the World

  —

  2

  Observer

  —

  3

  Police Review (Friday)

  4

  —

  Sun (Monday-Friday)

  30

  —

  Sun (Saturday)

  3

  —

  Sunday Express

  —

  2

  Sunday Mirror

  —

  2

  Sunday People

  —

  2

  Sunday Telegraph

  —

  2

  Sunday Times

  —

  3

  Times (Monday-Friday)

  173

  —

  Times (Saturday)

  6

  —

  Wall Street Journal

  5

  —

  Western Mail (Monday-Friday)

  10

  —

  Western Morning News

  10

  —

  1 Monday-Saturday

  2 Three editions per day News Extra, Late Prices, Final

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidelines have been provided to the Chief Nuclear Inspector in respect of the information the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is permitted to give MEPs in respect of safety at Sellafield. [57985]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  No specific guidelines have been provided to the Chief Nuclear Inspector in respect of the information the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is permitted to give MEP's in respect of safety at Sellafield.

  All Health and Safety Executive (HSE) staff, including the Chief Inspector, follow the HSE's own published Policy on Openness and the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Internal guidance to staff on how to comply with these commitments and with any legal restrictions on disclosure is provided in HSE's General Administrative Procedures 1—Disclosure of Information to the Public (GAP 1). This guidance is publicly available.

  Agriculture Policy (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what formal procedures are in place for consulting the Scottish Executive's Environment and Rural Affairs Department on matters of agricultural policy. [57567]
  928W
  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA and SEERAD are mutually committed to work together on the application of agricultural policy within their respective responsibilities. This commitment is given expression in a significant two-way flow of information and related discussions between the Departments, which take place within the framework of the "Memorandum of Understanding and supplementary agreements between the United Kingdom Government, Scottish Ministers and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales" (Cm 4444) and a bilateral concordat. In order to ensure effective co-ordination and help resolution of differences, Agriculture Ministers of the devolved Administrations meet regularly, normally in advance of EU Agriculture Councils, under the chairmanship of the DEFRA Secretary of State. In addition, there are regular (monthly or more frequent) meetings at senior official level on matters relating to agricultural policy.

  Forest Enterprise
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the depreciation policies used in respect of Forest Enterprise capital equipment and vehicles. [58152]

  Mr. Morley
  The depreciation policy for Forest Enterprise's fixed assets is published each year in the Notes to the Forest Enterprise Accounts within the Forestry Commission's annual reports for Great Britain and England, Scotland, and Wales. Copies of the reports are held in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether vehicles owned by Forest Enterprise, exempt from vehicle excise duty under section 183 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, are used to service or deliver capital equipment sold to third parties. [58150]

  Mr. Morley
  Forest Enterprise does not use vehicles which are exempt from vehicle excise duty to deliver capital equipment after it has been sold. These vehicles may, however, be used on service jobs, including instances where Forest Enterprise has agreed to service capital equipment it has sold.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total value of capital equipment owned by Forest Enterprise disposed of by(a) public auction, (b) open tender and (c) other means was in each of the last five years. [58151]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows the value of capital equipment disposed of by Forest Enterprise in Great Britain in the last five years, all of which was sold following public auction or open tender. (In a very few instances the expected price was not reached at the auction or tender. In these cases, Forest Enterprise negotiated with bidders to obtain an increased offer.)

  £

  Financial year

  Capital equipment sold

  1997–98

  1,027,000

  1998–99

  1,296,000

  1999–2000

  1,447,000

  2000–01

  1,155,000

  2001–02

  1,003,000

  929W
  In year 2001–02, the amount raised by open tender was £602,000 (60 per cent.) while the amount raised from public auction was £401,000 (40 per cent.). The amounts raised from each type of sale in the previous four years are not readily available but it is estimated that the percentage ratio would be similar to year 2001–02.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assistance is available to farmers to facilitate development of potential new markets to be opened by EU enlargement. [57305]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department offers various forms of assistance to farmers wishing to develop export markets, both in the EU candidate countries and more widely. These include mounting a UK agriculture presence at overseas trade fairs, leading trade missions overseas and organising inward missions of foreign buyers and opinion formers. Events have been organised in two EU candidate countries over the last year, and future events are planned at world fairs to which buyers from the candidate countries are known to go. We are currently considering further options of promoting the UK agriculture industry in these markets.

  Pollution (River Ribble)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on pollution in the River Ribble. [56690]

  Mr. Meacher
  The most up-to-date water quality classification for the River Ribble is based on chemical monitoring of the river between 1998 and 2000. From this chemical monitoring, the upper reaches of the River Ribble from High Bridge to Settle Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW), a distance of 26.7 km, are classified as very good quality—General Quality Assessment (GQA) class A. Downstream of Settle WwTW to the freshwater limit at Samlesbury, a distance of 70.7 km, the River Ribble is classified as good quality—GQA class B.

  Biological monitoring in 2000 indicated that the quality of the upper and middle reaches of the River Ribble between High Bridge and Clitheroe WwTW, a distance of 66 km, is very good (class A). Between Clitheroe WwTW and the River Calder, a distance of 4.0 km, the biological quality is good (class B). Below the confluence with the River Calder to the freshwater limit, a distance of 27.4 km, the biological quality is fairly good (class C).

  Farm Income
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what income was received by farms in each of the past three years(a) before deductions of wages paid to farmers and their families and (b) net of those deductions. [57264]

  Mr. Morley
  Most farmers are either self-employed or partners and therefore their income is the return from the farming business rather than wages. Total Income from Farming represents the income to farmers, partners,930W
  directors, their spouses and most other family workers. The distribution of that income between those parties is an individual matter for each farm business.

  Total Income from Farming in each of the last three years is given in the table.

  Total Income from Farming (TIFF)

  — million

  1999

  2,252

  2000

  1,513

  2001

  1,710

  Curry Report (Costs)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average cost per annum per average family would be if the cost of the proposals in the Curry report were added to the average cost and subsidies and compensation paid to the farming industry in the past three years. [57260]

  Mr. Morley
  The Policy Commission estimated that implementing its recommendations would cost approximately £500 million over three years. However, the cost of many of the recommendations will depend upon the precise way in which they are implemented. The Government intend to produce a strategy for sustainable food and farming in England in the autumn, following a wide-ranging process of stakeholder engagement. This strategy will incorporate a definitive response to each of the Policy Commission's recommendations.

  Sewage Plant (Foreness Point)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many times during the past 12 months for which details are available raw sewage has been released into the sea from the Foreness Point sewage plant; and what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the telemetry used to monitor overflows at the Foreness Point sewage plant. [58604]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: Discharge is recorded by use of a pump run meter. This meter has shown that the storm pumps have operated once in the past 12 months for approximately eight minutes.

  The discharge consent for the Foreness outfall, issued in February 1985, has no conditions requiring monitoring or telemetry to record storm overflow events. The water utility is therefore under no legal obligation to record these events. This situation will be reviewed in the proposed combined scheme for collection of waste water from Margate and Broadstairs.

  Throckmorton Airfield
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on changes in land ownership since 1992 at and adjacent to Throckmorton airfield with reference to the Crichel Down rules. [57338]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ingram), on 21 May 2002,Official Report, columns 172–173.

  Land Sales
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the land that her Department is(a) offering for sale and (b) plans to offer in the next 12 months, giving its (i) location and (ii) size. [59058]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department is currently negotiating the sale of, or offering for sale, the following areas of land:

  95 acres of land at Barnhall near Wickford, Essex.

  10 acres of land (three plots) near the A259 Rustington By-Pass, Littlehampton, West Sussex.

  In the next 12 months, but subject to planning investigations still to be completed, the Department plans to offer for sale approximately 5 acres of land at Whitley Road, Long Benton, Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Public body

  Code of practice

  Executive bodies

  Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales

  Available from the board

  Agricultural Wages Committee

  Available from the committee

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  Available from the council

  British Potato Council

  Available from the council

  Countryside Agency

  Available from the agency

  English Nature

  Available from the body

  Environment Agency

  Available from the agency

  Food from Britain Council

  Available from the council

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  Available from the authority

  Horticulture Development Council

  Available from the council

  Horticulture Research International

  Available from the body

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  Available from the committee

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Available from the commission

  Milk Development Council

  Available from the council

  National Forest Company

  Available from the company

  Regional Flood Defence Committee

  Committees of the Environment Agency (EA) and adhere to the EA Code of Practice

  Royal Botanic Gardens. Kew

  Available from the body

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  Available from the authority

  UK Register of Organic Food Standards

  Available from the body

  Wine Standards Board of the Vintners Company

  Available from the board

  Advisory

  Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment

  Available from the committee

  Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment

  Available from the committee

  Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances

  Available from the committee

  Advisory Committee on Packaging

  Committee recently stood down. Code of practice will be drawn up when a new committee is convened

  Advisory Committee on Pesticides

  Available from the committee

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment

  Available from the committee

  Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committee

  Available from the committee

  Air Quality Expert Group

  Currently being set up—code of practice will be set up when the group is convened

  Committee of Investigation for Great Britain

  Committee is dormant

  Committee on Agricultural Valuation

  Available from the committee

  Committee on Products and Processes for use in Public Water Supply

  Available from the committee

  Consumers Committee for Great Britain

  Committee is dormant

  Darwin Advisory Committee (the Darwin Initiative)

  Available from the committee

  Expert Group on Cryptosporidium in Water Supplies

  Available from the group

  Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards

  Available from the panel

  Farm Animal Welfare Council

  Available from the council

  Government Industry Forum on non-food uses of crops

  Available from the forum

  Hill Farming Advisory Committee

  Committee under review at present—code of practice will be drawn up if and when they know what form the new committee will take

  Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB

  Available from the group

  Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council

  Available from the council

  National Expert Group on Transboundary Air Pollution

  Available from the group

  Pesticides Residues Committee

  Available from the committee

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee

  Available from the committee

  Royal Commission on Environment Pollution

  Use the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) code of practice as their guide and declare their interests accordingly

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee

  Available from the committee

  Sustainable Development Commission

  Use the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) code of practice as their guide and declare their interests accordingly

  Disclosure of Interests
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what rules apply to the disclosure of interests on the part of those serving on public bodies which are responsible to her Department. [56457]

  Mr. Morley
  All advisory and executive non-departmental public bodies are required to adopt a board members' code, based on guidance produced by the Cabinet Office, and they should have registers of interests. The definition of interests is ultimately for individual Departments since they are best placed to decide what might be thought to influence members of their non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs).

  The following table lists the NDPBs sponsored by this Department and indicates whether or not a Code of Practice currently exists and where it may be obtained.
  933W

  Public body

  Code of practice

  Sustainable Development Education Panel

  Available from the panel

  Veterinary Products Committee

  Available from the committee

  Veterinary Residues Committee

  Available from the committee

  Water Regulation Advisory Committee

  Available from the committee

  Zoos Forum

  Available from the forum

  Ancient Forests
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government are taking to protect ancient forests. [56441]

  Mr. Morley
  A number of measures are in place to protect all forests in the UK, including ancient semi-natural woodlands, where the biodiversity and cultural heritage values are the highest. In particular, the felling of any type of woodland is controlled through felling regulations. Additionally, many woodlands are subject to further controls because they are within designated areas such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest or Special Areas of Conservation.

  Animal Welfare
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what priority she accords to high standards of animal welfare in her Department's strategy for the future of farming. [58823]

  Mr. Morley
  Encouraging high animal welfare standards on farm is already at the heart of Government policy and will certainly play a role in the Department's new strategy for sustainable food and farming.

  Beef (Argentina)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what basis she proposes increasing the importation of beef from Argentina under the European Community's import tariff quota; and what checks are carried out to ensure that the beef is(a) high quality and (b) disease-free. [57516]

  Mr. Morley
  Argentina may send beef to the Community under a number of concessionary import schemes. A recent Commission proposal will, if agreed, provide Argentina with a further 10,000 tonne quota through the High Quality (commonly known as the 'Hilton') Beef import scheme under which they are currently allocated 28,000 tonnes. This additional 10,000 tonne quota will be for one year only.

  The detailed rules for the Hilton import scheme are set out in Commission Regulation 936–97. This regulation sets out the definition of High Quality beef and ensures the arrangements under which conditions are met.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the next deadline is for applications for agrimonetary compensation; how much she plans to claim; how that will be distributed; and if she will make a statement. [58363]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: No further agrimonetary compensation will be available.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Commission Communication, "A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development", with particular reference to(a) social dialogue, (b) priority to market-based approaches to provide price incentives and (c) support for coal-fired power stations. [57894]

  Mr. Meacher
  The European Commission adopted its Communication, "A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development", on 15 May 2001. My Department submitted an explanatory memorandum on this document to Parliament on 20 June 2001. The European Council agreed a Strategy for Sustainable Development in Göteborg on 16 June, drawing to a large extent on the material in the Commission's proposal and highlighting the importance both of stakeholder consultation and of getting prices right so that they reflect external costs.

  The Commission's Communication included a proposal to phase out subsidies to fossil fuel production and consumption by 2010, but this does not feature in the GÖteborg Conclusions. The Government do not give any direct support to coal-fired power stations. However the DTI-supported Cleaner Coal Technology Programme encourages collaboration between UK industry and universities in the development of technology and expertise which delivers environmental benefits, in a manner entirely consistent with the spirit of the Commission's Communication.

  Biological Diversity
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the Government have responded to the recommendation of the Conference of Parties (5) to the convention on biological diversity to investigate the potential risks and impacts of genetic restriction use technologies. [29500]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department for International Development has also commissioned a study for the benefit of developing countries on "the costs and benefits to the livelihoods of the rural and urban poor arising from the application of so-called 'terminator genes' and similar technologies in developing countries." The results of this study have been published in two books: Swanson, T(ed), 2002, "Biotechnology, Agriculture and the Developing World: The Distributional Implications of Technological Change", Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Swanson, T(ed), 2002, "The Economics of Managing Biotechnologies", Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht.

  Enriched Laying Cages
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she proposes to allow the use of enriched laying cages beyond 2012. [58145]
  935W
  Mr. Morley
  Draft Regulations to implement Council Directive 99/74/EC were laid before the House on 1 May 2002 and the use of "enriched" cages is permitted by these Regulations. If any changes to the Regulations are proposed, there will be full public consultation.

  Farming Advisory Service
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government are taking to deliver a national, integrated advisory service to provide support and training for farmers. [59703]

  Mr. Morley
  Advice services are an important element of support to farmers and other land managers. As part of the development of the Government's strategy for sustainable food and farming, we are considering the relevant recommendations of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. We published our document "Sustainable Food and Farming: Working Together" on 26 March which invites views on the content of the strategy.

  We announced two measures, also on 26 March, that are directly relevant. First, a review of the effectiveness of education and training provision for land managers, about which we will make a detailed announcement as soon as possible. Second, as an important contribution to effective knowledge transfer and dissemination, a pilot demonstration farm scheme to be operational by the end of 2002.

  European Union Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the European Union directives and regulations relating to her Department that have been implemented in each of the last four years, specifying(a) the title and purpose of each, (b) the cost to public funds of each and (c) the cost to businesses of each. [39126]

  Mr. Morley
  In answer to part(a) two tables are available in the Library of the House. The first table shows all directives agreed in the UK in the years 1998–2001, for which DEFRA and its predecessors took the lead, and which have since been implemented. The second table shows council regulations agreed in the years 1998–2001 for which DEFRA and its predecessors took the lead. A number of regulations agreed during this time have since expired—these are not included. The list has been trawled from a variety of sources and it is possible that a small number of regulations may have fallen through the net. Regulations have a direct effect in the laws of member states and do not usually require Governments to take action to implement them. The table does not show commission regulations. Details of all regulations and directives agreed can be found on the Eur-Lex database available on the European Union's website.

  The Department does not hold information in the form requested in part (b). This information could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  For part (c), Departments are required to produce regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) for proposals, including those originating in European legislation, likely
  936W
  to impose significant costs on business, charities or voluntary organisations. Copies of these are placed in the Library of the House.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has put forward to the EU Agricultural Council regarding reform of the CAP. [57820]

  Mr. Morley
  The latest stage in the ongoing reform of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) will begin with publication of the European Commission's proposals on the mid-term review of Agenda 2000 this summer.

  We are urging the Commission to publish radical proposals based around a shift from production linked support (pillar 1 of the CAP) to support for agri-environment and rural development measures (pillar 2 of the CAP). We will continue to argue this during negotiations which are expected to continue through 2002 with a final agreement in the first half of 2003.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reforms have been made to the Common Agricultural Policy since 1997. [57819]

  Mr. Morley
  Reform of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) was agreed at the Berlin Council in March 1999. This reform, known as the Agenda 2000 agreement, represented a significant shift from price support to direct payments; reduced the economic distortions of the CAP; helped agriculture meet the challenges of further trade liberalisation; and enabled the formulation of an integrated EU rural development policy, shifting the emphasis from production support to environmental and rural economy measures in the future. It also went some way towards helping our ambitions for EU enlargement and the WTO round.

  A further reform of the sheepmeat regime was agreed by the Agriculture Council in December 2001, simplifying the regime and making it more flexible. The ewe premium will in future be paid on a flat rate basis, and the introduction of national envelopes provides a valuable mechanism for targeting extra support for the sheep sector and for encouraging environmentally beneficial farming practices.

  At the Berlin Council in 1999, it was agreed that elements of the Agenda 2000 package would be subject to mid-term review. We await the Commission's mid-term review proposals, which are expected this summer. In the mid-term review we will be looking to build on the Agenda 2000 reform, which we do not believe went far enough, and arguing for a further shift away from production linked support (pillar 1 of the CAP) to agri-environment and rural development measures (pillar 2 of the CAP).

  Castle Award
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if her Department has applied for a Castle award. [57605]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: DEFRA has not applied for a Castle Award this year. However, we take the issues of pay equality very seriously and have

  937W
  already completed some very thorough Equal Pay Audits in preparation for modernising our pay system. We are also planning to carry out an Equal Pay Review later this year.

  Carbon Grading
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the rules are for carbon trading for companies participating in climate change agreements; and what the timetable is for their application. [53794]

  Mr. Meacher
  In August 2001, the Government published the "Framework for the UK Emissions Trading Scheme" which sets out how companies participating in climate change agreements will be able to trade carbon dioxide emission allowances. In April 2002, the Government issued guidance on how companies and sector associations in climate change agreements might wish to manage their interface with the UK emissions trading scheme. The Government intend to consult on legal rules to supplement these guidance documents in June 2002.

  Since 2 April 2002, companies in climate change agreements have been able to buy allowances in the UK emissions trading scheme. Once the rules are finalised, they will be able to use these allowances to meet the target in their climate change agreement. However, the Government will not allocate any allowances to companies that have overachieved their target until companies' emissions have been independently verified at the end of the current 'target period'. Depending on the industrial sector, the current 'target period' will end between 30 September and 31 December 2002.

  Departmental Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent by her Department on paying pensions to retired employees of her Department in 2001–02; if she will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in(a) five years' time, (b) 10 years' time, (c) 20 years' time and (d) 30 years' time; if she will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (i) unfunded pension schemes and (ii) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if she will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [57361]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: Staff of this Department and its Executive Agencies are eligible for membership of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS)—the occupational pension scheme for civil servants. The Cabinet Office is responsible for this scheme and pays the pensions of retired members centrally. They will answer in respect of civil servants who are PCSPS members. This will include DEFRA and its Agencies.

  Departmental Sponsors
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) which hon. Members have been appointed as sponsors to her Department since 7 June 2001; and when each of them were appointed; [59960]
  938W
  (2) what the duties are of hon. Members appointed as sponsors to her Department; and what assistance is given by officials in her Department to them in carrying out these duties. [59984]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Minister of Rural Affairs in the Scottish Executive regarding the Common Fisheries Policy; and if she will make a statement. [56879]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: I frequently meet the Minister of Rural Affairs in the Scottish Executive to discuss fisheries matters, and last did so on 17 April.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she estimates that the European Commission will publish its proposals on the future of the European Common Fisheries Policy; and if she will make a statement. [57506]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The Commission has said that it intends to make a presentation on its proposals to the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 11 June. This implies that the proposals should be published in advance of that. I and my right hon. friend the Secretary of State have made clear to the Commission that we consider progress in reviewing the Common Fisheries Policy to be a vital step in securing a sustainable future for fishing, and that we wish to see the proposals as soon as possible.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with(a) the European Commission and (b) each other EU member state regarding the Common Fisheries Policy; and if she will make a statement. [56878]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: Both I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have recently had discussions with the Commissioner for Fisheries and with the fisheries ministers of various member states.

  Twelve-mile Limit
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the status of negotiations to extend the lifespan of the 12 mile limit derogation; which countries have indicated an aversion to so doing; and if delegations have made linkage between extension and UK agreement in different fields. [57875]

  Mr. Morley
  This issue falls to be negotiated as part of the forthcoming review of the Common Fisheries Policy. The negotiations have yet to start: the Commission has not yet issued its proposals, but says that they are imminent. It is to be expected in a negotiation on a matter such as this that delegations will seek to link issues in pursuit of their objectives. But on the matter of 6 and 12 mile limits it is plain from views already declared that a clear majority of member states favours retention of the present arrangements.

  Coral Reefs
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent steps her Department has taken to protect coral reefs. [57977]

  Mr. Meacher
  Under the Jakarta Mandate of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Government is working internationally to protect coral reefs, notably to tackle coral bleaching and activities that can result in their physical degradation and destruction. The UK was a founding member of the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI).

  Our Darwin Initiative plays an important part in our contribution to implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity in developing countries, including marine biodiversity and coral reefs. The UK has committed substantial funding to support the development of improved understanding and better management of tropical coral reef ecosystems, recognising the importance of the resource to the livelihoods of many vulnerable coastal communities in developing countries.

  Furthermore, the cold water corals off the north west coast of Scotland, the Darwin Mounds, are expected to be the first habitat to be afforded Special Area of Conservation status once regulations to extend the Habitats Directive out to the limit of jurisdiction of UK waters are in place.

  Broiler Chickens
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the quantity and type of therapeutic and non-therapeutic drugs given to broiler chickens. [57933]

  Mr. Morley
  There are 85 veterinary medicines currently authorised in the UK for use in chickens. 37 of these are for therapeutic use and the remaining 48 are for prophylactic use. A list of these has been placed in the Library of the House.

  We do not collect details of the quantities of these drugs that are used in the UK. However details of the quantities of antimicrobial products sold for use in chickens can be found in the report "Sales of Antimicrobial Products used as Veterinary Medicines, Growth Promoters and Coccidiostats in the UK in 2000." This report is available from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), Woodham Lane, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 3LS. It is also available on the VMD's website (www.vmd.gov.uk). Copies have also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Regional Foods
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average(a) time and (b) cost has been for registering a regional food in the last 12 months; and what assistance including advertising, her Department provides to organisations wishing to register a regional food. [56842]

  Mr. Morley
  Regional foods can be registered as EU protected food names under a system set up under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081–92. The application process for registering such products involves a number of steps including checks by both this Department, the agriculture Departments of the devolved Administrations and the Commission to ensure that the applications meet the 940W
  necessary criteria for registration. Participation in the scheme is voluntary. No fee is charged on producers wishing to register a product.

  In the last 12 months no UK regional food has been registered as a protected food name although a number have been lodged with the European Commission who are currently considering whether they meet the criteria for registration. Officials from this Department work closely with colleagues from the agriculture Departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as the applicant themselves in handling applications. The work involves advising applicants, both in writing and face-to-face, on the application process, the consideration of application and liaising with the European Commission. It is estimated that the staff costs to the Department for this work in the last 12 months is £15,106.10.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many regional foods are registered in(a) Angus, (b) Scotland and (c) the UK. [56846]

  Mr. Morley
  No regional foods have been registered as protected food names in Angus. Five regional foods have been registered in Scotland, (and including these) 31 in the UK.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice is given by her Department to organisations wishing to register a regional food. [56845]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department provides written advice to organisations wishing to register a regional food. This advice covers the eligibility criteria, the information needed to support an application and details of the application process. In addition, officials from this Department, or if appropriate, officials from one of the agriculture Departments in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland will visit potential applicants to advise them about completion of the required application form.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many regional foods are registered in each other EU member state. [56847]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of regional foods registered as protected food names by other EU member states is set out in the table:

  Member state

  No. of registered protected food names

  Austria

  11

  Belgium

  4

  Denmark

  12

  Finland

  2

  France

  127

  Germany

  62

  Greece

  88

  Ireland

  3

  Italy

  117

  Luxembourg

  4

  Netherlands

  5

  Portugal

  72

  Spain

  71

  Sweden

  2

  Source:

  European Commission (April 2002)

  Animal Transportation Directive
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the effect of the proposed EU directive on animal transportation to the UK livestock industry; [59670]

  (2) what discussions she has had with her counterparts in the (a) Scottish Executive, (b) National Assembly for Wales and (c) Northern Ireland Assembly on the implications for the UK livestock industry of the proposed EU directive on animal transportation; [59679]

  (3) what representations she has received from farming organisations in Scotland on the impact of the proposed EU directive on animal transport to the livestock industry in Scotland. [59666]

  Mr. Morley
  There are as yet no proposals from the Commission to amend the EU transport directive.

  Agriculture Industry
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she next intends to meet representatives of(a) the Royal Agricultural Society and (b) the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society to discuss the future viability of the agriculture industry. [51446]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has no plans to meet the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society to discuss the future viability of the agriculture industry. The Royal Agriculture Society will be my right hon. Friend's hosts at the Royal Show on 1 July.

  EU Agriculture Council
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last represented the United Kingdom at the European Union Agriculture Council; and what was discussed. [57818]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 26 April 2002 to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Jimmy Hood),Official Report, column 510W.

  Seed Regulations
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to amend the Seed (National List of Varieties) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement. [58738]

  Margaret Beckett
  Changes to the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 2001 will be needed in the near future to amend references to EC seeds marketing directives which are currently being codified by the Council of the European Union, and other minor matters.

  In addition, the Government said on 28 November 2000, in reply to a Parliamentary Question about changes to the arrangements for requesting a hearing on proposed National List decisions, that it would wish to consider, in the light of the proposed addition of a genetically modified plant variety, Chardon LL, to the National List, whether the current arrangements are satisfactory for all parties. The Chardon LL Hearing will finish around mid June this year and it remains the Government's intention
  942W
  to review how those arrangements have worked. If changes are proposed, all interested parties will be consulted.

  BSE
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to tighten controls on imports of beef and beef products from the EU relating to the risks posed by BSE. [57811]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: Controls in relation to BSE, on trade in beef and beef products from other member states and imports from non-EU countries, are in force on an EU wide basis. In addition the UK applies national measures to prohibit the sale of meat from cattle aged over thirty months, whether home produced or imported, subject to certain specified exceptions. There are no current plans to change these rules but we and the European Commission keep the situation under regular review.

  Agricultural Shows
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the veterinary assessment of the risk to bio-security posed by cow-pats at agricultural shows; and if she will make a statement. [54340]

  Margaret Beckett
  Veterinary and scientific advice is that livestock shows pose a risk of the transmission of Foot and Mouth or other notifiable diseases because large numbers of animals, vehicles and people are brought together from a number of different farms. Hence strict biosecurity is needed. Animal faeces may contain Foot and Mouth virus and other animal pathogens, which may survive in faeces for a period of time. Show organisers are required to draw up a biosecurity operating plan and appoint a biosecurity officer to ensure that the show licence conditions are followed. These conditions include that if animals cross a public area, any faeces is removed as far as possible and the spot covered, for example with sawdust, as is normal hygienic practice.

  Animal Gatherings
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason no regulatory impact assessments were carried out by her Department before publication of the(a) Animal Gatherings (Interim Measures) (England) Order 2002 and 0(b) Animal Gatherings (Interim Measures) (England) (Amendment) Order 2002; and if she will make a statement. [509237]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The Animal Gatherings (Interim Measures) (England) 2002 and the Animal Gatherings (Interim Measures) (England) (Amendment) Order 2002 are part of the legislation implementing the interim rules on animal movements put in place after last year's outbreak. These Orders were developed in a short timescale in consultation with the Association of Show and Agricultural Organisations and other industry representatives. They represent a gradual and proportionate easing of restrictions that applied in last

  943W
  year's outbreak, and are based on veterinary advice. They will be reviewed in the light of the findings of the independent inquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to provide financial support for biosecurity measures under the Animal Gatherings (Interim Measures) (England) Amendment Order 2002; and if she will make a statement. [59238]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: I have no such plans. It is the responsibility of market operators and show organisers to take the required biosecurity precautions.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with interested individuals and organisations regarding the Animal Gatherings (Interim Measures) (England) (Amendment) Order 2002; and if she will make a statement. [59236]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: The Association of Show and Agricultural Organisations and other show organisers made representations to the Department that the 28 days restriction on the use of land both before and after shows for FMD susceptible livestock would cause many small livestock shows to be cancelled or only go ahead without livestock.

  Following further veterinary advice, we introduced the Animal Gatherings (Interim Measures) (England) Amendment Order 2002 so as to lift the 28 day restriction after shows. The measure therefore eases the rules on livestock shows.

  Carcase Disposal
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will apply for a derogation from the EU Animal By-Products Regulations (off-farm carcase disposal) in respect of remote areas. [57563]

  Mr. Morley
  We propose to derogate from the regulation to permit the burial or burning of fallen stock in defined remote areas. These will be the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the cost to the farming industry of complying with the EU Animal By-Products Regulations for off-farm carcase disposal. [57562]

  Mr. Morley
  Regulatory impact assessments on the Animal By-Products Regulation were placed in the Library of the House on 27 November 2000, 26 February 2001 and 4 February 2002, along with explanatory memoranda on the regulation (reference 12646/00 and 12648/00, 15438/01 and 15541/01).

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the proportion of farm businesses which have no facilities for arranging off-farm carcase disposal. [57565]

  Mr. Morley
  No such estimate has been made. However, we are in discussion with the livestock and disposal industries over future arrangements for the disposal of fallen stock. We hope that those arrangements 944W
  will enable all farm businesses, with the possible exception of those in the defined remote areas, to have access to facilities for the off-farm disposal of fallen stock.

  Recycling and Waste Recovery
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets she has set her Department for(a) business packaging waste recovery and (b) business packaging recycling; and if she will make a statement. [58664]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has been working towards cross-Government targets for general waste management. These are:

  To recover a minimum of 40 per cent. total office waste, with at least 25 per cent. of that recovery coming from recycling or composting by March 2001.

  To have paper recycling schemes in place in all offices with more than 50 staff by April 2002.

  New targets for waste management are due to be set later this year as part of the new Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate.

  No separate targets are set in respect of business packaging waste.

  Refrigerators
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what conclusions of relevance to the future implementation of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive her Department has drawn from the United Kingdom experience with end of life refrigerators. [58104]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive has not yet been finalised. It is expected to be adopted later this year. However, UK officials are currently consulting all stakeholders on the best means of implementation and will take full account of previous experience of EU legislation. As a directive, the draft WEEE legislation allows a degree of flexibility in its implementation which contrasts with the Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) legislation which is a directly applicable regulation.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to publish a domestic energy efficiency strategy. [58540]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are developing a domestic energy efficiency strategy to 2010. Energy efficiency, including domestic energy efficiency, will be addressed in the Energy White Paper, which will be published towards the end of the year.

  Waste Incinerators
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what(a) gases and (b) emission levels have breached legal limits in each of the last five years from the Edmonton Incinerator; what impact this had on local air quality; and if she will make a statement; [57710]
  945W
  (2) on which dates in each of the last five years London Waste has been found in breach of legal limits on emissions at its Edmonton incinerator; what penalties were imposed by the Environment Agency in response to each of those breaches; and if she will make a statement. [57708]

  Mr. Meacher
  The table lists the dates within the last three and a half years on which the Environment Agency has recorded emissions breaching a limit set in the authorisation for the Edmonton incinerator.

  The information presented gives the averaged emission over the period of a breach, which may last up to a few hours.

  The Environment Agency informs me that files relating to the remainder of the last five years have been lost. However, the remaining files indicate that there were additionally reported breaches on 24 November 1997, 2 December 1997 and 14 April 1998 but no data on the types or levels of emission are available.

  In response to the increased number of breaches of the hydrogen chloride limit in 1999, the Agency wrote a strongly worded letter to the operator of the incinerator. In response to this letter the operator instituted a series of actions that has virtually eliminated these breaches.

  In response to the increased number of breaches of the carbon monoxide limit in 2001 the Agency issued an enforcement notice requiring the operator to analyse the causes of the breaches and report the results of the analysis to the Agency. The reports show that if there is a loss of waste feed to the incinerator the resulting excess air cools the flame resulting in increased carbon monoxide emissions. The most common causes of a loss of waste feed are failure of the waste feed ram, bulky items blocking the waste feed chute and blockages of the ash removal mechanism. The enforcement notice and the operator's responses are on the Public Register maintained by the Agency which can be viewed at the following address:

  North East Area Office (Thames Region)

  Apollo Court

  2 Bishops Square Business Park

  St. Albans Road West

  Hatfield

  AL10 9EX.

  With regard to the impact of such breaches on local air quality, both the operator and the Agency have carried out dispersion modelling of emissions from the plant. The Agency has modelled emissions from the plant under worst case breach conditions in comparison with current standards. It was concluded that at the highest recorded level of emissions there would not be a breach of an air quality standard.

  mg/Nm3

  Date

  Emission

  Value—average emission

  Emission limit

  22 September 1998

  Hydrogen chloride

  103

  30

  22 September 1998

  Hydrogen chloride

  90

  30

  22 September 1999

  Sulphur dioxide

  217

  300

  22 September 1998

  Sulphur dioxide

  242

  300

  21 December 1998

  Hydrogen chloride

  55

  30

  17 February 1999

  Carbon monoxide

  331

  100

  17 February 1999

  Sulphur dioxide

  454

  300

  17 February 1999

  Sulphur dioxide

  512

  300

  946W

  mg/Nm3

  Date

  Emission

  Value—average emission

  Emission limit

  6 April 1999

  Carbon monoxide

  167

  100

  6 April 1999

  Carbon monoxide

  180

  100

  22 July 1999

  Hydrogen chloride

  140

  30

  22 July 1999

  Hydrogen chloride

  48

  30

  27 July 1999

  Hydrogen chloride

  518

  30

  4 October 1999

  Hydrogen chloride

  62

  30

  4 November 1999

  Hydrogen chloride

  83

  30

  23 November 1999

  Hydrogen chloride

  152

  30

  23 November 1999

  Hydrogen chloride

  69

  30

  22 May 2000

  Carbon monoxide

  132

  100

  21 June 2000

  Carbon monoxide

  302

  100

  28 July 2000

  Carbon monoxide

  308

  100

  10 August 2000

  Carbon monoxide

  311

  100

  21 November 2000

  Carbon monoxide

  145

  100

  22 November 2000

  Carbon monoxide

  179

  100

  18 October 2000

  Carbon monoxide

  269

  100

  18 October 2000

  Carbon monoxide

  450

  100

  19 January 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  106

  100

  30 January 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  101

  100

  9 February 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  132

  100

  19 February 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  138

  100

  20 February 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  178

  100

  26 February 2001

  Hydrogen chloride

  54

  30

  26 February 2001

  Hydrogen chloride

  34

  30

  26 February 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  163

  100

  5 March 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  212

  100

  9 March 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  165

  100

  22 March 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  267

  100

  4 May 2001

  Particulate

  30

  30

  18 May 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  138

  100

  21 May 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  150

  100

  31 May 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  156

  100

  30 May 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  172

  100

  21 June 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  136

  100

  5 July 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  174

  100

  3 July 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  131

  100

  2 July 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  237

  100

  17 July 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  151

  100

  3 July 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  308

  100

  11 July 2001

  Oxides of nitrogen

  443

  350

  11 July 2001

  Oxides of nitrogen

  352

  350

  19 July 2001

  Oxides of nitrogen

  355

  350

  12 July 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  231

  100

  23 July 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  295

  100

  22 August 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  279

  100

  3 August 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  185

  100

  3 August 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  242

  100

  7 August 2001

  Oxides of nitrogen

  355

  350

  7 August 2001

  Oxides of nitrogen

  359

  350

  7 August 2001

  Oxides of nitrogen

  354

  350

  10 August 2001

  Oxides of nitrogen

  355

  350

  17 October 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  297

  100

  25 October 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  272

  100

  12 November 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  340

  100

  28 November 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  201

  100

  31 December 2001

  Carbon monoxide

  288

  100

  5 February 2002

  Carbon monoxide

  145

  100

  25 February 2002

  Carbon monoxide

  208

  100

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she will take to improve the regulatory framework in which energy from waste incinerators operate in order to ensure breaches in emissions are minimised; and if she will make a statement. [57709]

  Mr. Meacher
  'Energy from Waste' incinerators are already tightly regulated through authorisations issued under the Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) regime. This regulatory regime is being subsumed into the even more exacting Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). Existing energy from waste incinerators will have to apply for IPPC permits by 31 August 2005.
  947W
  Additionally, we are currently transposing the new Waste Incineration Directive (WID), which will further tighten emissions standards. This will apply to all new incinerators within its scope by 28 December 2002, and to existing plant by 28 December 2005.

  The Environment Agency has also recently varied the authorisations for existing municipal solid waste incinerators to reduce the dioxin emission limit to that required by the WID.

  In all cases, authorisations and permits specify stringent emission limits and other operating conditions with which the operator must comply. The Environment Agency assesses compliance through its monitoring and inspection programmes.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action is being taken by the Environment Agency to reduce emissions of gases from energy from waste incinerators; what improvements have been registered in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [57711]

  Operator

  Location

  Improvements

  London Waste Ltd.

  Edmonton, London

  Plant upgraded and recommissioned 1997

  SELCHP

  Deptford, London

  Installed oxides of nitrogen abatement (SNCR) August 1998

  Coventry and Solihull Waste Disposal Co. Ltd.

  Coventry

  Plant abatement upgraded 1996–97

  MES Environmental Ltd.

  Dudley, West Midlands

  New plant commissioned 1998

  MES Environmental Ltd.

  Wolverhampton

  New plant commissioned 1998

  MES Environmental Ltd.

  Stoke-on-Trent

  New plant commissioned 1998

  Tyseley Waste Disposal Ltd.

  Tyseley, Birmingham

  New plant commissioned 1998

  Waste Recycling Group plc

  Nottingham

  Plant upgraded and recommissioned 1997

  GM Waste Ltd.

  Bolton, Lancashire

  New plant commissioned 2000

  Sheffield city council

  Sheffield

  Plant upgraded and recommissioned 1997–98. Application for new plant currently being determined.

  Cleveland Waste Management

  Billingham, Cleveland

  New plant commissioned 1–99

  Waste Management
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many and what type of composting facilities are in operation in each local authority; and if she will make a statement; [54598]

  (2) which local authorities have offered home compost bins to their residents. [54585]

  Mr. Meacher
  This information is not collected centrally; however indications are that an increasing number of local authorities see composting in all its forms as an integral part of their waste management strategy.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if catering waste as defined in the Animal By-Products Order 1999 includes waste from domestic kitchens; and if she will make a statement. [56036]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: Catering waste as defined in the Animal By-Products Order 1999 includes domestic kitchen waste. Following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the order was amended in May 2001 to make it an offence to allow livestock and poultry to have access to any catering waste which contains meat or most other products of animal origin, or which originates from premises which handle
  948W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency has implemented the EU Municipal Waste Incineration Directives through the Integrated Pollution Control regime by imposing emission limits which are as strict as, or stricter than, those required by these directives. In addition, the agency has imposed limits for nitrogen oxides and dioxins although they were not required by the directives, and, in general, tighter limits for heavy metals.

  The agency has also issued variation notices which have:

  reduced dioxin and metals emission limits for those plants where emissions are significantly below the current limits;

  increased or maintained the extractive sampling frequency for the sector;

  for those incinerators without continuous emission monitoring systems for volatile organic compounds, required them to be installed; and

  required the operators to review the techniques for continuous dioxin monitoring.

  The table summarises improvements made during the last five years at the 11 operational municipal waste incinerators, regulated by the Environment Agency, which recover energy from waste.

  such products. The aim was to prevent livestock and poultry from having access to material which might introduce or spread animal diseases.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice and funds her Department is making available to local authorities to(a) devise and (b) implement zero waste strategies. [54159]

  Mr. Meacher
  "Zero waste" is a term that is used in different ways in different countries. Some use it to mean no waste to landfill; others use it to mean that no waste is sent to any form of final disposal. Some claim that in nature there is no such thing as waste; that what is waste for one species is a resource for another. They believe humans should emulate nature and build a society in which all "wastes" can be reused as resources.

  This Government have not adopted a goal of zero waste, but many of the policies and actions necessary to achieve zero waste are outlined in 'Waste Strategy 20'. The challenge is to develop policies that reduce the waste we generate, while at the same time ensuring the safe disposal of wastes for which efficient re-use, recycling or recovery solutions have not yet been found.
  949W
  Under the Best Value regime local authorities should set targets for waste reduction and produce Municipal Waste Management Strategies, in line with the national waste strategy, which prioritise waste minimisation wherever practicable. Each Municipal Waste Management Strategy should clearly set out the local authority's proposals for collection, treatment and disposal of waste, its plans for achieving the statutory recycling and composting targets and its proposals to meet waste reduction targets.

  In March last year DETR issued guidance to local authorities on the development of Municipal Waste Management Strategies. This guidance contained a section on implementing the Waste Minimisation Act 1998 and included a case study on a waste reduction project.

  The principal means for funding local authority waste management functions, including waste reduction, is through general grant. This is distributed through Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs). Waste management is within the Environmental Protection and Cultural Services (EPCS) SSA. The EPCS SSA increases over the three years of the Spending Review from 2001–02 to 2003–04 by £1.1 billion. Consistent with the general local authority financial framework, it is for individual local authorities to decide the proportion of their budget that should be directed to waste management work.

  Local councils in England also have access to a £140 million household waste minimisation and recycling fund to help them meet their recycling and composting statutory targets. The Government hope the money will help move local authorities away from traditional landfill dumping in favour of recycling/recovery and as a result minimise the amount of waste generated.

  Future funding for local authority waste management will be determined by the outcomes of the 2002 spending review.

  Farm Animals
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will give farmers in England an option to apply the 20 day standstill only to animals brought onto the farm and to animals to be moved off, and not to the rest of the animals on the farm, on condition that they are kept separate and that laid down biosecurity measures are observed. [59279]

  Mr. Morley
  This and other possible variations to the 20-day standstill provisions which currently apply in England and Wales under the interim livestock movement rules are being reviewed from a veterinary and economic standpoint. No decisions have yet been taken. Whatever changes may be made to the interim rules this summer, the Government intend to take full account of any relevant findings from the FMD inquiries before they reach a final view on the role that a 20day standstill might play in the longer term.

  EU Habitats Directive
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the letter signed by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe of 7 April 2002, what progress is being made in the drafting of regulations that will apply the EU Habitats Directive 950W
  beyond 12 nautical miles, with particular reference to the situation of the Darwin Mounds and coral reef off Rockall. [57132]

  Mr. Meacher
  Preparation of legislation is continuing with the intention of public consultation this summer. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee has just reported to my Department on possible selection criteria for sites to be identified for protection under these regulations once they are made. The proposed selection criteria address reef habitats as well as sandbanks, submerged sea-caves and gaseous vents, plus numerous species. A copy of the report is being placed in the House Library.

  Scottish Executive
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many representations the Scottish Executive has made to her Department since May 1999, broken down by(a) Scottish Executive Department, (b) subject and (c) date. [59523]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister on 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 601W.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many times her Office has made representations to the Scottish Executive since May 1999, broken down by(a) department approached, (b) subject and (c) date. [59524]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 601W. DEFRA was formed only in June 2001. Since then DEFRA Ministers have had regular meetings with their counterparts in the Scottish Executive. There has also been frequent contact at Private Office level by telephone and in writing.

  Scotland Office
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to transfer the administration of reserved powers and functions of her Department, its executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies within its remit from her Department to the Scotland Office. [59522]

  Mr. Morley
  None.

  Ministerial Accommodation
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what publicly owned accommodation is made available to her in her official role; how many nights she has been in residence at each of these properties in the last 12 months; and what the total cost was of maintaining each of these properties in the last 12 months. [55095]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), on 28 February 2002,Official Report, column 1443W and by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), on 21 January 2002, Official Report, column 599 and on 28 January 2002, Official Report, column 91W.

  Departmental Policies (Wycombe)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the activities pursued by her Department that have had a particular impact on the Wycombe constituency since 7 June 2001. [58625]

  Mr. Morley
  FMD Signposts to Recovery conference, held in Berkshire end of June 2001, which covered the Wycombe District. This was one of two seminars held in the region. This was to assist businesses in the recovery process from foot and mouth disease and any precautionary measures. The conference was targeted at advisers and advisory organisations in public and private sectors that regularly provide support, advice or information to rural businesses, e.g. SEEDA, CA, SE Tourist Board, NFU and Farm Crisis Network. Information was provided from a variety of Government sponsored agencies and partner organisations, Rural Business Recovery Fund, Farm Business Advisory Service, Countryside Agency Grants.

  A planning seminar was held in January 2002 to cover the three counties of Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire. Wycombe District Council as the planning authority was invited to attend. There were four seminars held in total across the region, in a series resulting from the Government's Action Plan for Farming. The seminar focused on farm diversification and rural business development issues and brought together relevant partners at the regional and local level, to take account of regional needs and variations.

  Wycombe district is currently making changes to its deposit draft of its local plan to be adopted and run until 2011. The policies within this deposit draft have been assessed with regard to PPG7, by DEFRA representatives in the Government Office for the South East, which sets out how the Government's objectives for rural areas should be reflected in land use planning. Specific policies have been commented on and suggestions for appropriate wording given.

  Wycombe District Council has held a Rural Affairs Seminar, which was attended by DEFRA regional representation, on 23 November 2001 at which James Ellis MEP gave a presentation on the Reform of the CAP. Representatives from the parishes within the Wycombe constituency were present as well as interest groups and local farmers, which provided an opportunity for networking between rural partners.

  The South East Rural Affairs Forum has been successfully set up, by DEFRA in the GOSE following recommendations in the Rural White Paper. The first meeting of the group was on 15 April in Guildford. This forum gives the opportunity for rural stakeholders across the south east to give their views on how rural policy is being delivered in the region. Councillor Bill Lidgate is representative on the forum covering Buckinghamshire's area. He is a member of the county council, and South Buckinghamshire district council with extensive knowledge of issues facing rural communities. He is a farmer who runs diversified rural enterprises including pedigree herd and retail farm shop. Chair of the Royal South Bucks Agricultural Association.

  The Countryside Agency, English Nature and Forestry Commission have been actively working with the Chilterns AONB which covers a major area of the
  952W
  constituency, and other partners to develop sustainable approaches to ensuring the long-term prospects for the chalk grasslands and beech woodlands that contribute to the unique characteristic of the Chiltern landscape. This involves developing support mechanisms and incentives for the farming and forestry practices that will perpetuate these features, working with producers through to the marketing of end products.

  Applications for the England rural development programme have been received from within Wycombe constituency. There has been one successful rural enterprise scheme project to date and there are currently two Countryside Stewardship Scheme agreements covering collectively approximately 8ha. In addition 97ha are currently being managed under the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme.

  In addition to the ERDP there are continuing CAP payments for most farms in the constituency.

  Heat Generation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to promote schemes which would encourage heat generation from renewable or coppiced wood crops. [58904]

  Mr. Morley
  In April the Government launched the bioenergy capital grant scheme which includes funding for the development of the heat market utilising purpose grown energy crops or forestry wood fuel. Further funding will be available from a community and household capital grant scheme which will be launched later this year. In England, the energy crops scheme, part of the rural development programme, has allocated £29 million to solid biomass and this can support feedstocks for heat generation. Officials are also working closely with the local support teams set up by the Countryside Agency, through the community renewables initiative, to develop markets for renewables.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to promote ethanol production from renewable or coppiced wood crops. [58905]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government-Industry Forum on the Non-Food Uses of Crops is studying the potential for bioethanol production. This includes an assessment of the new production technologies which utilise lignocellulosic feedstocks, including purpose grown crops and forest material, and which are likely to give a better environmental return. The Government have also launched a second round of the green fuel challenge inviting bids for pilot projects for biofuels, including bioethanol, which would qualify for duty reductions. In England, the energy crops scheme, part of the rural development programme, has allocated £29 million to solid biomass and this can support feedstocks for bioethanol production. Finally, the Government are considering carefully the recommendation of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food that duty on biofuels should be reduced to the rates applied to other clean fuels.

  Abandoned Cars
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the companies and their location contracted to take abandoned cars collected by local authorities in(a) London and (b) West Sussex. [47381]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: This information is not held centrally.

  Noise
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the population was exposed to noise levels of(a) 55–65 dBLAeq over 24 hours and (b) over 65 dBLAeq over 24 hours in the last 12 months. [60658]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government do not assess the number of people, across the whole country, exposed to noise every year and so there are no data relating specifically to the last 12 months. Such an exercise is, however, carried out periodically and levels outside dwellings were last measured, in 2000 for England and Wales and 2001 for Scotland and Northern Ireland, at over 1,000 sites in total, for a 24 hour period. The results of this National Noise Incidence Survey, which I announced on 20 May 2002, established that 24 per cent. of the population was exposed to noise levels between 55–65 dBLAeq over 24 hours and 2 per cent. of the population was exposed to noise levels greater than 65 dBLAeq over 24 hours. It should be noted that these dBLAeq levels represent the "free field" values outside dwellings. Such levels outside dwellings (i.e. ignoring sound reflected back from the façade of the dwelling) are, of course, greater than the actual levels experienced from external sources inside the home. I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Libraries of both houses.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many domestic noise complaints were received by local authorities in each of the last three years. [60662]

  Mr. Meacher
  Figures for 2000–01, published by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH), were announced by myself on 20 December 2001. These show a fall in the 2000–01 figures to 5,001 domestic noise complaints received by local authorities per million population, from 5,149 per million population in 1999–2000. In 1998–99 the figure was 4,330 domestic noise complaints per million population.

  These figures are compiled using questionnaires returned by local authorities in England and Wales on an annual basis. This information has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and is also available on the DEFRA and CIEH websites.

  Category of noise nuisance

  Complaints per million population

  2000–01

  Industrial

  346

  Commercial/leisure

  1,038

  Domestic

  5,001

  Construction/demolition sites

  325

  Vehicles

  162

  Equipment in the street

  209

  954W

  Category of noise nuisance

  Complaints per million population

  1999–2000

  Industrial

  421

  Commercial/leisure

  960

  Domestic

  5,149

  Construction/demolition sites

  292

  Vehicles

  156

  Equipment in the street

  113

  1998–99

  Industrial

  444

  Commercial/leisure

  836

  Domestic

  4,330

  Construction/demolition sites

  248

  Vehicles

  146

  Equipment in the street

  107

  Bee Disease
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what support she offers the bee keeping industry in relation to bee disease; and if she will make a statement. [60320]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department takes very seriously the threat to honeybees from pests and diseases and is funding a range of measures to protect bee health, at a cost of around £1.4 million in 2002–03. Under these measures, the National Bee Unit (NBU), part of the Central Science Laboratory, provides a free diagnostic and inspection service to the beekeeping sector in England as well as training and education to help beekeepers become more self-reliant through improved bee husbandry.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 2 July 2001 from the hon. Member for Torbay concerning the welfare of pigs in indoor intensive units. [58749]

  Mr. Morley
  I am sorry there was a long delay in replying to the hon. Member's letter. A reply was sent on 16 March 2002.

  WEEE Directive
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what new arrangements will be necessary to meet the recovery monitoring requirements outlined in the EU WEEE Directive; and if she will make a statement; [54557]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the adequacy of recovery and recycling infrastructure in the UK in respect of EU Directives shortly to be introduced with specific reference to those dealing with (a) end of life vehicles, (b) waste electrical and electronic goods and (c) packaging waste; [54561]

  (3) what assessment she has made of whether the new recovery and recycling facilities made necessary by the EU WEEE Directive will be in place by the time the legislation becomes UK national law. [54552]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Directive is still the subject of negotiation and, therefore the precise requirements in terms of collection, recovery and recycling are not yet
  955W
  known. The UK will have 18 months from the date the Directive is adopted to transpose the Directive into national law.

  A substantial quantity of WEEE is currently recovered in the UK, particularly the larger items—white goods—such as fridges, cookers and dishwashers. There are adequate facilities for processing the existing disposals of WEEE through a wide range of re-use facilities, treatment sites and shredder operations licensed or registered exempt through the Environment Agency. These include community based refurbishment initiatives for household electrical items, scrap metal processors who take in white goods and shredders which take a range of WEEE in addition to white goods. Smaller items of WEEE, which generally have a high ratio of plastics to metal, are likely to prove the most challenging fraction of WEEE to collect and recycle.

  We believe the existing recovery and recycling infrastructure will be adequate to meet the targets which are set in the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive. The UK has a long-established and extensive infrastructure for the dismantling, recovery and recycling of ELVs. The Environment Agency currently regulates around 3,500 sites that deal with ELVs. There may, however, need to be an expansion in the market for recycled material from ELVs; we therefore welcome the fact that the Directive encourages the use of such material in vehicle manufacture.

  The European Commission has proposed a new Directive setting revised recovery and recycling targets for packaging waste for 2006. This is currently being considered by member states.

  Departmental Logo
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent on designing and producing a new logo for her Department; for what reason a new logo was needed; and if she will make a statement. [51421]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 April 2002]: The cost of designing and producing the interim DEFRA logo required at immediate notice when the department was set up in June 2001 and still currently in use was £18,998.00.

  Canoeing
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Environment Agency has published research into the impact of canoeing on(a) fish and (b) the environment; and if she will make a statement. [58368]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency published an R&D report in 2000 on 'The Effects of Canoeing on Fish Stock and Angling'. The research was commissioned to assess the extent to which canoeing affects fish populations and the extent to which canoeing can conflict with angling.

  The general conclusion from this study was that canoeing is not harmful to fish populations. The main area of conflict between anglers and canoeists centres around the actual or perceived disturbance of angling. Neither this
  956W
  research, nor any other Agency funded research, have addressed the issue of the impact of canoeing on the wider environment.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has of the(a) value and (b) destination of EU grants for (i) new fishing vessels and (ii) decommissioning of fishing vessels in each year since 1997. [60156]

  Mr. Morley
  No EU grants have been awarded in the UK since 1997 for the construction of new fishing vessels.

  There have been decommissioning schemes in 1997 and 2001–02. The 1997 scheme was a UK-wide programme. 104 vessels were decommissioned at a cost of £13.9 million. For 2001–02 separate schemes are in place in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The English scheme is complete but approvals continue in the other schemes. Estimates of the results of the schemes are as follows:

  Number of vessels

  Cost £ million

  England

  32

  6.1

  Scotland

  97

  24.8

  N. Ireland

  30

  4.5

  Total

  159

  35.4

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received on anti-competitive practices in the purchasing of horticultural produce by supermarkets. [60108]

  Mr. Morley
  We have not received any representations about anti-competitive practices in the purchasing of horticultural produce by supermarkets.

  Responsibility for competition issues rests with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the investigation of competition cases is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading.

CABINET OFFICE

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Cabinet Office if(a) his Department and (b) its agencies have a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59460]

  Mr. Alexander
  No. The policy of the Cabinet Office and its agencies is to consider all applications regardless of age.

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Cabinet Office if he will list the public consultations undertaken by his
  957W
  officials since June 2001, stating in each case the (a) number of respondents and (b) percentage of those specifically consulted who responded. [60139]

  Mr. Alexander
  The following formal national public consultations, which are subject to the Code of Practice on Written Consultation, have been undertaken by the Cabinet Office since June 2001:

  (a) Raising the Educational Attainment of Children in Care (July 2001);

  (b) Transport and Social Exclusion (July 2001);

  (c) The Future of Emergency Planning in England and Wales (August 2001);

  (d) Licensing of Crown Copyright (HMSO) (October 2001).

  The number of respondents for each was as follows:

  (a) Raising the Educational Attainment of Children in Care: 200 responses to the consultation document and 2,000 responses to questionnaires distributed through the "Who Cares?" magazine;

  (b) Transport and Social Exclusion: 788;

  958W

  (c) The Future of Emergency Planning in England and Wales: 267;

  (d) Licensing of Crown Copyright: 39.

  The Government's Code of Practice on Written Consultation places an emphasis on making formal national public consultation documents widely available and not restricting them to specific groups or individuals. Consequently there is no requirement in the code to measure the percentage of those specifically consulted who responded. In the case of the HMSO consultation on Licensing of Crown Copyright, for which records were kept on the number specifically consulted, the figure was 17.9 per cent.

  The Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit published 'Privacy and Data-Sharing: the Way Forward for Public Services' on 11 April 2002. The report included three recommendations that were raised for consultation. The consultation exercise is being managed by the Lord Chancellor's Department. As the consultation period ends on 12 July no figures are currently held on total numbers of responses.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions between 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [58728]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Between 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002, the expert adviser for the Lord Chancellor's Department has accompanied a Minister overseas once. On that occasion the Lord Chancellor, a senior departmental official, the expert adviser, and a private secretary went to Brussels on official business.

  Title

  Month

  Number of respondents

  Report of the Review Group on the Royal Peculiars

  July 2001

  47

  Administrative Court—Proposed Changes To Primary Legislation Following Sir Jeffrey Bowman's Review Of The Crown Office List

  July 2001

  37

  Towards Effective Enforcement—a single piece of bailiff law and a regulatory structure

  July 2001

  84

  Payments into Court in Satisfaction of a Claim

  August 2001

  48

  Report of the Review of Tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt

  August 2001

  360

  General Pre-action Protocol

  November 2001

  107

  Note:

  Information on the percentage of those specifically consulted who responded is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Other consultations are still in progress.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement about Government policy on the acquisition of additional Public Record Office storage space to facilitate the transfer of the(a) 1921, (b) 1951, (c) 1961 and (d) 1971 census records from the Registrar-General's Department to the Public Record Office. [59065]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 10 June 2002 [59066]. There is no Government policy to acquire additional storage space for the PRO to facilitate the transfer of these records from the Office for National Statistics. The PRO's storage capacity will be reviewed before the transfer of such records as the year of their availability to the public approaches.

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the provisional timetable is for the transfer of the(a) 1921, (b) 1951, (c) 1961 and (d) 1971 decennial population census records for England and Wales to the Public Record Office. [59066]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Records of the decennial population census are closed for 100 years under Lord Chancellor's Instrument number 12. The records of the population census of(a) 1921, (b) 1951, (c) 1961 and (d) 1971 are currently retained by the Office of National Statistics with the approval of the Lord Chancellor under
  960W
  The total cost of the visit for the whole party was £1,670.00. All travel by special advisers is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code, and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the public consultations undertaken by her Department since June 2001, stating in each case the(a) number of respondents and (b) percentage of those specifically consulted who responded. [60152]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The following are the public consultations that have been conducted by the Lord Chancellor's Department (and its agencies):

  section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958 (as amended). A timetable for their transfer to the PRO will be agreed as the end of their closure period approaches.

  1901 Census
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the technical enhancements on the 1901 Census Online site will be completed. [60124]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Under the terms of the Public Private Partnership between the PRO and QinetiQ Ltd., the latter are responsible for the technical aspects of the 1901 census website. QinetiQ have carried out technical enhancements to the site, which are being subjected to a rigorous testing programme, to verify that the site is sufficiently robust to permit general internet access.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the average(a) cost for legal aid for and (b) number of briefings in contested private law contact or residence proceedings regarding children for cases of domestic violence was in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000, (iii) 2001 and (iv) 2002. [60396]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The average cost of legal aid and the number of hearings, to the level specified in the question, can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. We can, however, provide the numbers and average cost of claims paid in the relevant case categories during calendar years 1999–2001 and for the first four months of 2002.

  These are as follows.
  961W

  Year

  Number of claims

  Average cost of claim (£)

  Residence and care proceedings

  1999

  61,023

  2,014

  2000

  55,889

  2,011

  2001

  49,078

  2,294

  20023

  15,697

  2,268

  Domestic violence proceedings1

  1999

  26,206

  1,629

  2000

  25,369

  1,698

  2001

  23,465

  1,885

  20023

  7,774

  1,875

  Combined family proceedings2

  1999

  377

  2,365

  2000

  429

  2,827

  2001

  419

  3,284

  20023

  124

  3,569

  1 These may or may not involve children

  2 These include two or more claims for ancillary relief, residence and/or contact, injunction

  3 Includes only January to April 2002

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Services
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much funding was provided for Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Services supporting the provision of(a) supervised contact and (b) contact centres offering supported contact in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000, (iii) 2001 and (iv) 2002. [60399]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) was launched in April 2001. CAFCASS estimates (subject to audit) that in the financial year 2001–02, it granted £268,000 to contact centres of which £57,000 was spent on supervised contact. In addition, it granted £211,000 to contact centres offering supported contact: some of this sum may also have been spent on supervised contact which was not separately differentiated in regional returns.

  Departmental Sponsors
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) which hon. Members have been appointed as sponsors to her Department since 7 June 2001; and when each of them were appointed; [59966]

  (2) what the duties are of hon. Members appointed as sponsors to her Department; and what assistance is given by officials in her Department to them in carrying out these duties. [59989]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people her Department employs in its Regulatory Impact Unit; and if she will make a statement. [59875]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department's departmental responsibility for regulatory impacts is located in the Policy Group Secretariat Unit which employs two people to co-ordinate the work on regulatory impacts across the Department, alongside other duties.
  962W
  It is the job of Departmental Regulatory Impact Units to establish and promote the principles of good regulation in their Departments. The staff in each unit work closely with the officials responsible for developing policies within their Department and the Regulatory Impact Unit within the Cabinet Office. They focus on those regulations that impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector.

  Regional Organisation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) which of the agencies and NDPBs sponsored by her Department have a regional organisation; and if she will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002; [58949]

  (2) what regional organisation her Department has; and if she will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in (a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [58948]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The headquarters offices of the Lord Chancellor's Department and its associated offices are not organised on a regional basis. They are located at sites in central London and elsewhere.

  LCD's sister Department, the Northern Ireland Court Service, has its administrative headquarters in Belfast with courts and tribunals located across the Province in county court divisions aligned to local government areas.

  I have today placed the information sought on the regional organisation of the agencies and NDPBs sponsored by the Lord Chancellor's Department in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Golden Jubilee
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether the Union flag will be flown at the new Laganside Court complex on 1, 3 and 4 June for the official celebration of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's Golden Jubilee. [59112]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is the policy of the Lord Chancellor that the Union flag should be flown at courthouses in Northern Ireland on the same basis as on Government buildings under the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000.

  Coronation Day (2 June) is a designated flag flying day in Northern Ireland, and accordingly the Union flag will be flown at all courthouses (including the Laganside courts complex) from 8am to sunset on that day.

  The draft Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) 2002, which are currently being considered by Parliament, propose that 1, 3 and 4 June 2002 should also be designated days for the purposes of flag flying at Government buildings in Northern Ireland. Subject to these Amendment Regulations being approved by Parliament, the Union flag will be flown at all courthouses (including the Laganside courts complex) on these days.

  Legal Aid
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether those who seek class actions in the courts are entitled to legal aid. [59421]
  963W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Public funding (formerly legal aid) is available for individual members of any group or multi-party action within the scope of the Community Legal Service (CLS) scheme. Applicants must demonstrate their financial eligibility, and applications are subject to a funding assessment of the merits of the case by the Legal Services Commission.

  Certified Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the refurbishment projects that(a) are in progress and (b) will start within the next six months; and what action is being taken to ensure that these will procure certified timber. [59761]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are no refurbishment projects currently in progress, but the following are planned to start within the next six months:

  Clive House, London

  GKN House, London

  Steel House, London.

  The Department's Environmental Policy for Building Requirements applies to major construction projects. This requires that only timber originating from sources which are managed in a sustainable and renewable manner is to be specified and directs architects towards the Forest Stewardship Council and other certification schemes.

  "Married Life"
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will place a copy of the most recent "Married Life" magazine in the Library. [58761]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A copy of "Married Life" will be placed in the House of Commons Library. "Married Life" is published by Lifecycle Marketing with an editorial board that includes One Plus One and other relationship support organisations. The magazine contains information about the marriage ceremony, relationship and legal issues. In 1999–2000 the Lord Chancellor's Department gave a one-year grant of £8,500, with the Home Office giving £10,000, to pay jointly for the publication of the magazine. Although the grant was partly funded between this Department and the Home Office, the magazine is not a Government document.

  Withheld Records
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many and what percentage of records relating to the Royal Family eligible for release under the 30 year rule in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001 were withheld. [57664]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is estimated that the approximate number and percentage of records, which relate to the Royal Family and were subject to extended closure, was as follows for each of the years concerned.
  964W

  (a) 2 (2 per cent.)

  (b) 4 (5 per cent.)

  (c) 3 (4 per cent.)

  (d) 4 (5 per cent.)

  (e) 4 (6 per cent.)

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was spent by her Department on paying pensions to retired employees of her Department in 2001–02; if she will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in(a) five years' time, (b) 10 years' time, (c) 20 years' time and (d) 30 years' time; if she will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (i) unfunded pension schemes and (ii) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if she will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [57358]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Civil servants are eligible for membership of an occupational pension scheme—the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). Pensions of retired members of the scheme are paid centrally by the Cabinet Office, who have responded to this question, and I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) on 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 561W.

  Jury Intimidation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to her answer of 12 February 2002,Official Report, column 158W, on jury intimidation, when she intends to publish policy on the prevention of intimidation of jurors in Northern Ireland. [57161]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is intended to publish the policy on countering intimidation of jurors, witnesses, victims and other members of the public on court premises in Northern Ireland by September 2002.

  Green Travel Plans
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what green travel plans are in place for the(a) Public Record Office and (b) the Northern Ireland Court Service. [33721]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I apologise for the delay in responding which was due to an administrative oversight.

  (a) The Public Record Office does not have a formal green travel plan. However, in its publicity the PRO sets out the options for travelling to Kew and the Family Records Centre in Islington by public transport. The rapid development of online services means that the public are able to obtain much more information about PRO records via the internet, using computers at home or the nearest public library. A single rate motor mileage rate is paid to discourage the use of large engine vehicles, interest free loans are available for staff to purchase public transport season tickets and bicycles, and the PRO also provides facilities for its staff at Kew who wish to cycle to work, and these are currently being extended.
  965W
  (b) The Northern Ireland Court Service does not have a green travel plan in place, but its motor mileage rates discourage the use of large engine vehicles and Northern Ireland Court Service policy encourages officers to travel together when at all possible.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what green travel plans are in place for(a) the Official Solicitor's Office, (b) the Council on Tribunals, (c) the Statutory Publications Office, (d) the Judge Advocate-General's Office, (e) the staff employed on Domestic Legal Services in her Department and (f) the Legal Services Commission. [33665]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I apologise for the delay in responding which was due to an administrative oversight.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department introduced a central green travel plan in March 1999 in respect of its main headquarters sites. There are a number of ways in which we promote greener transport, such as making interest free loans available for staff to purchase public transport season tickets and bicycles, making changes to our motor mileage rates to discourage the use of large engine vehicles, and incorporating a requirement to demonstrate vehicle journey planning and a well-maintained fleet within delivery contracts. These policies cover staff working in the Official Solicitor's Office; the Council on Tribunals; the Statutory Publications Office; and the Judge Advocate General's Office.

  (e) It is not clear which organisation is envisaged in the term "Domestic Legal Services".

  (f) The Legal Services Commission adopted an environmental strategy and policy statement in June 2001. The Commission is committed to reducing any harmful impact it may have on the environment, and in all its policy making and operational activities it has regard to sound environmental practices. It has in place a bicycle loan scheme, which provides a salary advance to full-time permanent staff in order to purchase cycle equipment and a bicycle to travel to work and/or use for business travel. Staff using a bicycle for company business may claim 20 pence per mile. The Commission also has a season ticket loan scheme to encourage staff to make use of public transport.

  King Edward VIII
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations she has received about the release of official papers relating to the abdication of King Edward VIII; and if she will make a statement. [57217]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Apart from questions put by hon. Members, no representations on this subject have been received recently, either by the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Public Record Office.

  Medical Examinations
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions she has had with the Appeals Service in North Wales about contractual arrangements for the provision of a medical assistant as chaperone for medical examinations. [52941]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.
  966W
  There have been no discussions between my right hon. Friend and the Appeals Service in North Wales. However, this is a matter for Neil Ward, Chief Executive of the Appeals Service. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Neil Ward to Mrs. Betty Williams, dated 24 May 2002:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your question concerning contractual arrangements for the provision of a medical assistant as chaperone for medical examinations in North Wales.
  The Appeals Service awarded a national contract to British Nursing Co-operations Ltd. to supply medical assistants at appeal hearings where a medical examination is required. This contract, which is for an initial 2 year period, commenced on 1 November 2000.
  I hope this is helpful.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Civil Service
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Minister for Women what the Government are doing to decrease the pay differential between men and women in the Civil Service. [59082]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have committed itself to two key actions to address the difference in male and female earnings in the civil service. First, the Government have committed all Departments and agencies to undertake an equal pay review by April 2003 and to prepare action plans to close any equal pay gaps. Second, it has asked Departments and agencies to set targets to improve representation of women at all levels, including the senior civil service.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Minister for Women what steps the Government have taken to decrease the pay differentials between men and women. [59078]

  Ms Hewitt
  The pay gap between men and women currently stands at 18 per cent., down from 20 per cent. in 1997. The Government are taking a number of steps to reduce the pay gap. As well as the introduction of the national minimum wage and the provisions in the Employment Bill, the fair pay champions and castle awards, are helping to spread good practice on equal pay. All Government Departments are committed to carrying out a pay review by April 2003 and we are also taking forward recommendations from the Kingsmill report.

  Gender Sharing
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Minister for Women what assessment she has made of the rehousing criteria of housing authorities with respect to gender sharing and the effect this has upon young women and their mothers; and if she will make a statement. [58751]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  Housing authorities must ensure that their allocation scheme is framed so as to give reasonable preference to certain categories of people. The categories are as set out in s167 (2) of the Housing Act 1996 and include people occupying overcrowded housing. Statutory overcrowding is defined in terms of the room standard and the space standard, which are set out in Part X of the Housing Act

  967W
  1985. The room standard is contravened when two persons of opposite sexes (over the age of 10), who are not living together as husband and wife, are required to sleep in the same room.

  Female Councillors
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Minister for Women what estimate she has made of the number of female councillors. [59080]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  Based on their census of councillors in England and Wales, the Improvement and Development Agency and the Employers' Organisation for Local Government estimate that, as at May 2001, there were approximately 5,900 female councillors in England and Wales.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Minister for Women what sources are employed by her Department for the statistics on domestic violence. [58105]

  Ms Hewitt
  The main sources of statistics on domestic violence used to inform policy come from the British Crime Survey, police records and a range of national and international research.

  The Government are committed to furthering our understanding of the scope, dimension and impact of domestic violence. This is why my hon. Friend, the Deputy Minister for Women is launching national research into the economic costs of domestic violence.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps have been taken by BNFL since October 1993 to remediate the leakage from the B241 storage tanks at Sellafield; and what her estimate is of the cost incurred to date to rectify the problem. [57984]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on 13 May 2002,Official Report, column 423W, concerning work undertaken in respect of B241. This work forms part of BNFL's management of nuclear liabilities, details of which are set out in their annual report and accounts. I am told by BNFL that, to date, the company has spent in the region of £100 million in respect of B241.

  Accident (Sellafield)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at what time she was informed of the accident at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant on 8 February; at what time and how she alerted the Irish Government to potential risk; what steps she took in the first 24 hours to deal with the accident; what her assessment is of the discharge involved; how many employees were exposed to danger; what the cause of the accident was; and what steps she has taken to prevent a repetition. [40896]
  968W
  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: BNFL reported an event during the recommissioning of defuelling plant at Calder Hall power station to my officials at 19.55 on Friday, 8 February. Calder Hall nuclear power station is situated on the Sellafield site but is not part of the nuclear reprocessing plant. My office received a short written brief on the circumstances at 15.15 on Monday, 11 February. I refer my hon. Friend to the Official Report, columns 356–57W for a statement on the event given on 6 March 2002. No discharges of any kind resulted and there was no danger at any time to any member of the work force, the public or to the environment.

  The circumstances rated well below the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) which defines categories of incidents and accidents, and they fell outside the criteria for passing information to the Irish Government on reportable incidents.

  Defuelling at Calder Hall has been suspended until BNFL reports the outcome of its internal investigation and completes any requirements for remedial action to the satisfaction of the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.

  Nuclear Reprocessing Plants
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if her Department was represented at the hearings on the report published by the European Parliament's STOA programme on possible toxic effects from the nuclear reprocessing plants at Sellafield and La Hague held in the European Parliament on 17 and 18 April. [54857]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 15 May 2002]: The Department was not represented at the hearing. However, the Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations gave a presentation explaining the systems for environmental and health and safety regulation of the UK civil nuclear industry.

  BNFL
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in monitoring BNFL's performance as a liabilities manager. [60030]

  Mr. Wilson
  My officials are working with their advisers and the company to develop performance measures to cover the range of BNFL's businesses, including liabilities management.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department is doing to support the development of low cost, low waste nuclear reactors. [59730]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK is involved in international nuclear systems work including the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) project and the Generation IV International Forum (GIF). 10 countries participate in GIF, which was started by the United States Department of Energy (USDOE), including Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Korea, Japan, South Africa, Switzerland, US and UK. Both initiatives promote the development of
  969W
  longer-term nuclear reactor designs that offer improved safety performance, proliferation resistance, waste minimalisation and competitively priced electricity.

  MOX Fuel Shipments
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the faulty MOX fuel due to be returned from Japan to Sellafield will be categorised as radioactive waste; and if she will make a statement. [55839]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: BNFL have reconfirmed that they foresee a range of possible future uses for the MOX fuel due to be returned to the UK from Japan and that they have no intention of declaring the fuel as waste.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings she has had with environmental groups on nuclear power since 1 January 2001. [59299]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government attaches a high priority to establishing a good dialogue with our stakeholders. Ministers have had discussions with representatives of environmental groups in various fora on a range of issues including nuclear power. I hope that they will continue to contribute their views in particular in the context of the current energy policy consultation.

  Nuclear Waste Management
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she intends to take on the Royal Society's recommendation that there should be an urgent safety review of nuclear waste management to take into account the possibility of extreme terrorist intervention. [58899]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government take the safe and secure management of radioactive waste very seriously and is considering the responses made to the consultation document "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely", published by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations on 12 September 2001.

  As I have previously explained to the House, all relevant safety and security precautions at nuclear sites, including those applying to the management of nuclear waste, have been reviewed in the light of the events of 11 September. They will continue to be kept under regular review in the future. It is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken at civil nuclear sites.

  Electricity
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the UK's electricity in the last 12 months has come from(a) wind power, (b) wave power, (c) solar power, (d) coal-fired power stations, (e) gas-fired power stations and (f) nuclear power stations; what those percentages were in each of the previous 10 years; and what she estimates the likely percentage will be in each of the next 10 years. [59729]
  970W
  Mr. Wilson
  Generation from onshore and offshore wind in 2000 (the last full year for which data is available) was 946 GWh (0.25 per cent. of total generation) having risen steadily from a low base of 9 GWh in 1990. Wave power output in 2000 was from shoreline devices only and was less than 1 MWh. Solar photovoltaics produced 2 GWh of electricity in 2000, which was less than 0.01 per cent. of total generation.

  Generation from coal accounted for 70 per cent. of the UK's electricity in 1990, falling to 29 per cent. in 1999, but rising to 32 per cent. in 2000. Gas fired stations accounted for less than 1 per cent. of UK generation in 1990, but rose to 15 per cent. by 1995 and 39 per cent. in 2000. Nuclear power stations accounted for 20 per cent. of UK generation in 1990 and peaked at 28 per cent. in 1998 before falling back to 26 per cent. in 1999 and 23 per cent. in 2000.

  Projections for the shares of different types of generating station over the next 20 years can be found in Annex D of Energy paper 68, published by DTI in November 2000. The paper can be viewed on the web at www2.dti.gov.uk/energy/energy_projections.htm

  Given that the Renewables Obligation is a market-based approach, the deployment levels for individual renewable technologies are for the industry rather than the Government, and we do not have forward estimates for those technologies individually. We would, however, expect a significant contribution to the 10 per cent. target for renewable energy from onshore and offshore wind energy. Wave and solar technology need further development for them to become commercially viable.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money her Department spent on research and development(a) of wind power, (b) into sources of renewable energy and (c) of wave power in each year since 1995. [59728]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department of Trade and Industry has spent the following amounts on research and development through its Sustainable Energy Programme:

  £ million

  Wind power

  Wave power

  All sources of renewable energy (including wind and wave power)

  1995–96

  4.2

  0.1

  19.2

  1996–97

  3.0

  0.1

  14.4

  1997–98

  1.7

  0.0

  13.0

  1998–99

  1.4

  0.2

  11.3

  1999–2000

  1.2

  0.0

  12.5

  2000–01

  1.3

  0.5

  13.1

  2001–02

  1.7

  1.0

  13.54

  The DTI also supports research and development on sustainable energy technologies through the Research Councils and their work would be additional to the figures in the table.

  Provision for research and development through the Sustainable Energy Programme increases to £19 million for 2002–03, and through the Research Councils to

  971W
  £5.6 million. Additionally, the DTI has been assigned a further £5 million over three years for wave and tidal demonstration projects.

  Including R+D and capital grants, the Government have set up programmes totalling £260 million to bring forward new renewable energy technologies. In addition the Renewables Obligation will create a new market of around £1 billion per year by 2010.

  Energy Consumption and Production
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of energy consumed in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland was provided by (i) nuclear power, (ii) coal, (iii) gas, (iv) oil and (v) renewables. [60285]

  Mr. Wilson
  The percentages of energy consumed in the UK as a whole during 2000 by each fuel source are shown below. Separate figures for Scotland, England and Wales are not available. Figures for 2001 are currently being compiled and will be available at the end of July.

  Percentage

  Nuclear

  31.5

  Coal

  35.1

  Gas

  25.2

  Oil

  8.0

  Renewables

  0.2

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, 2001 (The Stationery Office)

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent research her Department has undertaken into the comparative costs of alternative methods of electricity generation; and what reports have been published setting out the detailed assumptions on which the calculations have been made. [60186]

  Mr. Wilson
  The costs of generating electricity are a commercial matter for generators.

  However, the Department takes an interest in estimates by broad type as may be seen, for example, in the February 2002 report of the Inter-departmental Analysts Group, "Long-Term Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the UK" (http://www2.dti.gov.uk/energy/greenhousegas/greenhouse.pdf).

  Wave Power Station (Outer Hebrides)
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much her Department plans to spend to support the proposed Outer Hebrides wave power station. [59811]

  Mr. Wilson
  Up to £2.3 million.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much energy the proposed Outer Hebrides wave power station is expected to produce; and which areas its energy will serve. [59812]
  972W
  Mr. Wilson
  The target specification for each device is between 0.5 and 1.0 MW. The amount of energy actually produced will depend on the energy in the sea and the effectiveness of the wave power generators in converting that energy to electricity.

  It is intended to connect the generators to the electricity supply system in the Western Isles.

  Employment Law
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedures her Department has in place to monitor companies accused of ignoring Government guidelines regarding employment law; and what action she is taking to review the effectiveness of such procedures. [55904]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government do not monitor companies who are accused of ignoring Government guidelines or good practice regarding employment law. However, the Inland Revenue enforces the national minimum wage on behalf of the Department. This process is kept under regular review.

  Individuals who believe that their employment rights have been infringed may take their case to an employment tribunal. The Employment Tribunals Service publishes data on tribunal cases annually.

  Office of Fair Trading
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will bring forward measures to allow companies which are complained about to the OFT to see the nature of the complaint made against them when the OFT decide not to pursue the case; and if she will make a statement. [54662]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 8 May 2002]: The Government believe that encouraging complainants to come forward is vital to OFT's enforcement efforts and normally, where the OFT proposed to find an infringement, it would notify the parties to the agreement of the party engaged in the abusive conduct and they would then have a reasonable opportunity to inspect documents held by the OFT. However, where a case has not developed to the point where the OFT was proposing to find an infringement, there is no such provision.

  Consignia
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if Consignia has ended first collections in Epsom. [55573]

  Mr. Timms
  The universal postal service is enshrined in the Postal Services Act 2000. The obligation consists of a service provided at an affordable price determined by a public tariff uniform throughout the UK and includes the delivery each working day to the home or premises of every individual in the UK and a collection each working day from access points.

  Currently Postcomm requires Consignia plc, in the licence, to provide a universal postal service. Subject to Consignia's universal service obligations, the number and timing of deliveries and collections is an operational issue for Consignia. As this is therefore a matter that falls

  973W
  within the day-to-day responsibility of Consignia I have asked the Consignia chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Consignia Chief Executive
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has made to Consignia about the future of the current chief executive; and if she will make a statement. [58712]

  Mr. Timms
  It would not be appropriate for Government to speculate on the future of individual members of the Consignia board. Government have already indicated that the time is right for change in Consignia's top-level management to meet the challenge of the changing market. This is why we have appointed Allan Leighton. It is his decision initially on how the board should be strengthened and to make his recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Economic Development
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she has made a response to the Scottish Executive's discussion paper on Scottish economic development in the light of its cohesion report. [56133]

  Alan Johnson
  If the hon. Member will provide me with further information on the Scottish Executive paper and report to which he refers, I will write to him with the information requested.

  Maladministration
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many findings there have been of maladministration by ombudsmen with responsibility for agencies under the remit of her Department since 1997. [56315]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information on the handling of complaints is set out in tabular form by the parliamentary ombudsman each year as an attachment to his annual report. For those complaints where there was evidence of maladministration that warranted a full investigation, the table sets out how many complaints were upheld as being fully or partially justified. Copies of the parliamentary ombudsman's annual reports for the period 1997–98 to 2000–01 inclusive can be viewed in the Libraries of the House, or on the parliamentary ombudsman's website at www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications.

  Eastern England Development Agency
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether county councils are required to adopt planning targets laid down by the Eastern England Development Agency. [56545]

  Alan Johnson
  Regional development agencies do not have any power to set planning targets binding upon local authorities.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what monitoring her Department has in place to ensure regional development agencies meet their statutory commitments to sustainability. [59823]

  Alan Johnson
  Each RDA is monitored on its performance against the national level Tier 2 targets and regional Tier 3 core and supplementary milestones, as set out in their individual corporate plans. The performance monitoring framework, which came into effect alongside the Single Programme on 1 April 2002, requires the RDAs to report to Government on the achievement of Tier 3 milestones on a quarterly basis and on contribution towards the achievement of Tier 2 targets annually. This includes targets relating to sustainability.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what investment regional development agencies are making in(a) 2002, (b), 2003 and (c) 2004 to meet their environmental commitments. [59830]

  Alan Johnson
  The RDAs are required to carry out sustainability appraisals of their regional economic strategies. All of the agency's schemes and projects from 2002 onwards will be subject to a formal sustainable development assessment. This assessment covers environmental, social and economic impacts. The RDAs carry out a broad spectrum of activities in pursuit of their regional economic development role and many of their activities have an environmental component, for example in relation to land and property development, in supporting the environmental technologies sector, or in regeneration activities. The Government do not require the RDAs to provide a disaggregated figure for expenditure on environmental projects or initiatives or on the environmental aspects of sustainable development assessments.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) powers and (b) responsibilities are of regional development agencies with regard to (i) land use planning, (ii) transport issues and (iii) social inclusion. [60423]

  Alan Johnson
  The regional development agencies have no powers or responsibilities in relation to land use planning and transport. RDAs are however important stakeholders in the preparation of regional planning guidance, including regional transport strategy.

  Under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, the RDAs have five statutory purposes which are:

  (a) to further the economic development and the regeneration of its area,

  (b) to promote business efficiency, investment and competitiveness in its area,

  (c) to promote employment in its area,

  (d) to enhance the development and application of skills relevant to employment in its area, and

  (e) to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom where it is relevant to its area to do so.

  All of these areas have the potential to include work on or with an impact on social inclusion.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) guidelines are given to and (b) requirements are placed on regional development

  975W
  agencies, with regard to their allocation of Government money to their different areas of responsibility; and if she will place copies in the Library. [60424]

  Alan Johnson
  The regional development agencies have been given a large degree of flexibility to spend their resources subject to delivery of the remaining commitments under the Single Regeneration Budget and other inherited programmes. Their corporate plans and targets have been approved by Ministers. The Department will be issuing revised guidance to the agencies on corporate planning for 2003–06 during the summer and copies of that will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Oil and Gas Directorate
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times her Department's personnel in the Oil and Gas Directorate have travelled from London to Aberdeen to meet representatives of the oil and gas industry in each year since 1994; and how much the travel costs were for these meetings. [56331]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The Department does not keep records in a form that will enable it to provide an answer to this question without incurring a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of her Department's Oil and Gas Directorate posts have been relocated from Aberdeen to London since 1997, broken down by grade. [56328]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: There have been changes in organisation and responsibilities at various times between 1997 and the present. No Oil and Gas Directorate posts have been relocated from Aberdeen to London.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the oil and gas fields in the UK Continental Shelf which are overseen from(a) the London office of the Oil and Gas Directorate and (b) the Aberdeen office of the Oil and Gas Directorate; and if she will list the transfer of responsibilities between Aberdeen and London for overseeing quadrants and blocks of the North sea that have taken place since 1994. [56330]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: It is not possible to quantify the transfer of responsibilities between London and Aberdeen since 1994, but broadly the Aberdeen team has continued to handle fields where operators have their production offices based in Aberdeen. Since 1994, with more companies relocating to Aberdeen from the south-east, there has been an incremental increase in the number of fields transferred to Aberdeen team.

  Written Consultation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many consultation documents and consultative drafts of legislation have been issued by her Department since January 2001; and what proportion of these have observed Criterion 5 of the Code of Practice on Written Consultation. [57009]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since the introduction of the Consultation Code on 1 January 2001, the Department has issued 72 consultation documents.
  976W
  Records relating to consultations' compliance with Criterion 5 of the Consultation Code are held not centrally but by the management unit responsible for the policy area concerned. I will write to the hon. Member with the requested information as soon as possible and place a copy in the Libraries of the House.

  Consultation Exercises
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many consultation exercises the Department has launched in each year since 1997. [59376]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since the introduction of the Consultation Code on 1 January 2001, consultation documents have been issued as follows:

  1 January to 31 December 2001: 65

  1 January 2002 to date: 7.

  Records relating to consultations issued before the introduction of the Consultation Code on 1 January 2001 are not held centrally.

  Express Newspapers
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will ask the Office of Fair Trading to publish, in accordance with current practice, the advice given to the Secretary of State on the acquisition of the Express Newspaper business by the Northern and Shell Group. [57626]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The OFT published its report of the advice given on this acquisition on its website on Monday 27 May. Advice given by this government departments was published on the same date.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent by her Department on paying pensions to retired employees of her Department in 2001–02; if she will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in(a) five years' time, (b) 10 years' time, (c) 20 years' time and (d) 30 years' time; if she will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (i) unfunded pension schemes and (ii) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if she will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [57364]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: For the answer to the first part of the question, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given him by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 22 May 2002, Official Report, columns 335–336W.

  The costs for pre-funded scheme administered by the Department of Trade and Industry for 2001–02 amount to £249,246.54.

  To estimate the costs for future years would entail disproportionate cost.

  Automated Credit Transfer System
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact on
  977W
  the incomes of sub-postmasters of the switch to the payment of pensions and allowances through the automated credit transfer system. [58274]

  Mr. Timms
  The current value to Consignia of business from the Department of Work and Pensions is some £400 million a year. The migration of benefit payments to ACT is scheduled to begin in 2003. How that migration affects the revenue of subpostmasters will depend on a number of factors, not least how benefit recipients and other post office customers respond to change.

  Banking will be a central part of post offices' strategy to move forward. Universal banking services, together with Post Office Limited's plans for an expansion of network banking—the provision of counter services for ordinary current accounts—should lead to a substantial increase in the range and volume of banking at post offices, tapping into a very much larger customer base than benefit recipients alone. This should benefit subpostmasters both directly and through increased footfall, providing a major income stream offsetting the loss over time of the benefit book related revenue.

  Universal banking services are due to be introduced in 2003 when migration of benefit payments by ACT is scheduled to begin. When that happens and whatever account people chose to have their benefits paid into, the Government is committed to ensuring that those who wish to do so will be able to continue to get their benefits in cash at post offices, in full and without charge.

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much venture capital the European Investment Bank has made available to small businesses since the European Council's meeting at Lisbon; how much of this capital has been made available to British businesses; and if she will make a statement. [57556]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The European Investment Bank (EIB) does not have direct responsibility for venture capital. Since June 2000 the European Investment Fund (EIF) has carried out all of EIB venture capital activity as the EIB's specialist risk capital arm.

  During 2001 the EIF has invested EUR 800 million in 57 funds across Europe, primarily in the SME and start-up segments. As at the end of April 2002, EIF had a total of EUR 2115 million in venture capital operations signed.

  EIF has invested EUR 504 million in UK funds including those that primarily invest in the UK and those based in the UK that have a multi-country investment strategy. This includes the single largest operation the EIF has approved with its commitment to invest EUR 86 million (£53.5 million) in the Regional Venture Capital Fund programme. Overall more than 400 companies based in Britain are benefiting from support through EIF venture capital activities.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list items exported to Zimbabwe from the UK since June 2001 of military use, with particular reference to Hawk parts. [57873]
  978W
  Nigel Griffiths
  Between 1 June 2001 and 3 May 2002 no Standard Individual Export Licences or Open Individual Export Licences have been issued where the end user is Zimbabwe for items on the Military List. I refer the hon. Member to the reply from my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East and Mexborough of 12 May 2000,Official Report, columns 493–4W.

  Export Finance
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the net cost or profit was of the fixed rate export finance scheme in each of the last three years excluding(a) transactions that were supported by SDR-based interest rates, (b) aerospace business under the Large Aircraft Sector Understanding and (c) the cost of ECGD's hedging operations. [58027]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD does not maintain its records in a way which enables it readily to report the net cost or profit of the FREF scheme on the basis you have asked.

  However I can advise you that for each of the last three years for which audited figures are available the cost of FREF on all supported loans, not including the cost of ECGD's hedging operations, amounted to the following:

  Year

  £ million

  1998–99

  56.4

  1999–2000

  21.8

  2000–01

  65.1

  Export Credits
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which coal-powered plants British businesses have been involved in for which they have received ECGD support; and what was(a) the name and location of, (b) the company involved, (c) the nature of the involvement of the British company, (d) the capacity in MW, (e) the estimated annual carbon dioxide emissions and (f) the amount of financial assistance provided by the ECGD in each case. [60617]

  Ms Hewitt
  The table lists the project name, country location, UK company involved, the nature of the involvement of that company, the capacity in MW, estimated carbon dioxide emissions and the value of the loan guaranteed by ECGD for each of the coal-fired power stations ECGD has supported since 1997.

  In addition, ECGD has provided Overseas Investment Insurance and other insurances for seven other coal-fired power-stations with a total capacity of 4,960 MW and annual CO2 emissions of approximately 17.9 million tonnes per year. Details of these projects are not disclosed, since such cases are treated as commercial in confidence.

  It has been assumed that, upon completion, the plants listed below will operate for 60 per cent. of the time. CO2 emissions have been calculated using the conversion factor of 0.687 tonnes of CO2 per MW per hour. This is taken from The Greenhouse Gas Protocol website ("www.ghgprotocol.org") and is the 1999 average values for power plants in "Economies In Transition". These are the markets where ECGD most commonly provide guarantees.
  979W

  Project

  Country

  Company

  Involvement

  Capacity (MW)

  CO2 (Tonnes per year)

  Loan Value £ million

  Shandong

  China

  Mitsui Babcock Energy Ltd.

  Supply of boilers

  3,000

  10.8 million

  213.5

  Bulawayo

  Zimbabwe

  Mitsui Babcock Energy Ltd.

  Refurbishment

  120

  0.4 million

  5.6

  Manjung

  Malaysia

  Alstom Power Ltd.

  Engineering and construction

  2,100

  7.6 million

  522.3

  Alfin-Elbistan

  Turkey

  Corus UK Ltd.

  Steel structures

  1,080

  3.9 million

  8.4

  It should be noted that for most large power projects ECGD is only one of several finance providers. Scaling the carbon emissions by the proportion of finance guaranteed by ECGD would give a figure of less than 14 million tonnes per year of carbon that is directly attributable to ECGD's participation.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much financial assistance was provided by the ECGD for British companies involved in the Sual power plant in the Philippines while it was being built; and how much of this money was(a) used by the companies involved and (b) returned to the ECGD. [60619]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD does not provide financial assistance for companies. It provides guarantees and insurance. In 1995 ECGD provided a guarantee to the value of £432 million in support of GEC Alstom's contract relating to the construction of the Saul Power Project.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which UK companies the Export Credits Guarantee Department(a) has and (b) is supporting regarding their involvement in the Sual plant since it began operations; and how much financial assistance each company has received. [60618]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD does not provide financial assistance for companies. It provides guarantees and insurance. In 1995 ECGD provided a guarantee to the value of £432 million in support of GEC Alstom's contract relating to the construction of Sual Power Project.

  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government have taken in relation to breaches of OPCW financial regulations by other member states. [57680]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The UK takes every opportunity in the OPCW Executive Council and also in private contacts to draw to the attention of states parties the need to pay their assessments in full and on time.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 9 May 2002,Official Report, column 304W, what Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons regulation permits the delay of payments by the US, Germany and Japan beyond the first day of the financial period to which they relate. [57679]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Financial Regulation 5.4 requires payment of contributions to the OPCW budget within 30 days of receipt of the notice of assessment or the first day of the financial period (1 January), whichever is the later. It has, however, been the practice of some member
  980W
  states to make staged payments or their entire payment at different times of the year to fit in with budgetary cycles or for other reasons.

  40 of the 145 states parties, including the UK, paid their 2002 assessment by early January. At 15 May this had risen to 69 (including the USA). Germany has made a partial payment and is expected to pay in full by mid-year. Japan is expected to pay in full by mid-year.

  Work-related Illness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many days of sick leave were taken by employees in her Department in the last year for which records are available; what proportion of those were due to work-related illness or injury; and what the cost was to the Department. [56099]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The average number of staff days lost per staff year through sickness absence in the DTI Group in 2000 (the most recent figure available) was 7.5. The figure is taken from the annual report on public sector sick absence commissioned by the Cabinet Office each year. The DTI Group, in addition to DTI HQ, consists of: ACAS, Companies House, Patent Office, Insolvency Service, National Weights and Measures Laboratory, Employment Tribunals Service, and The Radiocommunications Agency.

  The additional information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The DTI is committed to reducing the number of working days lost due to sickness absence including time lost due to work-related injuries and illness.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims for work-related illness were settled by her Department in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was in compensation. [56097]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: None in the financial year ended 31 March 2002.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employees of her Department retired through work-related ill-health in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was to the Department. [56098]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: Records are not maintained by Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) which enable ill-health retirements to be separately identified as work-related. For DTI the number of staff retired with a medical retirement certificate issued by the civil service pension scheme medical adviser for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 was 17. Benefits provided on medical retirement are as set out in the rules

  981W
  of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme and laid before Parliament, and provide for an immediate payment of an enhanced pension and lump sum. Ill-health retirement expenditure is met centrally from the Civil Superannuation Vote. For the year ending March 2002, provisional expenditure met from the Vote was £310 million in respect of all civil service cases for which an ill-health pension has been awarded. These cases number approximately 67,000 and include those who have formerly been ill-health retired but who have now reached and exceeded the normal retirement age.

  North Sea States Conference
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the recent conference of the North Sea states in Norway; which members of her Department attended it; what discussions took place; and what conclusions were reached. [58537]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 April 2002, Official Report, column 882W to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Llew Smith).

  Air Pollutants Limits
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what EU air pollutants limits the UK has not transposed into national law. [58541]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are in the process of transposing the following Directives which either limit emissions of air pollutants or set limit values for concentrations of pollutants in ambient air: Directive 1999/13/EC on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations, which sets limits on the use of certain solvents; Directive 2000/69/EC relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air; Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste, which sets limits for a range of emissions from incinerators to air; Directive 2001/80/EC on the limitations of emission of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, which sets limits on the emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust; Directive 2001/81/EC on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants, which sets national emission ceilings for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and ammonia; and Directive 2002/3/EC relating to ozone in ambient air which sets target values and long-term objectives for ozone.

  Funding (Luton, South)
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what moneys have been provided(a) directly and (b) via agencies for which the Department has responsibility to the Luton South constituency since 1997. [58585]

  Alan Johnson
  In the period January 1997 to May 2002, the Department offered £179,000 under the Regional Selective Assistance and Regional Enterprise Grant schemes to companies in Luton South.
  982W
  The Department has managed central Government funding to the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) since June 2001. However, DTI do not hold detailed information about EEDA's spend at constituency level.

  The Small Business Service, an executive agency of the Department of Trade and Industry, funds Bedfordshire and Luton Chamber Business Enterprise but the Department does not hold detailed information about the SBS's spend at constituency level.

  European Space Agency
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the UK has contributed to the European Space Agency budget in each of the last five years. [58535]

  Ms Hewitt
  Figures for space expenditure contributed to the European Space Agency and co-ordinated through the British National Space Centre (BNSC) for each of the last five years, and for total civil space expenditure through BNSC, are as follows.

  £million

  ESA expenditure

  Total BNSC expenditure

  1997–98

  133.25

  183.18

  1998–99

  129.82

  184.99

  1999–2000

  107.08

  172.62

  2000–01

  98.00

  177.38

  2001–02

  97.13

  169.18

  Transparency Review
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to publish the Transparency Review. [58378]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Transparency Review was initiated in 1999 following the Comprehensive Spending Review. Its goal was to improve the accountability within the higher education sector for its use of public funds. The approach taken was to ensure that UK universities adopted a robust costing system to enable them to calculate the full economic costs of their main activities of teaching and research. An activity based costing methodology for this purpose was subsequently developed, and had been adopted by all UK HEIs by the end of 2001.

  No separate report on the outcome of the review has been compiled. However, the data is being used by HEIs to inform their management processes.

  Foresight Round
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if industrial participation in the new Foresight Round will be greater than in the previous round. [58376]

  Ms Hewitt
  Throughout its life, the Foresight programme has aimed to create new networks linking industry and academia to help the UK make best use of science and technology. Industrial participation remains central to the programme.
  983W
  Of the 13 Foresight panels that were managed from within the Office of Science and Technology over the period 1999–2002, eight were chaired by industrialists, and about 50 per cent. of panel members were from business. During this period, Foresight established a regional network of coordinators. On-going regional initiatives, led by RDAs and others, working with trade associations and businesses to look ahead and identify opportunities and threats, have now gained a great deal of momentum. We expect this level of industrial engagement in Foresight to continue, and be enhanced by the next phase of projects.

  Two pilot projects have just been announced, and a full programme will be agreed following wide consultation later this year. Each project will involve first hand input from industry, and will generate information and ideas, many of which will he important for businesses—to guide their current and future strategic thinking about commercial opportunities and threats.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the main themes for the new Foresight Round were chosen. [58377]

  Ms Hewitt
  The next phase of the Foresight programme will be composed of a series of discrete projects, forming a rolling programme. A formal process is being instituted to identify suitable projects. The Government's chief scientific adviser (CSA) will be hosting a meeting of leading innovators from industry and academia in July 2002 to generate about a dozen ideas. This will be followed by a wide consultation with stakeholders from business, academia and Government before a formal programme of projects is agreed upon.

  In order to maintain the momentum of the programme, and to refine the process for taking forward work, two pilot topics have been initiated. These are flood and coastal defence and cognitive systems. These were chosen by the chief scientific adviser, and endorsed by Ministers, after a consultation involving the Foresight Steering Group, the Foresight panels that were in place from 1999–2002, and Government Departments.

  Miners' Compensation
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of full and final offers her Department aims to make to former miners seeking compensation in 2002 in the Cynon Valley. [58554]

  Mr. Wilson
  With regard to the respiratory disease scheme, we are committed to making 50,000 full and final offers GB-wide by the end of 2002—of which 15,000 will be in Wales. We remain on track to meet both these commitments.

  On VWF, we remain on track to have medically assessed all validated claims by spring this year.

  The Department does not set constituency specific targets.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what range of post-medical assessments procedure offers on vibration white finger and respiratory disease have been made in the Cynon valley. [58553]
  984W
  Mr. Wilson
  Claims for both respiratory disease and vibration white linger are settled under the tariffs detailed in the Claims Handling Agreements agreed between the Department and the claimants' solicitors. Claims are assessed on an individual basis, there are no minimum or maximum levels. In Cynon valley the range of offers is broken down as follows:

  £

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Respiratory disease

  Nil

  157,941

  Vibration white finger

  Nil

  27,410

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of miners' compensation claims registered in(a) the UK, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) the Cynon valley have been settled with regard to (i) respiratory disease and (ii) vibration white finger. [58555]

  Mr. Wilson
  Detailed below is a breakdown of the percentage of claims which have received full and final settlement, broken down by scheme and location.

  GB-wide

  England

  Wales

  Cynon valley

  Respiratory disease

  Total number of claims

  186,874

  138,313

  35,468

  3,469

  Total claims settled

  26,337

  19,816

  4,923

  431

  Percentage of claims settled

  14.1

  14.3

  13.9

  12

  Vibration white finger

  Total number of claims

  141,487

  115,505

  17,554

  1,952

  Total claims settled

  40,250

  30,623

  6,533

  647

  Percentage of claims settled

  28.4

  26.5

  37.2

  33

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures have been taken in South Wales to speed up the compensation process for former miners. [58557]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department continues to work with the claimants' solicitors and other parties, through the Welsh Ministerial Monitoring Sub-Group, chaired by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, to ensure that any backlogs and delays are dealt with as expeditiously as possible. Our claims handlers, IRISC, set up an office in Cardiff last year to speed up the handling of Welsh claims. Staff there work closely with the local solicitors.

  The system is being constantly refined and improved. I have set clear targets which are on course to be met, and which will see 15,000 full and final respiratory disease offers made by the end of year. In Wales alone we have already seen over £152 million paid out under the coal health schemes.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage and what number of live claimants have undergone the full medical assessment process in the Cynon valley. [58556]

  Mr. Wilson
  In Cynon valley, 966 live respiratory disease claimants have been medical assessed, this forms 57 per cent. of the total number of live claimants.
  985W
  In relation to vibration white finger, 1,196 live claimants have been medical assessed, this forms 64 per cent. of the total number of live claimants in Cynon valley.

  Coal Health Claims
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will express the full and final offers of compensation for respiratory disease and vibration white finger as a percentage of live and deceased receipts for each constituency on the damages paid, broken down by constituency, page of her Department's Coal Health Claims website. [58839]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department's claims handlers, IRISC, are unable to provide a breakdown of offers made by constituency in the time available. However, IRISC have been requested to provide a breakdown of offers made as part of the monthly constituency breakdown posted on the Department's Coal Health Claims website—www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth. It is anticipated that these will be available in the next few months.

  Coal Industry
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many miners were employed in the coal industry in each year since 1990 in(a) Scotland, (b) England and (c) Wales. [60309]

  Mr. Wilson
  Separate figures for Scotland, England and Wales are not available prior to 1996. Figures listed below for the period 1990–95 are taken from British Coal Colliery books.

  Total

  Scotland

  England

  Wales

  1990

  49.000

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  38.000

  —

  —

  —

  1992

  28,000

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  10.000

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  7.000

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  12,000

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  14,776

  1,923

  11,146

  1,707

  1997

  17,300

  2,370

  13,505

  1,425

  1998

  17,182

  2,476

  13,171

  1,535

  1999

  14,215

  2,103

  10,898

  1,214

  2000

  11,228

  1,895

  8,364

  969

  20011

  11,430

  2,038

  8,384

  1,008

  1 Provisional

  Notes:

  1. Figures up to 1994 record underground wage earners on British Coal Colliery books.

  2. Figures from 1995 record the total number of persons employed during the year, and records deep mines only, including contractors.

  Source:

  1. Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1981.

  2. The Coal Authority.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much coal was imported into England in each year since 1997. [60282]

  Mr. Wilson
  Total imports of coal into the UK since 1997, in millions of tonnes, were as follows:

  Million tones

  1997

  19.7

  1998

  21.2

  1999

  20.3

  2000

  23.4

  20011

  35.5

  986W

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, 2001 (The Stationery Office); Energy Trends, March 2002 (DTI publication).

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much anthracite has been produced in Wales in each year since 1997. [60307]

  Mr. Wilson
  Figures which are provided by coal producers to the Coal Authority are restricted to preserve individual company confidentiality. Publicly available total production figures for Wales since 1987, in millions of tonnes, are shown below. The majority of coal produced in Wales is anthracite.

  Million tones

  1997

  3.2

  1998

  2.5

  1999

  2.2

  2000

  2.1

  20011

  2.1

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics (The Stationery Office)

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much deep-mined coal has been produced in(a) Scotland, (b) England and (c) Wales in each year since 1997. [60279]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information available on the amount of deep-mined coal produced in Scotland, England and Wales relates to financial years and, in millions of tonnes, is as follows:

  Output of deep-mined coal1

  Scotland

  England

  Wales

  1996–97

  1.4

  29.8

  0.9

  1997–98

  1.9

  25.4

  0.8

  1998–99

  1.6

  21.4

  0.7

  1999–2000

  1.0

  17.9

  0.6

  2000–01

  0.7

  15.9

  0.7

  2001–02

  0.8

  16.7

  0.7

  1 Output is the tonnage declared by operators to the Coal Authority, including estimated tonnages.

  Source:

  Coal Authority data as published in the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, 2001 (The Stationery Office).

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people were employed in opencast production in each year since 1997 in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England. [60286]

  Mr. Wilson
  The number of people employed in opencast coal production in Scotland, Wales and England since 1997 was as follows:

  Scotland

  Wales

  England

  1997

  1,169

  632

  1,918

  1998

  1,600

  694

  2,265

  1999

  1,301

  550

  1,882

  2000

  1,252

  433

  1,300

  2001

  1,267

  456

  1,068

  2002

  1,688

  433

  1,211

  Source:

  Coal Authority data as published in the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, 2001 (The Stationery Office).
  987W
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much opencast coal has been produced in(a) Scotland, (b) England and (c) Wales in each year since 1997. [60280]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information available on the total amount of opencast coal produced in Scotland, England and Wales relates to financial years and was, in millions of tonnes, as follows:

  Output of opencast coal1

  Scotland

  England

  Wales

  1996–97

  5.4

  8.4

  2.3

  1997–98

  6.3

  8.1

  1.8

  1998–99

  6.4

  7.0

  1.5

  1999–2000

  7.2

  6.2

  1.5

  2000–01

  7.1

  4.8

  1.4

  2001–02

  8.2

  4.9

  1.2

  1 Output is the tonnage declared by operators to the Coal Authority, including estimated tonnages.

  Source:

  Coal Authority data as published in the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, 2001 (The Stationery Office).

  Meeting (Detroit)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the G8 nations meeting in Detroit; which members of her Department attended; what discussions took place; and what conclusions were reached. [58539]

  Ms Hewitt
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction, represented the UK at the G8 meeting of energy ministers, Detroit, 3 May 2002. He was supported by the Director General for Energy and four other officials.

  Ministers highlighted the role of market forces, diversification of supplies, and energy efficiency in enhancing security of supply. Closer dialogue, and sharing of data and expertise were also needed, along with the physical protection of energy facilities and more flexible energy transport networks.

  Ministers also highlighted the importance of improved energy security to economic growth, environmental protection and therefore sustainable development. In the associated open event for industry and non-government organisations, Brian Wilson emphasised the role of clean, reliable energy sources in addressing world poverty, and supported the recommendations of the G8 Renewable Energy Task Force. G8 Ministers reaffirmed the importance of renewable sources, as recognised by the Genoa G8 Economic Summit. They committed to encourage the development and introduction of clean energy technologies, including renewables, as well as energy efficiency, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development and elsewhere. They agreed also to strengthen co-operation on energy science and technology, particularly in the areas of emerging renewable sources, energy efficiency, and cleaner energy technologies.

  There were no formal conclusions but the co-Chairs, Spencer Abraham, US Energy Secretary and Herb Dhaliwal, Canadian minister for Natural Resources issued a statement, the text of which has today been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Arms Trade
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further measures she plans to take to tackle corruption in the arms trade involving UK individuals and companies; and if she will make a statement. [58750]

  Nigel Griffiths
  We view corruption in the arms trade as seriously, as corruption in any other field of commerce.

  The UK signed up to the OECD Convention On Combating Bribery Of Foreign Public Officials In International Business Transactions in December 1997. The UK will continue to work with OECD countries and others to extend and deepen international commitments designed to stamp out bribery.

  The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), which came into effect on 14 February 2002, allows the UK authorities to prosecute UK citizens and companies for bribery even when the act takes place abroad, and made explicit that the legislation covered foreign public officials.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many letters were received by each Minister in her Department in each month since June 1997. [59308]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on the volume of Members' correspondence received by departments. The Report for 2001 was on Friday 24 May 2002,Official Report, columns 674–76W. Copies of previous reports are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to comply with Government policy on age discrimination. [59213]

  Ms Hewitt
  As an equal opportunities employer, my Department regularly monitors its personnel procedures, including by age, to identify any potential discrimination. The Department aims to be fair to everyone and ensure that no eligible job applicant or employee receives less favourable treatment on the grounds of age. For example internal job applicants are not required to give details of their age nor does age appear on staff appraisal reports.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if(a) her Department and (b) its agencies have a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59450]

  Ms Hewitt
  The normal age of retirement for staff in my Department is either 60 or 65, depending on the grade held by the individual.

  All applications for employment in my Department are considered on their merits, against the criteria and competences required for particular opportunities. New entrants are expected to complete a minimum of between one and three years' service, before they reach their normal age of retirement, to complete a probationary period and to justify the expense of recruitment and initial training.

  Launch Aid
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to review the future of Launch Aid. [59406]

  Alan Johnson
  The aerospace industry obtains a broad range of support from the Department of Trade and Industry, including Launch Investment and support for research and technology. The support mechanisms are constantly kept under review to ensure they deliver value for tax payers' money while underpinning the industry's efforts to raise productivity and competitiveness.

  The Aerospace Innovation and Growth Team (IGT), which was launched on 16 May 2002, will wish to consider the support available to the aerospace sector as part of their remit of looking at medium and long-term strategic issues affecting the aerospace sector. The Government and the industry partnership through the IGT is aimed at improving innovation and competitiveness in the aerospace industry.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement specifying Government commitments made under current negotiations for the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services. [58203]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: There have been none. Any proposed commitments would first be tabled as conditional offers, in response to requests received. The Doha WTO Ministerial Declaration set June 2002 as the date for the submission of requests and March 2003 for the tabling of initial offers. We intend to consult widely between these dates.

  Pipeline Capacity
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how much free capacity there is in each pipeline in St. Fergus; [58893]

  (2) what the Government are doing to ensure that existing pipeline capacity is fully utilised; [59383]

  (3) what steps the Government are taking to ensure that existing pipeline capacity is fully utilised; [58894]

  (4) how much free capacity exists in each pipeline that goes to St. Fergus. [59382]

  Mr. Wilson
  Determining the available capacity in gas pipelines is technically very complex and dependent on a number of factors including gas specification, entry location, existing gas flows and relative demand. Pipeline owners therefore undertake calculations on a case by case basis for each new prospective entrant and the results are commercially sensitive. On a broad level, certain pipelines currently have a reasonably constant level of spare capacity while others may have some spare capacity on a seasonal basis only. Additional annual spare capacity in the pipelines to St. Fergus is expected to begin to develop from about 2003–04.

  Through PILOT, the Government and industry are pursuing a programme of activities aimed at maximising production of offshore oil and gas and encouraging commercial discussions between UK pipeline owners and
  990W
  Norwegian licensees. These activities, measures in hand to revise the industry's Code of Practice on access to offshore infrastructure, and the development of new guidance on the regulation of third party access to upstream pipelines will help to bring forward new developments which may be expected to utilise existing offshore infrastructure, including the pipelines to St. Fergus.

  North Sea Fiscal Regime
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions regarding the change in the North sea fiscal regime were conducted with PILOT prior to the announcement of the 2002 Budget. [59385]

  Mr. Wilson
  Tax policy is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The reforms of the North sea fiscal regime announced in Budget 2002 were not discussed in advance in PILOT.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the Government have assessed the likely effects of reduced industry cash flow due to North sea taxation changes on exploration and appraisal drilling in the North sea. [59375]

  Mr. Wilson
  Last year, after investing nearly £4 billion, the North sea oil and gas industry generated cash flow of close to £10 billion after all taxes. The impact on industry cash flow of the changes to North sea taxation announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer in Budget 2002 will depend, among other things such as the level of oil and gas prices, on the level of industry investment. The carefully designed package of measures combines two key elements—a 10 per cent. supplementary charge and a 100 per cent. investment allowance. The third element, abolition of North sea royalty, will of course increase rather than reduce industry cash flow.

  Reserved Powers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to transfer the administration of reserved powers and functions of its executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies within its remit from her Department to the Scotland Office. [59516]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 600W.

  Scottish Executive
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many representations the Scottish Executive has made to her Department since May 1999, broken down by(a) Scottish Executive department, (b) subject and (c) date; [59517]

  (2) how many times her office has made representations to the Scottish Executive since May 1999, broken down by (a) department approached, (b) subject and (c) date. [59518]

  Alan Johnson
  Information is not available in the form requested. Both formal and informal contacts take place regularly between Government Departments, including DTI, and departments of the Scottish Executive.

  Light Source CASIM Project
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what location is being considered for the Fourth Generation Light Source CASIM project; and if she will make a statement. [58612]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: The proposal for a Fourth Generation Light Source forms one element of the CASIM project. Having passed a scientific peer review organised by the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council on behalf of the Research Councils it will now proceed to the next stage of the Gateway Process, with the development of a business case. This will be followed by further discussions on how the project might be taken forward.

  Credit Support
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent export credit support is conditional upon a percentage of sourcing of UK content; how that content is measured, assessed and monitored; and whether the percentage of UK content varies between categories and sectors of exports. [59194]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD's main purpose is to facilitate the export of UK goods and services and therefore, the existence of UK content is a pre-requisite of ECGD cover. Each case is considered on its merits but ECGD will consider supporting whatever amount of UK content is contained in a contract.

  The UK exporter informs ECGD of the amount of UK content contained in the export contract and ECGD's guarantee documentation will reflect the level of support. Compliance may be monitored by the bank financing the transaction or by ECGD's own auditors.

  Dimethyl Ether
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the potential use of dimethyl ether as a fuel in vehicles. [59680]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. I am advised that dimethyl ether is still in the very early stages of development.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has commissioned into the use of dimethyl ether. [59671]

  Mr. Wilson
  None.

  Bio-diesel
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many forecourts in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland sell bio-diesel. [59734]

  Mr. Wilson
  To our knowledge there are no forecourts in the UK marketing bio-diesel or blended bio-diesel, although there is a growing number of commercial fleets using blended bio-diesel.

  Better Public Buildings Initiative
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidelines her Department has issued 992W
  to the regional development agencies on delivering the commitments set out in the Prime Minister's Better Public Buildings Initiative. [59824]

  Alan Johnson
  DTI is working with all its property centres, including RDAs, to develop its response to the Prime Minister's Better Public Buildings Initiative. An action plan will be published in due course.

  Departmental Staff
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff in her Department and what proportion of the total workforce are aged(a) over 50 and (b) over 60. [59445]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The table shows the total number of staff in DTI HQ with the number of staff aged over 50 and over 60 shown as a number and as a percentage of the total. Staff aged 60 have been included in the lower age band.

  51–60

  61 and over

  Grand total

  Total

  1,085

  83

  4,584

  Per cent. of total

  23.67

  1.81

  —

  Departmental Employment Opportunities
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedures she has put in place to ensure employment opportunities in her own Department. [59444]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: All external recruitment into my Department is conducted under the principle of selection on merit, on the basis of fair and open competition.

  Awareness of opportunities for employment is achieved by advertising openly in the press and on the Department's dedicated recruitment website, as well as at careers events.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employers in Scotland have failed to pay the national minimum wage to the 18 to 21 age group since its introduction. [59646]

  Alan Johnson
  The Inland Revenue enforce the minimum wage on behalf of the Department. They completed almost 1,700 investigations in Scotland between April 1999 and 31 March 2002, with noncompliance being discovered in 27 per cent. of cases. During this period wages arrears of £600,000 were identified in Scotland. There are no separate figures for the 18 to 21 age group.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will abolish the lower rate of the minimum wage. [59644]

  Alan Johnson
  The national minimum wage rates are set by Government following recommendations from the independent Low Pay Commission. The Commission recommended the establishment of a lower rate in their first report (June 1998). The Government were happy to accept that recommendation and we have no plans to
  993W
  abolish the separate rate for those aged 18 to 21 inclusive. We expect shortly to issue the Commission with new terms of reference and will carefully consider any recommendations that they subsequently submit to us.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people aged(a) between 18 and 21 and (b) over 21 years are receiving the national minimum wage in Scotland, broken down by parliamentary constituency or nearest available area. [60271]

  Alan Johnson
  Estimates for beneficiaries of the national minimum wage by parliamentary constituency or nearest area are not available.

  Around 110,000 people in Scotland stood to benefit from the October 2001 increase in the national minimum wage.

  About one in 15 of the people who stood to benefit from the October 2001 increase in the national minimum wage in the UK as a whole were aged 18 to 21.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people in Strathkelvin and Bearsden are receiving the minimum wage. [60534]

  Alan Johnson
  Estimates for beneficiaries of the National Minimum Wage by parliamentary constituency are not available.

  Around 110,000 people in Scotland stood to benefit from the October 2001 increase in the National Minimum Wage.

  Liabilities Management Authority
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who has been appointed as a partner contractor for the Liabilities Management Unit; and if she will make a statement. [60029]

  Mr. Wilson
  A partner contractor for the Liabilities Management Unit has yet to be appointed. My officials are in discussion with the preferred bidder over contract arrangements. I will make an announcement when a contract has been agreed.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when she will publish the Bill to establish the Liabilities Management Authority; and if she will make a statement; [60027]

  (2) when she expects the Liabilities Management Authority to be operational. [60026]

  Mr. Wilson
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made clear in her statement to the House on 28 November 2001, the establishment of the Liabilities Management Authority will require primary legislation. A Bill will be introduced at the earliest opportunity.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff, by grade, are(a) planned for and (b) appointed to her Liabilities Management Unit; and what its budget will be (a) this year and (b) in the next two years. [60028]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Liabilities Management Unit (LMU) comprises a mix of private and public sector employees, the majority of whom are secondees from BNFL and UKAEA. The Director is on loan from the private sector 994W
  and is a Senior Civil Service equivalent. The remaining staff are mostly Band C or equivalent. There are currently 19 staff in the LMU. The make up of the team will be kept under review but it is not expected to increase significantly. The LMU's administrative budget for 2002–03 is around £1.5 million and similar amounts are likely to be needed in the following two years.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent measures she has taken to ensure that new regulations do not place an unnecessary burden on small business. [59010]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) have to be produced for all new regulations, setting out clearly the costs and benefits with full recognition of small business concerns. The Department's policy is to "think small first": the Small Business Service has to be consulted on all RIAs to ensure that the impact on small firms is not disproportionate.

  Subcontractors
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to amend the regulations governing labour-only subcontractors. [59641]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is not clear precisely from the question which regulations governing labour-only subcontractors are being referred to.

  If my hon. Friend cares to write to me with more details, I will consider the points raised.

  Start-up Companies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to improve access to finance for start-up companies. [59009]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The Government recognises that the creation of new businesses is important for the health of the economy. The Small Business Service (SBS) is encouraging more people to start their own businesses. Through the network of Business Link operators, it operates a number of programmes aimed at helping small businesses, including start-up businesses, gain access to finance. The latest of this is the Regional Venture Capital Funds launched in January 2002.

  Trade Subsidies
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the Export Credits Guarantee Department's financial support for British industry complies with the Government's policy of world trade negotiation for the elimination of subsidies; and if she will make a statement. [60322]

  Ms Hewitt
  The basis on which ECGD provides support is consistent with multilateral trade agreements such as the OECD Arrangement on Guidelines for Officially Supported Export Credits. The arrangement, which has been adopted into EU law by means of a Council Decision, provides a framework regulating, inter alia, credit terms, risk premium, officially supported
  995W
  interest rates and tied aid. Such support is consistent with the Government's policy in WTO negotiations of seeking to eliminate trade distorting subsidies on a multilateral basis.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how she proposes to achieve the phasing out of subsidies by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. [60514]

  Ms Hewitt
  A study is currently being carried out by National Economic Research Associates (NERA) to assess the overall contribution that ECGD makes to the UK economy. This work will look at both the potential resource cost to the Government of the use of its balance sheet in providing export credit support and the economic benefits to the UK that accrue through the public provision of export credits to UK industry. The results of the NERA report will be used to develop the policies needed to maximize the benefits to the UK economy of ECGD's activities.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to introduce legislation to restrict the sale of fireworks. [60480]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 introduced comprehensive controls on the types and sizes of fireworks which can be sold to the public. I have no plans to introduce further legislation.

  Tyres (Disposal)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what incentives she has given to encourage(a) recycling and (b) cascade use of scrapped tyres. [60641]

  Mr. Wilson
  Over the years the Government have provided financial support to a number of tyre recycling projects, across a broad spectrum of activity, at various stages of development. R & D has received support through schemes such as SMART, Partners in Innovation and those run by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Companies have also received grants where they have chosen to establish themselves in particular areas of the country eligible for support under schemes such as regional selective assistance.

  The Government have been working with the tyre industry since 1995 through the Used Tyre Working Group, which includes the four major tyre associations and representatives from the DTI and the Environment Agency. This group produces an annual report which identifies the main destinations for scrapped tyres, and presents statistics which quantify tyre recovery rates. This information is made widely available.

  UK aerospace job losses since 11 September 2002

  Company

  Job losses

  Anticipated job losses

  Location

  Airbus UK

  0

  —

  (Early retirements made cuts unnecessary)

  Alenia Marconi Systems

  98

  —

  Cwmbran, Wales

  Augusta Westland formerly GKN Westland Helicopters

  650

  —

  Cowes, Isle of Wight

  70

  —

  Yeovil

  350

  —

  Weston-super-Mare

  996W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she has put in place to ensure that whole tyres will be properly disposed of once they are banned from landfill sites. [60639]

  Mr. Wilson
  We are working closely with the industry and regulatory authorities such as the Environment Agency on tyre disposal and recovery issues. The proper disposal of tyres forms an important element of this work. The agency is committed to a long term programme, leading up to the landfill tyre ban, aimed at improving industry's awareness of its disposal responsibilities, backed up by effective enforcement action. We wholeheartedly endorse this programme and have provided additional funding to strengthen the agency's enforcement capabilities in this area.

  It will be necessary to ensure that the framework underpinning the tyre landfill ban promotes responsible tyre disposal and recovery. In April, DTI issued a discussion document on used tyre issues which included a possible statutory producer responsibility model. Comments on that discussion paper have been requested by 12 July 2002. We will consider next steps in light of the responses received.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals she has to assist aerospace businesses and their employees made redundant since 11 September 2001. [60179]

  Alan Johnson
  The DTI is supporting the aerospace industry by investing nearly £1 billion in product development by Rolls-Royce and Airbus, by providing funding for a long-term research effort in aerospace and by supporting competitiveness improvement activities throughout the supply chain.

  Substantial funds have been made available by the DFES for use by the jobcentre plus rapid response service job focused training to assist those made redundant to take up retraining opportunities and thus remain skilled and able to re-enter the labour market.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs have been lost in aerospace since 11 September 2001, broken down by constituency; and when she plans to visit those constituencies. [60180]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest estimate is that there have been approximately 14,000 direct job losses in the aerospace industry since 11 September 2001. A breakdown of this figure is given in the table by company and as far as possible by location but not by constituency as these data are not available.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been in contact with the industry's representatives but is not planning any constituency visits dealing solely with job losses.
  997W

  UK aerospace job losses since 11 September 2002

  Company

  Job losses

  Anticipated job losses

  Location

  BAE Systems

  800

  —

  Brough, Humberside

  993

  —

  Woodford, Cheshire

  —

  454

  (At risk)

  —

  220

  (Voluntary redundancy)

  Centrax

  250

  —

  Newton Abbot, SW England

  DPS Composites Aerospace

  50

  —

  Pembroke Dock, Wales

  FLS Aerospace

  620

  —

  Manchester

  GE Aero Engines

  170

  —

  Natgarw, South Wales

  GE Caledonian

  350

  —

  Prestwick

  Hamble Aerostructures

  95

  —

  Southampton, SE England

  Rolls Royce

  1,900

  —

  Derby

  450

  —

  Glasgow

  450

  —

  Bristol

  1,000

  —

  Other

  1,000

  —

  Temporary staff

  Shorts/Bombardier

  2,000

  —

  Belfast, Northern Ireland

  Smiths

  1,200

  —

  Not Known

  Thales Defence Ltd.

  470

  —

  Bracknell

  Trefn

  123

  —

  Llay, Wales

  TRW Aeronautical Systems

  370

  —

  Not Known

  Total losses

  13,459

  674

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she will seek the co-operation of other European Ministers to establish a co-ordinated programme of assistance for areas suffering the aerospace downturn. [60181]

  Alan Johnson
  The DTI is co-operating with our European partners on a wide number of aerospace issues designed to ensure the long term prosperity of the industry. However, we consider that the areas affected by the recent downturn are best helped by continuing a sound macro-economic policy and by assisting those made redundant to re-skill themselves.

  New Direct Bank
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 20 May 2002,Official Report, column 48W, on the new direct bank, for what reason she was unable to provide information on whether all benefit claimants will have access to the new direct bank; when she expects the new direct bank to be established; which (a) banks and (b) building societies have agreed to deliver the new direct bank services; and with which company a contract has been signed for the benefit payment card account. [60451]

  Mr. Timms
  My hon. Friend, the former Minister for Competitiveness and E-Commerce, was unable to provide information on "the new direct bank" because there was and is no such entity on which to provide information.

  Universal banking services consist of two elements, post office access to the banks' own basic bank accounts and a simple card account at Post Office for benefit and tax credit recipients. These are scheduled for delivery in advance of the migration of benefit payment to ACT which begins in April 2003.

  Barclays, Lloyds TSB, Royal Bank of Scotland/ Nat West, HSBC, Abbey National, HBOS, Alliance and Leicester. NAG, the Co-operative bank and the Nationwide building society have agreed to make their
  998W
  own basic bank accounts accessible at post offices and to support setting up a simple card account accessible only at post offices.

  Post Office Ltd. has contracted with EDS for the outsourced services for the card account.

  The Government are developing a detailed migration and marketing strategy for the transition to ACT. The emphasis of the ACT migration and marketing strategy will be to ensure that each customer has the best bank account for his or her circumstances. Conventional and basic bank accounts offer more services and do not have the limitations of the card account and so are likely to be the best option for the vast majority of people. There will, however, be no eligibility criteria or cap on card account numbers. And whatever type of account is used, we remain fully committed to meeting the Prime Minister's pledge that those who wish to do so will be able to continue to get their benefits in cash at post offices, in full and without charge.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee on statistics relating to the trading of goods between member states 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. [58440]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  The legal basis for the Committee on statistics relating to the trading of goods between member states is at Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3330/91. The mandate of the committee is to examine any question relating to the implementation of this regulation.

  The committee has met three times over the last 12 months.
  999W
  The UK is normally represented by two officials from HM Customs and Excise.

  Travel expenses for one official are reimbursed by the Commission. The usual cost of overnight accommodation and subsistence per day per official is 224 euro (£146.40).

  Items considered by the committee all relate to the implementation, interpretation and application of EC legislation dealing with the collection of intra EC trade statistics.

  Accountability and transparency to Parliament is ensured by the regular EU process. EU documents which fall within the Scrutiny Terms of Reference are deposited with Parliament along with an Explanatory Memorandum for examination by the Scrutiny Committees.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee on statistics relating to the trading of goods with non-member countries 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. [58441]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  The legal basis for the Committee on statistics relating to the trading of goods with non-member countries is at Article 20 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1172/95. The mandate of the committee is to examine any question relating to the implementation of this regulation.

  The committee has met three times over the last 12 months.

  The UK is normally represented by two officials from HM Customs and Excise.

  Travel expenses for one official are reimbursed by the Commission. The usual cost of overnight accommodation and subsistence per day per official is 224 euro (£146.40).

  Items considered by the committee all relate to the implementation, interpretation and application of EC legislation dealing with the collection of intra EC trade statistics.

  Accountability and transparency to Parliament is ensured by the regular EU process. EU documents which fall within the Scrutiny Terms of Reference are deposited with Parliament along with an Explanatory Memorandum for examination by the Scrutiny Committees.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Contact Committee on combating money laundering 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. [56749]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The role and responsibilities of the Contact Committee on Money Laundering are set out in Article 13 of Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention
  1000W
  of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering (Official Journal L166, 28/06/1991 P. 0077–0083).

  The committee meets either at the request of the chair or of the delegation of a member state. Since May 2001, it has met three times. The UK is represented by officials from HM Treasury and the Home Office.

  The information regarding the annual cost of the committee's work to public funds can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  At its most recent meeting, the committee considered implementation of the Second EU Money Laundering Directive, the anti-money laundering systems in accession candidate countries, protecting employees making Suspicious Transaction Reports and implementation of the Financial Action Task Force Special Recommendations on terrorist financing.

  The Contact Committee on Money Laundering is primarily intended to facilitate consultation between officials from member states and to allow for exchange of views and experiences on money laundering issues. The committee does not take any decisions.

  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 Construction Plant and Equipment 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. [55214]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is my understanding that the hon. Member is referring to the Committee on the Adaptation to Technical Progress set up under Article 4 of Directive 79/113/EEC on the approximation of laws of the member states relating to the determination of the noise emission of construction plant and equipment. This committee has not met for several years because Directive 79/113/EEC was being superseded by Directive 2000/14/EC and was repealed on 3 January 2002 when Directive 2000/14/EC came fully into force. There is therefore no cost to public funds.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions 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. [55218]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have nothing further to add to the answer 1 gave to the hon. Member's questions numbers 55219, 55220, and 55221 on 22 May 2002,Official Report, columns 343ߝ44W.

  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 Directives on the Removal of Technical Barriers to Trade in the Lifting and Mechanical Handling of Appliances is; how many times
  1001W
  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. [55373]

  Ms Hewitt
  Directive 84/528/EEC, on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to common provisions for lifting and mechanical handling appliances, was repealed on 1 July 1999 by the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC. The work of the above committee has been incorporated into the Standing Committee for the Lifts Directive. I therefore refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 235W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on concentrations between undertakings 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. [55222]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Advisory Committee on concentrations between undertakings is the body through which the European Commission carries out its duty to consult the competent authorities of the member states before making certain decisions on cases being considered under the EC Merger Regulation (Regulation (EEC) 4064/89 as amended). These decisions concern declaring whether a concentration is compatible with the common market following a detailed 'Phase 2' investigation, and decisions on the imposition of fines and penalty payments. The Advisory Committee may also be convened to discuss policy issues relating to the implementation of the EC Merger regulation.

  The DTI, the OFT and the Competition Commission are all competent authorities for the purposes of the ECMR. In practice, however, the UK is almost always represented at the Advisory Committee by the OFT.

  The committee meets as required, dependant upon the number of cases reaching the relevant stages of the ECMR process. The committee has met 16 times in the last 12 months. Cases that are currently subject to a phase 2 investigation under the ECMR and, as such, may come before the Advisory Committee include 'Haniel/ Cementbouw/JV (CVK), Carnival Corporation/P&O Princess' and 'Promatech/Sulzer'.

  The opinions of the Advisory Committee on merger cases are published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, as are final Commission decisions. In its response to the Commission's recent Green Paper on the Review of the ECMR, the UK suggested a number of ways in which the transparency of the Advisory Committee's work could be further enhanced.

  It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the Harmonisation of National Legislation Relating to 1002W
  Recreational Craft 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. [55361]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is my understanding that the hon. Member is referring to the Standing Committee set up under Article 6 of the Directive 94/25/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states relating to recreational craft. The mandate of the committee is contained in Article 6 of that directive. This committee has not met for several years and there are no meetings planned in near future. There is therefore no cost to public funds.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Advisory Committee for the implementation of the general framework for Community activities in favour of consumers 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 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. [57492]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Advisory Committee for the implementation of the general framework for Community activities in favour of consumers was established by Decision No. 283/1999/EC. It has the remit of advising the European Commission on the provision of financial support for the activities of European consumer organisations and for specific projects to promote the interests of consumers in member states.

  The committee currently considers the criteria for the two annual calls for the submission of bids for financial support and advises the European Commission on the selection of successful activities and projects.

  The committee has met twice over the last 12 months and is attended by one UK official. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".
  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of the House on 26 February, COM(2001)783 Final.

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

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Co-ordinating Committee on Fusion Energy EC-USA 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
  1003W
  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. [58398]

  Ms Hewitt
  This committee, which meets once a year co-ordinates and supervises the EU-USA collaboration agreement on fusion energy research. There is one UK representative on the committee and the annual cost is low as this meeting is generally held at the same time and venue place as other fusion meetings, there are therefore no extra travel costs.

  The agreement covers joint research on European and US facilities, particularly exchanges of staff and loans of equipment. Europe's Joint European Torus (JET) fusion facilities and the UK's domestic experiment, the Mega Amp Spherical Tokamak (MAST), at Culham, benefit from these. The records of these meetings are available on request from my Department.

  Saltwood Post Office
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the closure of Saltwood post office is consistent with her policy on rural post offices. [57798]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I understand from Post Office Ltd. that Saltwood post office is classified as an urban outlet. As a result of representations received by the company this has been reviewed recently and the classification reconfirmed.

  The Government's formal requirement placed on Consignia in November 2000 to maintain the rural network and to prevent avoidable closures remains in place.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the classification by Consignia of Saltwood post office as an urban post office is in accordance with her policy. [57789]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The Government's formal requirement placed on Consignia in November 2000 to maintain the rural network and to prevent avoidable closures remains in place. A rural post office is one defined as serving up to 10,000 inhabitants and it is the responsibility of Post Office Ltd. to classify outlets accordingly.

  Post Office Closures
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when information relating to post office closures ceased to be made available on a constituency basis; and for what reason this was done. [55024]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: I am informed by Post Office Ltd. that information on the total number of post offices and a breakdown of urban and rural outlets for each Government office region is provided to Postcomm and Postwatch on a quarterly basis.

  Information has not been maintained on the basis of parliamentary constituencies as the company does not require these data for operational reasons. The latest information available remains a special exercise undertaken by the Post Office in 1999 to determine the numbers of post offices in each parliamentary constituency and how many of them derive more than
  1004W
  40 per cent. of their income from benefits work. That information is set out in the reply given to the then hon. Member for Birmingham on 29 November 1999, Official Report, column 22W.

  However, I understand from Post Office Ltd. that it is now conducting additional work on a further exercise to identify the number of post offices in each parliamentary constituency as at the end of the financial year 2001–02.

  Post Offices
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices there were in each constituency in each year since 1995; and how many in each constituency in each year covered a population of 10,000 or less. [58212]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: I am advised by Post Office Ltd. that information on post office numbers has not been maintained on the basis of parliamentary constituencies as the company does not require these data for operational reasons. However, I understand from the company that it is now conducting additional work on an exercise to identify the number of post offices in each parliamentary constituency as at the end of the financial year 2001–02.

  The latest constituency-based information available remains a special exercise undertaken by the Post Office in 1999 to determine the numbers of post offices in each parliamentary constituency and how many of them derive more than 40 per cent. of their income from benefits work. That information is set out in the reply given to the then hon. Member for Birmingham on 29 November 1999, Official Report, column 22W.

  Postcodes
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received regarding requests from communities to change their postcode; and if she will make a statement. [59591]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter that falls within the day to day responsibility of Consignia and I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to my hon. Friend.

  Disclosure of Interests
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what rules apply to the disclosure of interests on the part of those serving on public bodies which are responsible to her Department. [56461]

  Ms Hewitt
  All advisory and executive non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are required to adopt a board members' code, based on guidance produced by the Cabinet Office, and this includes maintaining a register of interests. The definition of interests is for individual Departments to decide since they are best placed to judge what might be thought to influence members of their NDPBs.

  The table which lists the NDPBs sponsored by this Department and in each case indicates where the relevant Code of Practice is available has been placed in the Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with Southwark council on flying the Union Flag to celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and if she will make a statement. [57788]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I have had no discussions with Southwark council about the flying of the Union Flag to celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 14 May 2002, Official Report, column 589W, to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). which outlines flag arrangement including those for the Golden Jubilee weekend.

  Playing Fields
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will provide a breakdown by site owner type/category of planning consultations received by Sport England in relation to change of use on playing fields received in the years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; and how many had planning permission granted. [57629]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The breakdown by site owner type/category of planning applications affecting playing fields received by Sport England in their capacity as statutory consultee are listed in the table. Data for the year 2001–02, and that relating to whether planning permission was granted to applications from particular types of site ownership or categories are not available.

  Site owner type/category

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Private sports club

  117

  148

  Local authority

  112

  180

  Local education authority/community school

  294

  404

  Foundation school

  20

  24

  Higher education/college

  36

  43

  Health authority

  3

  4

  Ministry of Defence

  3

  3

  Other

  67

  90

  Not known

  5

  6

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many consultations were received by Sport England in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 in relation to change of use of playing fields; on how many in each year Sport England raised no objections; and how many had planning permission granted. [57630]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: Sport England in their role as statutory consultee for planning applications affecting playing fields received 657 such applications for the year 1999–2000, and of those, 625 applications fell under their remit as a statutory consultee. Of this number, Sport England raised no objection to 492 applications, all of which contained proposals which had no detrimental effect on the stock or
  1006W
  quality of playing pitches on playing fields, or to sport as a whole. 431 of these applications received planning permission.

  Sport England in their role as statutory consultee for planning applications affecting playing fields received 902 such applications for the year 2001–02, and of those, 875 applications fell under their remit as a statutory consultee. Of this number, Sport England raised no objection to 743 applications, all of which contained proposals which had no detrimental effect on the stock or quality of playing pitches on playing fields, or to sport as a whole. 611 of these applications received planning permission. Figures for the year 2001–02 are not available.

  Planning applications affecting playing fields can often involve a change of use that benefits sport rather than resulting in the outright sale of playing fields or their development. It should also be noted that where planning permission is granted this does not necessarily mean that the proposed development or change of use went ahead. Data are not collected centrally on whether planning applications are actually implemented.

  National Stadium
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what payment was made to CITEX/ Sport Concepts for their report to Sport England on athletics' provision at the English National Stadium, Wembley. [57503]

  Tessa Jowell
  I understand that Sport England have paid £50,723 plus VAT to CITEX/Sports Concepts for the athletics report.

  Internet Services
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what criteria she uses to ensure fair competition in the provision of Internet services by broadcasters. [57936]

  Dr. Howells
  The provision of internet services by UK undertakings, including those of UK broadcasters, are subject to competition legislation.

  Broadcasters (Fair Trading)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what criteria she uses to ensure the observance of the fair trading commitment by broadcasters. [57937]

  Dr. Howells
  The provision of broadcasting services potentially falls within the ambit of the Competition Act 1998 and Fair Trading Acts. Responsibility for considering complaints, and for enforcing the law if necessary, rests with the Office of Fair Trading. In addition, the BBC's commercial activities are subject to its own fair trading commitment, which reflects and in some respects goes beyond the statutory requirements. This is set out in the BBC's published commercial policy guidelines and is monitored by the Board of Governors. An independent review by Professor Richard Whish, published in May 2001, concluded that the fair trading commitment and the guidelines are appropriate to ensure that the BBC does not distort competition in commercial markets and recommended no changes.

  Delegations (Scottish Representation)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether a Scottish Executive Minister will be a member of the United Kingdom's delegation to the Culture/Audiovisual European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 23 May; and what information is being provided by her Department to assist pre-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [58304]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: No Minister from the Scottish Executive was present at the EU Council of Ministers meeting on cultural and audiovisual matters on 23 May 2002. Ministers from the devolved Administrations have attended Council meetings in the past and are welcome to do so in future. My officials have consulted their counterparts in the devolved Administrations on a number of agenda items and have provided copies of relevant papers.

  Tourism
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has made to the Department of Trade and Industry about the support regional development agencies should give to capital infrastructure projects which benefit tourism. [58580]

  Dr. Howells
  The announcement on 13 May about the structural reform of English tourism represents a radical change and made clear that regional development agencies will in future play a stronger part in the strategic leadership of tourism. We have been in close discussion with the Department of Trade and Industry about these proposals.

  The Government will continue to encourage RDAs to take account of the huge importance of tourism to their regions, both its direct and indirect impacts, when they take decisions about allocating the funds over which they have direct and indirect control.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 10 May 2002,Official Report, column 385W, what her latest assessment is of the wage costs of the tourism industry. [58663]

  Dr. Howells
  It is not possible to estimate the current wage costs of the tourism industry since the sector is formed of parts of a diverse set of industries whose businesses serve both tourists and non-tourists.

  The Office for National Statistics publishes estimates of the cost of compensation for employees by standard industry sub-sectors (eg hotels and restaurants) in its publication UK Input-Output Analyses 2001 edition, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to strengthen the role of local authorities in tourism development. [58533]

  Dr. Howells
  Local authorities spend over £90 million a year promoting and developing tourism in their areas and are key partners in ensuring the success of the Government's modernisation and reform agenda.
  1008W
  The announcement on 13 May about the structural reform of English tourism represents a radical change and I am involving local government representatives closely in preparing to implement that change.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what bilateral discussions she has had with Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on the importance of improving transport links between London and the regions of England to help make London the gateway to the regions for tourism. [58531]

  Dr. Howells
  Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had a meeting specifically with the then Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions dedicated to this issue prior to 29 May 2002, we covered tourism transport issues on 5 March 2002 at the third annual tourism summit of pan-Government Ministers and key players in the tourism industry.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to assist organisations investing in tourism infrastructure projects to secure funding from the European Union. [58532]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department will continue to champion the importance of tourism for regeneration so that the tourism industry continues to benefit from EU funding. In 1999, the British Tourist Authority published guidance on support for tourism in the current structural funding period "Making the Most of Tourism's Contribution to Regional Economic Development'. The English Tourism Council gives updated information on EU funding opportunities through its profunding web-site www.fundinginformation.org/tourism. Government offices have been supportive of projects meeting the objectives of regional development strategies.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Transport about the expansion of regional airports. [58534]

  Dr. Howells
  I work closely with my colleagues and have been involved in the development of this area of transport policy as well as others.

  Digital Broadcasting
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to ensure choice of access for digital broadcasting services in Scotland. [58548]

  Dr. Howells
  The draft Communications Bill and associated documents (Cm 5508, published on 7 May) set out a proposed framework for the regulation of communications, which is intended to broaden choice of and access to modern communications technologies, and to make markets work better, in Scotland a well as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what key tasks she has set for her Department for improving access to digital television; and if she will make a statement. [58549]
  1009W
  Dr. Howells
  The Digital Television Action Plan, posted on www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk and agreed by stakeholders, sets out a framework of actions to be taken by Government and industry, in partnership, to enable the take-up of digital television and achieve the tests of accessibility, availability and affordability, first announced in September 1999.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many new digital television installations there were in 2001; and if she will make a statement. [58550]

  Dr. Howells
  We estimate that 2,378,962 new digital television installations were carried out in 2001. This estimate is based on information on subscriber figures from platform operators.

  31 December 2000

  31 December 2001

  Sky Digital

  4,669,000

  5,716,000

  ITV Digital

  1,000,000

  1,263,000

  Digital Cable

  908,364

  1,977,326

  NTL

  530,700

  1,253,500

  Telewest

  377,664

  723,826

  Architecture
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the contribution made by the Commission for Architecture in the Built Environment to(a) reducing school truancy, (b) reducing traffic congestion and
  (c) improving patient dignity. [58788]

  Dr. Howells
  The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) helps promote better design for the cultural, social and economic benefits this brings to society. CABE is working closely with the Department for Education and Skills on the design of new education buildings; achieving a high-quality learning environment is key to reducing truancy rates. CABE is working with central and local government and with developers to promote the provision of public transport in all new developments, and thereby reduce traffic congestion. CABE is also working with NHS Estates and individual NHS trusts to ensure that health care services are delivered in well-designed environments.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of projects(a) approved and (b) rejected by the Commission for Architecture in the Built Environment involved the external use of vernacular materials. [58787]

  Dr. Howells
  Of the projects that CABE sees, most are likely to contain a degree of vernacular or locally available materials. Using local materials supports CABE's aim to promote a sustainable use of resources and is a contributory factor in CABE's assessment of any building project.

  Distributing body

  Total income 2001–02 (£)

  Estimated administration costs (£)

  Percentage of total income

  New Opportunities Fund

  479,770,400

  27,000,000

  5.62

  Community Fund

  296,124,518

  24,000,000

  8.10

  Sports Council (England)

  228,025,901

  21,750,000

  9.53

  Funding (Luton, South)
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what moneys have been provided(a) directly and (b) via agencies for which her Department has responsibility to the Luton, South constituency since 1997. [58583]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department and our sponsored bodies are responsible for supporting an enormous range of cultural and leisure activity and funding is available from a variety of sources.

  (a)Moneys provided direct from the Department

  Luton borough council have received the following awards from the DCMS Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund:

  £

  1997–98

  264,248

  1998–99

  120,000

  Total

  384,248

  (b)Moneys provided via sponsored bodies

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the National Lottery awards database, there have been 85 National Lottery awards to Luton, South totalling £5,238,596 to 23 May 2002.

  30 Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Luton, South and between them they have received grants totalling £49,987.

  2 of three Luton Space for Sport and Arts (SSA) projects are in Luton, South:

  (i) Farley Junior, grant of £250,000 towards a £260,000 scheme to construct a floodlight two court multi-use games area.

  (ii) Foxdell Junior, grant of £500,000 towards a EL 1 million scheme to construct a multi-purpose hall and classroom for art.

  English Heritage have awarded two grants to the Luton, South constituency since 1997:

  (i) 1999–2000: Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme grant for Plaiter's Lea and High Town—£100,000.

  (ii) 2000–01: Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme grant for Plaiter's Lea and High Town—£100,000.

  National Lottery
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the administrative costs as a percentage of National Lottery income for each of the National Lottery distributing bodies in the most recent year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [59304]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following table shows estimated administration costs for each of the lottery distributing bodies for the year ended 31 March 2002 as a percentage of their total income from the National Lottery Distribution Fund. The figures have not been audited and may be subject to material adjustments prior to inclusion in the respective lottery distributor's final accounts.
  1011W

  Distributing body

  Total income 2001–02 (£)

  Estimated administration cost (£)

  Percentage of total income

  Arts Council of England

  207,764,720

  20,500,000

  9.86

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  320,101,846

  17,824,000

  5.56

  Millennium Commission

  123,760,548

  10,800,000

  8.72

  Film Council1

  36,272,469

  5,600,000

  15.43

  Scottish Arts Council

  23,451,472

  2,487,605

  10.60

  Scottish Sports Council

  25,739,278

  1,805,202

  7.01

  Arts Council of Wales

  15,153,184

  1,476,000

  9.74

  UK Sports Council

  25,614,740

  1,406,073

  5.48

  Sports Council for Wales

  14,171,443

  928,000

  6.54

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  8,004,237

  558,346

  6.97

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  9,208,707

  512,530

  5.56

  Scottish Screen

  3,368,609

  236,000

  7.00

  1 The Film Council recouped some £4.7 million in 2001–02 giving it a total lottery income of some £41 million, meaning that administration costs were 13.66 per cent. of total income.

  Land Sales
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the land that her Department is(a) offering for sale and (b) plans to offer in the next 12 months, giving its (i) location and (ii) size. [59055]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Median and Sport has no land available for sale at present nor in the next 12 months.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of ordinary written questions for her Department were answered within a week of tabling in each month since June 2001; and what proportion of questions for named day received a substantive answer on that day in each month since June 2001. [58990]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Percentage

  Month tabled

  Ordinary written questions answered within a week of being tabled

  Named day questions answered on the day specified

  June 2001

  72

  23

  July 2001

  44

  48

  August 2001

  n/a

  n/a

  September 2001

  0

  50

  October 2001

  56

  46

  November 2001

  78

  59

  December 2001

  39

  35

  January 2002

  53

  43

  February 2002

  43

  41

  March 2002

  40

  55

  April 2002

  65

  36

  Correspondence
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many letters were received by each Minister in her Department in each month since June 1997. [59317]
  1012W
  Dr. Howells
  This information cannot be provided in the requested format without incurring disproportionate cost. However, the total number of letters received by DCMS Ministers in each month since June 1991 is:

  Month

  Letters received

  June 1997

  3,232

  July 1997

  2,227

  August 1997

  2,757

  September 1997

  2,592

  October 1997

  2,780

  November 1997

  3,396

  December 1997

  2,843

  January 1998

  3,265

  February 1998

  2,957

  March 1998

  3,097

  April 1998

  2,955

  May 1998

  1,884

  June 1998

  3,040

  July 1998

  2,696

  August 1998

  1,678

  September 1998

  2,078

  October 1998

  2,751

  November 1998

  1,850

  December 1998

  1,539

  January 1999

  1,840

  February 1999

  2,562

  March 1999

  2,742

  April 1999

  2,039

  May 1999

  1,567

  June 1999

  2,107

  July 1999

  2,228

  August 1999

  2,023

  September 1999

  1,808

  October 1999

  2,031

  November 1999

  2,320

  December 1999

  1,639

  January 2000

  1,575

  February 2000

  2,271

  March 2000

  2,004

  April 2000

  1,306

  May 2000

  1,584

  June 2000

  1,590

  July 2000

  1,481

  August 2000

  1.417

  September 2000

  1,366

  October 2000

  1,742

  November 2000

  1,549

  December 2000

  977

  January 2001

  1,749

  February 2001

  1,624

  March 2001

  2,072

  April 2001

  2,031

  May 2001

  1,850

  1013W

  Month

  Letters received

  June 2001

  1,246

  July 2001

  1,551

  August 2001

  1,543

  September 2001

  1,604

  October 2001

  1,946

  November 2001

  1,848

  December 2001

  1,284

  January 2002

  1,731

  February 2002

  1,459

  March 2002

  1,313

  April 2002

  1,426

  Gambling
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what research her Department undertook into the risk of an increase in problem gambling before it published "A Safe Bet for Success". [59809]

  Mr. Caborn
  The available research evidence was set out in the report of the Gambling Review Body (Cm 5256).

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many meetings her Department held with groups working with problem gamblers before the publication of "A Safe Bet for Success". [59810]

  Mr. Caborn
  We held one meeting on problem gambling issues which was attended by 11 people who either represented bodies working with or researching problem gamblers or were themselves expert practitioners. We held a further meeting with GamCare.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what consultation her Department had with groups working with problem gamblers before the publication of "A Safe Bet for Success". [59722]

  Mr. Caborn
  We received and considered submissions on the report of the Gambling Review Body from 12 bodies working with or expressing concerns on behalf of problem gamblers, including GamCare, the Centre for Research into the social impact of gambling, the Methodist church and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures her Department have taken to ensure that gambling deregulation does not lead to an increase in(a) problem gambling and (b) organised criminal activity. [59865]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the measures set out in paragraphs 10.22 and 10.23–10.27 of "A Safe Bet for Success" (Cm 5397), which deal respectively with crime and problem gambling. The proposed Gambling Commission will have greater powers than are currently available to the Gaming Board to vet the suitability of applicants for personal and operating licences; and it will also regulate bookmaking and other sectors of gambling which are currently outside the board's remit. We have emphasised to the gambling industry the importance of supporting the new charitable trust which will fund work to prevent and treat problem gambling; and the trust is this week inviting tenders for work to develop effective strategies for the delivery of research, education and support services.
  1014W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Barnsley West and Penistone, of 13 May 2002,Official Report, column 411W, on gaming machines, when she will introduce legislation to implement the Government's decisions on the recommendations in the Budd report. [59755]

  Mr. Caborn
  We shall bring forward a Bill when parliamentary time allows. So far as decisions which do not require primary legislation are concerned, I refer the honourable Member to the reply I gave to the honourable Member for South Suffolk on 10 April 2002 [Official Report, Col 326–327W].

  Reports and Documents
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her Department's policy is on releasing reports and documents that(a) it and (b) its agencies, have commissioned; how long after receiving reports and documents that her Department has commissioned her Department publishes them; what her Department's policy is on announcing the publication of reports and documents it commissions; and if she will make a statement. [59602]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department will consider the general publication of commissioned reports and documents where there is a recognised interest in the subject and where there are no bars to a wider publication on grounds of confidentiality or sensitivity.

  In general my Department aims to publish material we commission and all such publications are available through the Department's website, www.culture.gov.uk and, where appropriate, HMSO.

  The time between receipt of a document and its wider publication will depend upon the nature of the document but the intention would be to avoid any unnecessary delays.

  Documents may be accompanied by a press release or will be flagged up on the Department's website. The website is currently being redeveloped and the new site will make publications even easier to find.

  This is an area which my Department is currently reviewing as part of our commitment to Freedom of Information and a statement of our policy will accompany the issue of my Department's publication scheme in the autumn.

  Capital Projects
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many PFI capital projects fall under the responsibility of her Department; what the capital value and nature of each project is; and what stage they are at in the PFI procurement process. [59835]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has not itself entered into any PFI or PPP contracts. The Royal Parks Agency, which is an executive agency, has entered into one PFI contracts, Pembroke Lodge, Richmond, relating to the restoration of building and operation of catering facilities. Its capital value is £1 million. This contract has been operational since 1997. The British Library, which is an executive
  1015W
  NDPB, has entered into one PFI contract, to provide a full catering and events facility. Its capital value is £0.9 million, and has been operational since 1997.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many non-PFI capital projects fall under the responsibility of her Department and related NDPBs; and what the capital value and nature is of each project. [59816]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department undertakes directly only a small number of low value non-PFI capital projects each year to improve the working environment for staff, to enable it to meet its electronic service delivery commitments, and to improve communications with its NDPBs.

  The Royal Parks Agency has one non-PFI capital project planned in the current year involving the replacement of catering facilities at St. James' park. The capital value is £3.2 million.

  The Department provides support to its NDPBs through grant-in-aid finance capital expenditure. In addition to this source of funding NDPBs supplement their funding with donations and sponsorship from individuals and corporate bodies, funding from the National Lottery and other sources. The Department does not hold centrally information on all the non-PFI capital projects undertaken by its NDPBs. However, the Departmental Investment Strategy (DIS), published and printed separately as an outcome of the 2000 spending review, describes the Department's strategic plans for both new investment and for the use of existing assets. The DIS can be viewed on the website: www.culture.gov.uk.

  Certified Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the refurbishment projects that(a) are in progress and (b) will start within the next six months; and what action is being taken to ensure that these will procure certified timber. [59765]

  Dr. Howells
  There are no plans for any refurbishments for at least the next 12 months. In all procurement of timber and timber products the Department will, where possible, specify timber supplies which are FSC certified or WWF 95+ approved.

  Religious Broadcasters
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she informed the BBC of the Government's proposal to lift the ban on ownership of a digital audio broadcasting programme licence by religious broadcasters while applying such a ban on ownership of a multiplex licence. [59110]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The BBC would have been informed of the Government's intentions for religious broadcasting at the same time as everyone else, with the publication of the White Paper "A New Future for Communications" in December 1999. I should clarify that our proposals published recently with the draft Communications Bill propose the lifting of the restrictions on religious bodies owning local digital broadcast licences, and not national digital broadcast licences.

  International Sports Federations
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the international sports federations and organisations on which United Kingdom nationals hold senior positions, stating for each(a) the name of the United Kingdom national, (b) the date on which the position was attained, (c) the length of the term of office and (d) the nature of the office. [59878]

  Mr. Caborn
  Part of UK Sport's responsibilities is to encourage and maintain UK influence within international sports federations. To support this objective they operate an International Representatives Grant Aid Programme. This programme offers financial support to elected British postholders and in addition supports governing body delegates attending formal meetings to international sports bodies. I am arranging for copies of the list of UK nationals supported by UK Sport who hold senior positions in international sports organisations to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The definition used for 'senior position' is Chair or President, Vice-Chair or Vice-President, Secretary or Treasurer.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress made towards the method used to determine the Government's target number of United Kingdom nationals holding senior positions on international sports federations and organisations. [60001]

  Mr. Caborn
  It is one of UK Sport's responsibilities to maintain and encourage UK influence within international sports administration. My Department has agreed with UK Sport that it is not appropriate to set a numerical target for the number of UK nationals holding senior positions. Instead, performance is measured based on a qualitative assessment of the work of selected UK nationals holding senior positions in international sports federations and organisations from the annual reports these postholders are required to submit to UK Sport. The definition used for 'senior position' is Chair or President, Vice-Chair or Vice-President, Secretary or Treasurer.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if(a) her Department and (b) its agencies have a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59461]

  Dr. Howells
  Neither my Department nor its agency—the Royal Parks Agency—has a policy of refusing applications for employment by persons of any age up to its current normal age of retirement of 60.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Fire Service
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time employees were at the Fire Service College in (a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [58736]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is set out in the table.
  1017W

  Fire Service College staff 2001, 2002

  1 April 2001

  1 April 2002

  UK Fire Service Secondees

  37

  37

  Other Full-Time Employees

  181

  179

  Part-Time Employees

  19

  19

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many

  Total number of applicants

  Men

  Women

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Wholetime

  From 1 April 1997–31 March 1998

  42,573

  40,657

  1,916

  41,065

  699

  274

  535

  From 1 April 1998–31 March 1999

  34,400

  32,731

  1,669

  33,339

  525

  255

  281

  From 1 April 1999–31 March 2000

  30,206

  28,345

  1,861

  29,107

  518

  335

  246

  From 1 April 2000–31 March 20011

  29,749

  27,505

  2,244

  28,052

  750

  309

  400

  Retained

  From 1 April 1997–31 March 19982

  4,013

  3,759

  254

  3,963

  13

  5

  32

  From 1 April 1998–31 March 1999

  3,067

  2,899

  168

  2,999

  5

  9

  54

  From 1 April 1999–31 March 2000

  3,658

  3,373

  285

  3,598

  27

  14

  19

  From 1 April 2000–31 March 20013

  3,844

  3,498

  346

  3,783

  16

  16

  14

  1 238 applicants were of undetermined ethnic origin. Figures not included in the table. Data were not available for three fire services.

  2 One fire service was unable to monitor the ethnic origin of applications made. Figures have not been included.

  3 Data were not available for one fire service. 15 applicants were of undetermined ethnic origin. Figures not included in the table.

  Notes:

  The 1997–98 figures are for England, Wales and Scotland.

  The 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 figures are for England and Wales only.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the proposals for consultation on the SSA for the Fire Service, announced in his oral answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 131, will be made available; and if he will make a statement. [60562]

  Mr. Leslie
  As announced in the Local Government White Paper Implementation Plan, published on 10 April, we will consult over the summer on options for the new system of revenue grant distribution to local authorities. The Government will then implement decisions in time for the 2003–04 local government finance settlement.

  Housing
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what subsidies have been provided in the financial year 2001–02 to public sector key workers for housing; and if he will make a statement. [58653]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  £250 million is being provided for the Starter Home Initiative (SHI) over the three years 2001–02 to 2003–04 to help key workers to buy homes in areas where they

  Table 1: Total number of LA and RSL empty homes in London by borough in each of the last 10 years

  Local authority

  1 April: 2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1995

  1994

  19931

  1992

  Barking and Dagenham

  581

  784

  704

  852

  713

  629

  439

  378

  285

  292

  Barnet

  274

  248

  227

  259

  209

  255

  216

  215

  283

  185

  Bexley

  163

  168

  163

  243

  186

  162

  196

  192

  192

  101

  Brent

  526

  728

  1,059

  1,081

  1,150

  912

  636

  599

  837

  1,027

  Bromley

  448

  471

  499

  515

  416

  351

  334

  431

  382

  257

  Camden

  582

  531

  680

  672

  686

  711

  731

  734

  795

  818

  1018W
  people applied to the Fire Service in each year since 1997, broken down by (a) age, (b) gender and (c) ethnic origin. [58902]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of applicants to fire services are set out in the tables, broken down by ethnicity and gender. Information on the age of applicants is not held centrally.

  would otherwise be priced out of the housing market. This includes SHI expenditure of £2.173 million to help key workers in 2001–02.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of where the cost of providing affordable housing in sites suitable for market-price housing is borne. [59175]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The provision of affordable housing on a site can affect both developer profit and land value. The research "Delivering Affordable Housing through Planning Policy", published by the Department in February 2002, advised that the effect will vary depending on the type of affordable housing sought and the level of payment it generates to the developer.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many affordable empty homes there were in each London borough in each of the last 10 years. [59999]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of local authority (LA) and registered social landlord (RSL) empty homes in London by borough in each of the last 10 years are set out in table 1:
  1019W

  Table 1: Total number of LA and RSL empty homes in London by borough in each of the last 10 years

  Local authority

  1 April: 2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1995

  1994

  19931

  1992

  City of London

  6

  5

  2

  8

  10

  5

  5

  0

  0

  1

  Croydon

  334

  368

  371

  385

  449

  620

  430

  673

  563

  543

  Ealing

  455

  370

  395

  450

  412

  348

  292

  373

  446

  509

  Enfield

  508

  422

  338

  333

  283

  296

  385

  374

  377

  339

  Greenwich

  800

  887

  821

  956

  1,047

  939

  990

  1,179

  1,227

  755

  Hackney

  2,265

  2,538

  2,769

  2,133

  3,287

  3,606

  4,300

  4,828

  4,524

  3,152

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  618

  585

  551

  696

  747

  594

  671

  705

  654

  772

  Haringey

  405

  456

  691

  544

  665

  748

  760

  619

  962

  645

  Harrow

  112

  92

  139

  124

  123

  161

  133

  140

  180

  143

  Havering

  348

  241

  259

  263

  269

  217

  235

  220

  256

  233

  Hillingdon

  174

  219

  178

  204

  219

  160

  224

  174

  303

  281

  Hounslow

  350

  340

  259

  232

  358

  383

  482

  557

  595

  371

  Islington

  840

  1,104

  1,432

  1,505

  1,729

  2,752

  1.819

  1,432

  1,211

  1,008

  Kensington and Chelsea

  327

  409

  355

  467

  632

  535

  613

  550

  490

  552

  Kingston upon Thames

  113

  102

  93

  108

  179

  146

  122

  103

  111

  114

  Lambeth

  1,494

  1,680

  1,758

  1,743

  2,300

  2,527

  2,725

  2,390

  2,139

  1,996

  Lewisham

  1,190

  1,051

  959

  1,097

  1,218

  1,674

  1,435

  1,542

  1,204

  939

  Merton

  139

  203

  169

  139

  195

  456

  199

  255

  261

  125

  Newham

  514

  516

  680

  951

  958

  1,069

  1,148

  1,174

  1,110

  1,183

  Redbridge

  231

  421

  367

  324

  264

  349

  585

  500

  521

  388

  Richmond upon Thames

  146

  204

  221

  221

  240

  172

  267

  127

  181

  170

  Southwark

  2,154

  1,791

  1,700

  1,623

  1,923

  2,415

  1,531

  1,771

  1,981

  2,077

  Sutton

  133

  270

  209

  158

  193

  192

  104

  123

  132

  130

  Tower Hamlets

  1,063

  1,302

  1,470

  1,503

  1,811

  1,723

  1,773

  1,706

  2,123

  1,934

  Waltham Forest

  313

  389

  646

  791

  659

  642

  609

  538

  741

  551

  Wandsworth

  541

  582

  647

  640

  640

  720

  883

  951

  837

  739

  Westminster

  579

  650

  762

  824

  859

  764

  903

  883

  1,106

  800

  London total

  18,726

  20,127

  21,573

  22,044

  25,029

  27,233

  26,175

  26,436

  27,009

  23,130

  1 Figures for 1993 are unusually high due to many dwellings bought by RSLs towards the end of the financial year (1992–93) under the Housing Market Package.

  Sources:

  DTLR's annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP) returns and the Housing Corporation's annual HAR 10 and Regulatory and Statistical Return (RSR)

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much of the Budget allocated for housing in 2003–04 will be allocated to(a) the south-west region and (b) North Somerset county council. [60492]

  Mr. McNulty
  Allocations of housing resources for 2003–04 have not yet been decided. They will depend on a combination of measures of relative housing need, strategic regional housing priorities and authorities' performance on housing.

  Funding (Luton, South)
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what moneys have been provided(a) directly and (b) via agencies for which the Department has responsibility to the Luton, South constituency since 1997. [58589]

  £ million

  Nature of Funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Revenue support grant

  75.478

  81.382

  82.804

  82.516

  89.229

  90.999

  Income from national non-domestic rates

  41.033

  42.769

  46.379

  52.786

  51.567

  56.327

  Local government reorganisation supplementary credit approval

  3.575

  2.160

  0.186

  —

  —

  —

  Single capital pot

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.560

  Housing investment programme

  3.337

  2.978

  3.274

  6.205

  2.952

  3.015

  Housing revenue account subsidy

  6.939

  6.262

  5.889

  5.597

  10.838

  —

  Capital receipts initiative

  0.481

  1.664

  1.843

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Cash incentive scheme

  0.250

  0.106

  —

  —

  —

  —

  New deal for communities funding1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.721

  7.55

  Neighbourhood renewal funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.754

  1.132

  ERDF funding2

  —

  —

  —

  0.470

  0.944

  2.531

  Transport policies and programme/local transport plan allocation

  3.152

  1.985

  3.730

  2.387

  4.919

  4.862

  1 The NDC funding is for the Marsh Farm estate, a project in the Luton, North constituency.

  2 ERDF is by calendar year

  1020W
  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The principal funding that this Department has provided to Luton from 1997–98 to date is shown in the table. These figures include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money has been directly spent on Luton, South. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.

  The transport allocations shown are for the Luton/ Dunstable conurbation which includes part of South Bedfordshire district.

  The information shown is not fully comprehensive—such information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Regional Organisations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which of the agencies and NDPBs sponsored by his Department have a regional organisation; and if he will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [58962]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Rent Service is organised into the three regions of: north (England); south and midlands; and London and east. These regions correspond to the regional boundaries of the Government offices for, respectively, the northeast, north-west, and Yorkshire and the Humber; the west midlands, east midlands, and the south-west; and London, east of England, and south-east.

  The Marine and Coastguard Agency is organised into three regions: Scotland and Northern Ireland; eastern; and Wales and west. As these relate to England, these also incorporate complete Government office regions in almost every respect.

  The Housing Corporation has four field offices in the regions of London, south, central and north, with local offices beneath these. These regions correspond to the regional boundaries of the Government offices for, respectively, London; the south-east and south-west; the west midlands, east midlands, and east of England; and the north-west, north-east, and Yorkshire and the Humber.

  The Health and Safety Executive has a field operations headquarters in Bootle, with regional offices in divisions defined as Scotland, the north-west, Yorkshire and the north-east, midlands, Wales and west, the home counties, and London and the south-east.

  The numbers of county and unitary local authorities in each of the Government office regions referred to have been placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what regional organisation his Department has; and if he will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [58961]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The nine Government offices for the regions carry out work for my Department in a number of areas including housing, planning, transport, neighbourhood renewal, local government and the administration of European structural funds.

  The county and unitary authorities in each of the nine English regions are set out in a table which I have placed in the Library.

  The information about local authorities in the east of England given in annexe A of the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" was incorrect. It should have shown that there are four unitary authorities—as set out in this table—and 44 shire districts.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on the imposition of a regional assembly upon a shire county if a majority of its population rejected it in a referendum. [60236]
  1022W
  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  Whether an elected regional assembly is established in any region will depend on the vote of the region as a whole.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that the people of Hertfordshire will be able to choose the region they wish to be a part of in his plans for regional governance. [60235]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  No. As set out in chapter 6 of the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice", we do not propose to depart from the existing boundaries used by the Government offices for the regions, regional development agencies and other bodies.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate his Department has made of the impact on employment in the East of England region should an existing tier be abolished as outlined in his plans for regional governance. [60234]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to make accurate estimates of the impact on employment of any future local government reorganisation in the east of England region, as this will depend on the unitary structure recommended by the Boundary Committee for England. More generally, we expect that an elected regional assembly would help to increase employment in the region by enhancing regional economic competitiveness and performance.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what minimum participation level will be required in referenda to determine the establishment of a regional assembly. [60233]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our proposals for referendums are set out in chapter 9 of the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice."

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what basis his Department estimates the cost of running a regional assembly. [60237]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Cost estimates have been based on a number of factors, including the number of staff working on relevant policy functions in the regions at present, the expected number of assembly members and support staff, and comparable costs for other tiers of Government, adjusted to take account of the specific features of regional assemblies.

  Neighbourhood Wardens
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in what areas neighbourhood wardens operate; and what access other areas have to opportunities to develop such schemes. [59173]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  Neighbourhood wardens operate throughout England and Wales. A list showing the schemes funded by my Department follows. Continued Government funding will

  1023W
  be dependent upon the outcome of the spending review, although any area may develop a scheme if they can secure the necessary support.

  Neighbourhood warden schemes

  Town/area

  Wardens

  Aldershot

  1

  Avon and Somerset parishes

  2

  Balsall Heath

  20

  Barnet

  4

  Barnsley

  5

  Benchill

  7

  Birmingham

  3

  Bolton

  2

  Bolton

  2

  Boston

  9

  Burnley

  6

  Bury

  2

  Caernarfon

  1

  Caerphilly

  3

  Canterbury

  6

  Cardiff

  1

  Coventry

  1

  Dacorum

  1

  Darlington

  3

  Derby

  3

  Doncaster

  2

  Everton

  12

  Exeter

  4

  Gateshead

  4

  Gorton

  5

  Gosport

  1

  Guildford

  2

  Hackney

  4

  Hastings

  4

  Havering

  4

  Hillingdon

  6

  Horsham

  2

  Hounslow

  6

  Hull

  6

  Huntingdon

  3

  Islington

  6

  Kidderminster

  2

  Kirklees

  6

  Knowsley

  8

  Leeds

  10

  Leicestershire (north west)

  1

  Lewisham

  7

  Liverpool

  1

  Longridge and Shaw Heath Estate

  4

  Manchester

  12

  Manchester (north)

  12

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2

  Merton

  3

  Middlesbrough

  3.5

  Milton Keynes

  1

  Mullion

  1

  North Tyneside

  7

  Norwich

  2

  Nottingham

  2

  Oldham

  2

  Pontefract

  5

  Portsmouth

  8

  Rotherham

  6

  Sale West

  6

  Salford

  3

  Sedgefield

  Sheffield

  3

  Sheffield

  4

  Skelmersdale

  12

  Slough

  5

  South Tyneside

  6

  Southwark

  9

  Stevenage

  9

  1024W

  Neighbourhood warden schemes

  Town/area

  Wardens

  Stockton on Tees

  8

  Stoke on Trent

  6

  Sunderland

  3

  Sutton

  4

  Swansea council

  3

  Tower Hamlets

  4

  Trafford

  5

  Trafford

  5

  Vale of White Horse

  2

  Walsall

  10

  Wansbeck

  20

  Wigan

  4

  Wilmslow

  1

  Wirral

  4

  Wolverhampton

  3

  Workington

  4

  Wyre

  4

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to announce the next round of bidding for neighbourhood warden schemes; and if he will make a statement on the eligibility for entitlement to neighbourhood warden schemes for urban areas outside inner cities. [59958]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  This year we are introducing 123 Street Warden Schemes throughout the country. A £5 million extension of the existing 84 Neighbourhood Warden Schemes to the year 2003–04 has already been announced. Decisions on future funds will be dependent upon the outcome of the spending review. Warden schemes are found in all parts of the country from small rural places through to towns and large cities.

  Local Government
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which local authorities have debt-free status and have retained their housing stock. [58996]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following local authorities with council housing as at 30 September 2001 were debt-free in 2001–02:

  Barking and Dagenham

  Bracknell Forest

  Bromsgrove

  Broxbourne

  City of London

  Corby

  Crawley

  Dacorum

  Dartford

  Daventry

  East Devon

  Forest Heath

  Harlow

  Mid Bedfordshire

  1025W

  Mole Valley

  Redditch

  Runnymede

  Salisbury

  Slough

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Northamptonshire

  St. Edmundsbury

  Stevenage

  Tandridge

  Three Rivers

  Uttlesford

  Watford

  Waverley

  Welwyn Hatfield

  Wycombe

  Source:

  Capital Payments and Receipts (CPR2) 2001–02

  Definition: An authority was debt-free on 30 September 2001 if (a) at 31 March 2001, the authority's credit ceiling was nil or a negative amount and (b) at 30 September 2001, the authority had no money outstanding by way of external borrowing other than short-term borrowing or hard to redeem debt, as defined in Regulation 154 of the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1997

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) whether the announcement of proposals for the reform of local government funding will include indicative figures on the impact of local authorities grant positions of the proposals; [59163]

  (2) if the review of local government funding will be followed by a period of consultation with local authorities before final decisions on changes to the funding formulas for local authority grants are implemented;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the timetable for the announcement of the review of local government funding and the implementation of the conclusions from that review. [59164]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government will consult over the summer on options for the new system of revenue grant distribution to local authorities. We will make an announcement on the precise form of that consultation in due course. We intend our conclusions on the way forward to be announced in late November or early December, when we set out the proposed grant distribution to local authorities for 2003–04.

  Fires
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many domestic fires were recorded by each fire authority in each of the past 10 years; [59202]

  (2) how many (a) deaths and (b) serious injuries caused by domestic fires were recorded by fire authorities broken down by age range (i) 0–5, (ii) 6–10, (iii) 11–20 and (iv) 21 plus in the last 10 years; [59204]
  1026W
  (3) how many fires in multiple occupation homes were recorded by fire authorities in each of the past 10 years; [59205]

  Mr. Moss
  (4) how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries caused by domestic fires were recorded by each fire authority in each of the past 10 years. [59203]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is contained in the tables which have been placed in the House Library.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many house fires there were in which people were(a) killed, (b) injured and (c) both, broken down by (i) deliberate and (ii) accidental fires, in the last three years. [60436]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following table shows the number of accidental and malicious (ie deliberate) dwelling fires attended by local authority fire brigades in the United Kingdom that resulted in deaths and injuries for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000.

  Number of dwelling1 fires

  1998

  1999

  20002

  Accidental

  Total fires

  57,718

  58,366

  56,655

  Fires with deaths only

  309

  293

  268

  Fires with injuries only

  8,829

  8,756

  8,315

  Fires with deaths and injuries

  106

  78

  89

  Malicious

  Total fires

  13,359

  13,862

  14,242

  Fires with deaths only

  34

  31

  30

  Fires with injuries only

  1,177

  1,195

  1,296

  Fires with deaths and injuries

  14

  18

  17

  1 Dwellings are defined as buildings occupied by households, excluding hotels, hostels and residential institutions. They also include caravans, houseboats and other non-building structures used solely as a permanent dwelling

  2 Data for 2000 are provisional. Death figures have not been estimated to take account of revisions likely to occur once further information from inquests and death certificates confirming cause of death is received.

  Data Matching
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in relation to data matching exercises undertaken by the Audit Commission and local authorities, how many individuals' personal data have been processed in data matching exercises in connection with fraud; how many cases have been identified as part of that data matching exercise as being possible cases of fraud requiring further investigation; how many cases, after investigation, were deemed likely to be fraudulent; how many cases were prosecuted; what the total cost were of data matching exercises, including staff and computer costs; and what the estimated total savings to the public purse are and what multiplier was used in this calculation. [59209]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following information is taken from the Audit Commission's National Fraud Initiative (NFI) 2000. All data collection and matching is undertaken in accordance

  1027W
  with the Code of Data Matching, agreed between the Audit Commission and the Information Commissioner. Because data for matching is drawn from a wide range of data sources, with individuals' details potentially appearing on a number of data submissions, it is not possible to identify the number of individuals for whom data has been collected. However, in its report on the 2000 NFI, the Commission reported that over 14 million records were matched. The Commission's role is to identify matches and report these back to the relevant authorities for further investigation. It is for individual authorities to identify potentially fraudulent matches and to investigate these further, and, if appropriate, prosecute. The Commission does not have details of how many cases fall into these categories. The cost of the Audit Commission's role in NFI 2000 was some £600,000, including staff costs and computer costs. The Commission does not have information on the costs incurred by individual authorities in investigating potentially fraudulent matches. The Commission does not seek to estimate the potential savings arising from NFI. However, in its report on the 2000 NFI, the Commission reported that the value of detected fraud and overpayment, up to the date of publication, was £50 million, an increase of 19 per cent. over the previous NFI undertaken in 1998.

  South-west Regional Assembly
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many civil servants and public officials carry out activities on behalf of Government departments in the South West Region; and how many would be transferred to an elected South West Regional Assembly. [60023]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of permanent civil service staff in each English region is listed in the table in Box 2.6 of the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" (Cm 5511). The number of other public officials in the regions is not held centrally.

  The number of posts to transfer to an elected assembly for the South West will depend on the number of posts devoted to the relevant function at the time of transfer but might be in the region of 50 to 100 posts, the majority of which would come from the Government Office for the South West. The assembly would also become responsible for the South West Regional Development Agency, which currently employs around 200 staff.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those agencies and public bodies(a) for which an elected south west regional assembly would have responsibility and accountability and (b) over which it would have influence. [60017]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The responsibilities of elected regional assemblies are set out in Chapter 4 of the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" (Cm 5511), published on 9 May.

  Domestic Violence
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many 1028W
  women have been classified as having a priority need for accommodation as victims of domestic violence under sections 175 and 177 of the Housing Act 1996. [59845]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  Data are not collected centrally in the precise form requested. Available information on households accommodated under statutory homelessness provisions in England is published in a quarterly Statistical Release, "Statutory Homelessness: England".

  Table 3 presents a summary of those households accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need under the Housing Act 1996, identifying which category was most crucial in determining priority need. Cases where domestic violence was the exclusive reason are identified separately, but further cases may also exist where, for example, the presence of dependent children was regarded by the local authority as the crucial determining factor. Table 4 further summarises acceptances by reason for loss of the household's last settled home, and identifies all cases involving a "violent breakdown of relationship".

  Copies of the statistical release are held in the Library and are also available on the Department's website. The latest edition, published on 14 March 2002, presents statistics up to and including the fourth quarter of 2001.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the ministerial group on domestic violence regarding local government policy on housing allocation for victims of domestic violence. [59843]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is one of a number of housing issues which are the subject of on-going discussion with the ministerial group on domestic violence, and on which the Department has provided briefing for this group, in order to meet the key objective, shared by both the ministerial group and the Department, to increase safe accommodation choices for women and children.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the advice issued to local government regarding housing allocation for victims of domestic violence. [59844]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  On 31 May 2002 the Department will be issuing for consultation a draft code of guidance for local housing authorities on the allocation of housing, which has been revised to take account of the changes to Part 6 of the Housing Act contained in the Homelessness Act 2002. The issue of domestic violence is referred to in Chapters 4 and 5 of the Code.

  The period for consultation ends on 28 August 2002.

  A copy of the draft Code will be placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Regeneration
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much
  1029W
  investment is committed to neighbourhood renewal programme in the next five years; and how that budget is divided between revenue and capital spending. [59856]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has a 10-year commitment to New Deal for Communities partnerships of £2,152 billion, of which £753 million is expected to be capital and £1,399 million revenue.

  The total budget provision for neighbourhood renewal programmes, including NDC and NRF, in the current year is £727 million. Of this, £165 million is in DTLR's Capital Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) and £562 million is in the DTLR and Local Government Resource DELs.

  Detailed annual budgets for 2003–04 to 2005–06 for NDC and other neighbourhood renewal programmes are currently being reviewed in the context of the Spending Review.

  Current best estimates of the split between revenue and capital spending on the established 'Partnership plans for New Deal in Communities funding, show this to be: 2002–03: £120 million revenue and £66 million capital and 2003–04: £172 million revenue and £93 million capital.

  Development of all other neighbourhood renewal programmes commenced last year and detailed information on the split between revenue and capital of community plans flowing from these still has to be established.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of Government's spending on urban regeneration over the next five years; and what levels are committed to capital and revenue spending. [59840]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  The ODPM's urban regeneration budgets for the remaining years of SR2000 are as follows:

  £ million

  2002–04

  2003–04

  Resource

  769

  532

  Capital

  889

  1,266

  Total

  1,658

  1,798

  Detailed annual budgets for 2003–04 to 2005–06 for urban regeneration programmes are currently being reviewed in the context of the Spending Review.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he has made an estimate of how many extra mobile phone masts operators will require to complete their networks in the next five years. [59632]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for the individual telecommunications operators. However, the operators are fully aware of the importance we attach to keeping the number of masts to
  1030W
  the minimum practicable, for example, through mast sharing, and to ensuring that those which are needed are designed and sited with sensitivity and care.

  When rolling out their future network needs, and in addition to the statutory consultation requirements, the five mobile phone operators have made a series of commitments to deliver improved communication and consultation with local authorities and local communities. This includes providing local planning authorities with annual rollout plans for each authority's area. We strongly encourage operators and local planning authorities to carry out annual discussions based upon these plans. These will provide an early opportunity to discuss technical and environmental constraints and to explore possible alternative approaches, particularly the opportunities for mast and site sharing and also in terms of the location and design of the apparatus.

  The Department is currently drawing up, in partnership with representatives of the mobile phone operators and local government, a revised Code of Best Practice, which will include advice and best practice on the delivery of mobile phone mast development.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what requirement there is for parish councillors to sign the Code of Conduct as individuals in cases where their parish council as a whole has not adopted the Code of Conduct. [59697]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Local Government Act 2000 and The Parish Councils (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2001 place a duty on parish councils to adopt a code of conduct by 5 May 2002. If a code is not adopted by a parish council, parish councillors are not under a duty to give a written undertaking to observe a code. However, if a parish council fails to adopt a code, the provisions of the model code apply to all members of that council. Newly-elected members must give an undertaking on accepting office that they will observe the provisions of the model code.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what information he collects on the application of grants paid through the single regeneration budget, their efficacy and effectiveness. [60155]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The regional development agencies are responsible for administering the single regeneration budget at regional level. The RDAs collect information on grant expenditure and performance data from the regeneration partnerships that manage the individual SRB schemes. The partnerships are required to appraise all projects before grant can be approved. Also, at the end of a scheme, the partnership is required to submit to the RDA a report on the overall achievement of the scheme against the strategic objectives and the end scheme position against the baseline position at the start of the scheme. The RDAs account to the Government for their expenditure, including grant paid to regeneration partnerships under SRB rules, in accordance with detailed reporting requirements and procedures set out in corporate planning

  1031W
  and other guidance issued to the RDAs. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister also collects data from the RDAs on selected outputs generated by SRB schemes.

  In addition, the Department has commissioned the Department of Land Economy at the University of Cambridge to undertake an eight-year evaluation of the SRB programme. A mid-term report of the evaluation, based on 10 case study SRB partnerships whose activities have completed, was published in January. The findings of this report and earlier reports are published on the Department's website.

  Homelessness
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress the Homelessness Directorate has made with regard to tackling homelessness. [60493]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Homelessness Directorate brings together the Rough Sleepers Unit, the Bed and Breakfast Unit and a new team to advise local authorities on tackling homelessness. The Directorate aims to:

  sustain the success of meeting the Prime Minister's target of reducing rough sleeping by two thirds by 2002;

  ensure that by March 2004 no homeless families with children are living in bed and breakfast hotels except in an emergency and, even then, for no more than six weeks;

  promote new and more strategic approaches to tackle more effectively the growing problem of homelessness.

  Since its establishment in March this year, the Homelessness Directorate has:

  published the report "More than a roof" which, together with the Secretary of State's response, sets out a new approach to tackling homelessness;

  reviewed local rough sleeping strategies in order to sustain the two thirds reduction in the number of rough sleepers in England;

  published a good practice handbook to help local authorities to conduct homelessness reviews and develop effective homelessness strategies;

  invited local authorities to apply for £10 million funding for homelessness strategies, to commence in July 2002:

  held a number of regional good practice conferences on reducing the use of B&B hotels;

  required high using B&B authorities to produce B&B reduction action plans, backed up by £35 million of new resources;

  participated in seven seminars organised by the Chartered Institute of Housing to promote awareness of the requirements of the Homelessness Act among housing and homelessness professionals;

  issued new advice to housing authorities on arrangements to ensure that all babies and children placed in temporary accommodation receive their health and developmental tests;

  improved the collection of information from local authorities to monitor the number of homeless families with children living in B&B hotels and to record the length of time they stay there.

  Additionally, the Government have:

  taken through the Homelessness Act 2002 which will strengthen the statutory safety net for homeless people and ensure that all housing authorities have a homelessness strategy for their districts;

  confirmed its intention to bring the main homelessness provisions of that Act into force in July, together with an extension by order of the groups who are in priority need for housing;

  1032W

  confirmed that £10 million will be allocated to local authorities in 2002–03 to help them deliver the proposed new priority needs order;

  amended housing benefit rues to provide additional incentives for private leasing as an alternative to the use of B&B hotels for homeless people;

  announced that tackling homelessness is a new theme for the Beacon Councils scheme.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the administration costs for the(a) National Homelessness Directorate, (b) Bed and Breakfast Unit and (c) Rough Sleepers Unit were in the last 12 months. [60664]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Bed and Breakfast Unit, the Rough Sleepers Unit and the homelessness responsibilities which had resided in the former DTLR's Housing Directorate were merged from 1 April 2002 to form a new Homelessness Directorate. The administration costs for the Rough Sleepers Unit in 2001–02 were £1.33 million and those for the Bed and Breakfast Unit were £132,000.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of the money allocated to the(a) Bed and Breakfast Unit and (b) Rough Sleepers Unit by him for the current financial year is expected to be spent on administration costs. [60666]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Bed and Breakfast Unit, the Rough Sleepers Unit and the homelessness responsibilities which had resided in the former DTLR's: Housing Directorate were merged from 1 April to form a new Homelessness Directorate. The Homelessness Directorate has an overall budget for programme expenditure of £125 million for the current financial year. In addition to this the directorate has a separate budget to cover administration costs, which for the current financial year amounts to £1.6 million.

  Sound Insulation
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent estimate he has made of the number of households affected by poor sound insulation. [60660]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The best estimate my Department has of the number of people affected by poor sound insulation comes from the regulatory impact assessment prepared for the revision of Part E of the Building Regulations—which deals with sound insulation between new dwellings. This examined data collected by the 1996 English house condition survey and concluded that 670,000 households were bothered by noise from neighbours which could be attributed to poor design of the building or a combination of poor design and behaviour of the neighbours.

  Adapted Housing
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to increase the provision of specially adapted housing for the elderly and the disabled. [60547]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Housing Corporation through the approved development programme (ADP) and supported housing management grant (SHMG) provide specially adapted housing and support for the elderly and disabled. The Housing Corporation through its national investment strategy sets out the priorities against which registered social landlords should bid for resources for both ADP and SHMG. Included in these priorities are housing for older people and supported housing for people with
  1033W
  physical disabilities and frail older people. The ADP is set to rise to £1.2 billion in 2003–04, almost double the planned expenditure for 2000–01. The Housing Corporation is currently reviewing its strategy for housing older people to reflect national policy developments such as supporting people and to encourage more joined up solutions to housing support and care needs to this group.

  Local housing authorities have a statutory duty to offer disabled facilities grants (DFGs) to eligible applicants who require adaptations to help them live independently in their own homes. The grant is available to homeowners and tenants in both the private and social rented sector. It is subject to a means test. The Government meet 60 per cent. of the total local authority expenditure incurred on DFGs through the payment of specified capital grant. The budget for this grant for English authorities in 2002–03 is £88 million compared with £56 million in 1997–98, an increase of nearly 60 per cent.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future of the Millennium Dome. [60811]

  Mr. McNulty
  On 29 May 2002, English Partnerships entered into legally binding contracts with Meridian Delta Ltd. (MDL), a consortium consisting of Lendlease plc and Quintain Estates and Development, and with the Anschutz Entertainment Group, for the redevelopment of the dome and approximately 170 acres of land on the Greenwich peninsula. Under the deal, Anschutz will construct a world-class standard 20,000 seat arena inside the dome, capable of hosting a wide range of entertainment and sporting events. No specific price is being paid for the land under the arena, but its value is reflected in the deal as a whole with MDL. Anschutz is committed to investing £135 million, and English Partnerships will be entitled to a share of profits made by the arena, after a priority return to Anschutz.

  In the outer rim of the dome, and spilling out into the northern tip of the peninsula, MDL and Anschutz plan to construct a mix of eating, entertainment and leisure facilities—this part of the development is known as the dome waterfront. Again, the land value is reflected in the deal as a whole with MDL. MDL and Anschutz are committed to investing at least £65 million. Again English Partnerships will share in profits.

  All risk in respect of the dome will transfer to Anschutz and MDL, who are required to maintain the dome until 2018. Should they decide at that time to remove the dome structure and redevelop the land, English Partnerships will be entitled to a 50 per cent. share of redevelopment proceeds. This protects English Partnerships' position on the redevelopment value of the land.

  In respect of the rest of the peninsula land in the deal (around 146 acres), English Partnerships and MDL have agreed that they will develop the site jointly. Development is to take place over the next 20 to 25 years, with an end date of 2025. The detailed terms provide for English Partnerships to retain ownership of its land until individual plots are required for development. The payout will work as follows: first, an agreed minimum land value, on the sale of any parcel of land—this protects against any downturn—secondly, the uplift in the value of land,
  1034W
  after planning permission and at the point of sale to a developer, to reflect development value. Calculation of the split varies across the phases of development, but broadly evens out to 50:50—after costs—assuming development of about 14 million square feet. Where MDL develops land itself, English Partnerships will receive the agreed minimum land value plus a share of sale proceeds, or the value of the development—both after costs—once the development is complete.

  Under the terms of the original acquisition of the land, British Gas is entitled to 7.5 per cent. of sale proceeds or open market value across the site. This would apply in relation to any onward sale of land on the Greenwich peninsula by English Partnerships.

  No negotiations between English Partnerships and British Gas have yet taken place on how exactly British Gas's entitlement is to be interpreted in the context of the deal with MDL and Anschutz. English Partnerships will ensure that the outcome of those negotiations represents good value for money for the public purse.

  The deal's three parts—dome, dome waterfront, and the rest of the land—are subject to the grant of planning permission. Participants envisage making an application in the autumn. Until planning permission is granted the site will remain the responsibility of English Partnerships.

  In agreeing to accept the terms of this deal, the Government have focused on four main aspects: value for money; regeneration benefits for the area; deliverability and a proper use for the dome.

  As regards value for money, we have made it clear that we would only proceed with any deal if it provided proper value for money for the Government. That included comparison with the value for money which could be delivered by demolishing the dome, or by alternative development scenarios retaining the dome. The net present value of the agreements that I have just outlined to English Partnerships, assuming the full scheme is developed, is around £240 million as estimated by independent advisers. The expected cash to be received over a period of around 20 years will be up to £550 million.

  The division of these proceeds between the Millennium Commission and English Partnerships has not been finally agreed. At the time of the Legacy deal a formula was agreed. Because that deal was of an entirely different sort to this one, the precise application of the formula to this deal needs to be considered further. But a fair split will be worked out. The process of working out that split does not affect the deal English Partnerships has done with MDL and Anschutz. On the basis of independent advice, we are satisfied that the deal is good value for money.

  If the site had been sold outright now with no joint development agreement, the estimated value of the site—the amount we would have obtained in the market—was considerably less than the net present value of the deal of around £240 million. This is so whether the dome was there or not.

  The other main comparator that we have considered is whether this current deal would have produced a higher return had the dome been demolished and the land under it dealt with in the same way as the wider peninsula lands. Independent advice from Jones Lang Lasalle satisfies us

  1035W
  that the value to the Government of demolishing the dome would produce a lower return for the Government than preserving the dome, and developing the site in the agreed way. To make available more land by the demolition would not increase the amount of land which could be developed because the constraints on development over the period of the development are not the amount of land but planning and transport.

  Moreover, we have received professional advice that the establishment of a successful and iconic venue enhances the value of the rest of the development.

  These agreements allow the Government to participate in the increasing value of the land across the peninsula. This is sensible, and in the public interest. As the development proceeds, land values will increase. This will be reflected in the land value element in the payment to English Partnerships when the land is sold for development.

  The deal also ensures a return to English Partnerships if the dome site is redeveloped at some point in the future. In addition, English Partnerships will share in profits from the arena and from the dome waterfront development.

  The deal contains no promise by the Government to a particular crossing across the Thames. There is no commitment of any sort in the deal or associated with it. MDL has confirmed this.

  The issue of enhancing the transport infrastructure is of huge importance to many communities in and around London. The increased activity on the Greenwich peninsula which comes from this development will inevitably be a factor which will bear on those decisions. But there is no promise on this issue in connection with the deal. The question of river crossings is a very complex regional issue, extending well beyond the Greenwich peninsula and relating to traffic flows across the region, not just in respect of individual developments.

  As regards regeneration benefits, the Greenwich peninsula has for decades been contaminated and badly connected to the rest of London. It has been de-contaminated and the Jubilee line extension brings with it good transport links. This development will bring tens of thousands of jobs and up to 7,000 new homes, many of them affordable. We believe that it will have a significant regeneration effect. It will create a new mini city. The MDL scheme outperforms any other scheme in regeneration benefits.

  As regards deliverability, the participants in the development include players with established records in delivering developments of the size and quality this project requires. This is their core business.

  Anschutz Entertainment Group is part of the Anschutz Corporation, one of the largest private corporations in the United States of America. It has world-wide sporting and entertainment interests including the Staples Centre arena in Los Angeles. It has the resources to develop and the track record which shows that it can do it. It has the energy and commitment to deliver.

  Lendlease is a major development company. It is quoted on the Australian stock exchange, operates in 40 countries and has a market capitalisation of around £2 billion. Quintain is quoted on the London stock exchange and has gross assets of £637 million.
  1036W
  Lendlease owns Bovis in the UK and has successfully developed the Sydney Olympic village and Bluewater shopping centre. It is currently project manager for the ground zero project in New York.

  These players have the resources, the experience and the ability to deliver.

  As regards a suitable use for the dome, by creating an arena and associated entertainment and leisure facilities we have found an appropriate use for what is widely acknowledged to be a high quality landmark building. Public access is assured. Keeping the dome as the lynchpin of the development has been welcomed by the London borough of Greenwich and the Mayor's office.

  The agreements represent excellent value for money. The deal brings substantial regeneration benefits for the immediate area and beyond. It brings into the development players of proven ability and resource. It ensures that the public sector can participate in the increase in value of the whole estate as the development proceeds. It represents a fitting use for the dome which will enhance the value of the whole project and attract people and economic activity.

  A huge amount of work has gone into this deal. It represents a very secure foundation on which the Government and their private-sector partners can proceed to deliver the benefits that are available to be harvested from the dome, and for the peninsula. We considered all other options but none offered comparable benefits.

  The deal will deliver excellent value for money, thousands of jobs and homes, an exciting use of one of London's landmark buildings and the continued regeneration of a key site in the evolution of Greenwich, London and the Thames Gateway.

  Council Tax Discount
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made regarding the consultation on the Government's proposals to give local authorities the discretion to reduce the 50 per cent. council tax discount for second homes and long-term empty homes. [60494]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government issued "Council Tax: A consultation paper on proposed changes for second homes and long term empty homes" last November. The deadline for responses was 15 February. We are currently considering responses and intend to announce the way forward shortly.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many letters were received by each Minister in his Department in each month since June 1997. [59318]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on the volume of Members' correspondence received by Departments. The report for 2001 was published on Friday 24 May Official Report, column 674W. Copies of previous reports are available in the Library of the House.
  1037W
  Information on the volume of other correspondence received by Ministers is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Land Sales
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the land that his Department is(a) offering for sale and (b) plans to offer in the next 12 months, giving its (i) location and (ii) size. [59062]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Cabinet Office is not presently offering any land for sale and currently has no plans to do so over the next 12 months.

  Universal Banking Service
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many times the Ministerial Committee on the Universal Banking Service has met over the past year; and when. [59190]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is established practice under part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information related to proceedings of Cabinet Committees.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what consultations the Ministerial Committee on the Universal Banking Service has had with outside organisations. [59189]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government Departments involved in universal banking, and the Post Office, have had a number of discussions with outside organisations with an interest in this subject.

  Expenditure Authorisation
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on(a) the circumstances in which an accounting officer should seek a direction from a Minister before authorising expenditure, (b) the number of occasions since 1 May 1997 that such directions have been sought by accounting officers and (c) the Department and sum involved and the purpose of the expenditure for which a direction was sought in each case. [54833]

  Mr. Boateng
  [pursuant to the reply, 8 May 2002, c. 253W]: It has come to the Treasury's attention that the schedule of ministerial directions was incomplete and should have included a direction issued in 2001 in the Department of Trade and Industry concerning regional selective assistance. I apologise for this omission.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Capital Projects
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many local education authorities award PFI credits for capital investment into 1038W
  new buildings and major refurbishments have been made; what the capital value of each project is; and what stage they are in the PFI procurement process. [59836]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  68 local education authority schools projects have been awarded PFI credits for new buildings or major refurbishments. Of these, 44 have reached financial and/or commercial close, with a total capital value of £1.229 billion. Another 24 projects are in procurement, having been approved by the Treasury-chaired Project Review Group (PRG). Details of these projects are given on the Department's website at www.teachernet.gov.uk/schoolsprivatefinanceinitiative. A further 30 projects have been awarded PFI credits on a provisional basis and are currently preparing Outline Business Cases for consideration by the PRG.

  The capital value in terms of PFI credits for each of the 44 signed projects is shown in the table. The capital value of the 24 projects in procurement and the 30 provisionally approved projects is subject to change.

  Local authorities

  PFI credits (£ million)

  Dorset

  15.6

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  2.8

  Hillingdon

  18.8

  Enfield

  15.9

  Portsmouth

  12.4

  Leeds

  4.1

  Birmingham

  50.6

  Waltham Forest

  18.5

  Manchester

  3.7

  East Sussex

  19.0

  Essex

  11.1

  Torbay

  14.2

  Staffordshire

  13.7

  Sheffield

  58.8

  Wiltshire

  38.6

  Stoke-on-Trent

  93.0

  Haringey

  62.5

  East Riding

  26.0

  Brent

  9.0

  Cornwall

  60.7

  Derbyshire

  29.0

  Kent

  11.6

  Kirklees

  59.2

  Lancashire

  13.4

  Liverpool

  10.8

  Newham

  30.0

  North Yorkshire

  7.2

  Wirral

  58.5

  Redbridge

  20.0

  Sunderland

  12.0

  Lincolnshire

  12.8

  Leeds

  45.2

  Liverpool

  72.5

  Southampton

  42.6

  Dudley

  22.0

  Brighton and Hove

  24.8

  Bolton

  3.2

  Newcastle

  47.1

  Nottinghamshire

  17.2

  Stockton

  6.1

  Tower Hamlets — Mulberry

  17.4

  Tower Hamlets — Grouped Pilot

  88.5

  Walsall

  8.2

  Tameside

  20.9

  Total

  1,229.2

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether a Scottish Executive Minister will be a member of the UK delegation to the Education and Youth Affairs European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 30 May; and what information is being provided by her Department to the Scottish Executive in connection with pre-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [60276]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  No Scottish Executive Minister attended the Education and Youth Affairs Council on 30 May 2002. Pre-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament is a matter for that Parliament and for the Scottish Executive The Scottish Executive has provided the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament with full briefing on the council agenda items and is in regular communication with my Department in respect of council business. My Department stands ready to provide any relevant information and ensures at all times that the Scottish Executive is consulted as appropriate on scrutiny issues in advance of council meetings.

  Race Relations Policy
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the additional workload for teachers and heads arising from the new statutory requirement to(a) publish a race relations policy, (b) collect data on pupil performance, admissions and discipline by racial group, (c) analyse data on the criteria in (b) and (d) assess and monitor the data which have been collected and analysed. [60513]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  No such estimates have been made. Schools have been required to collect data on the ethnicity of pupils since 1989, and should already have an equal opportunities policy. This Department has encouraged schools to make more flexible use of administrative and support staff to collect, monitor and analyse data relating to pupils, and we have increased the number of support staff by 78,900 to 213,000 in order to reduce the time teachers spend on non-teaching tasks.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action the Government will take in respect of schools which do not have a written statement of race relations policy in place by 31 May. [60511]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Commission for Racial Equality will be responsible for ensuring that schools comply with the requirement to have a written race equality policy by 31 May. It was given this power by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of(a) number and (b) percentage of (i) secondary and (ii) primary schools which will have a written statement of the race relations policy by 31 May. [60512]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  No such estimates have been made. Under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, all schools are required to have in place by 31 May a written race equality policy and measures for both assessing and monitoring the impact of all their policies—including their race equality policy—on pupils, staff and parents from different ethnic groups.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if(a) her Department and (b) its agencies have a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59451]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills is committed to raising awareness of age issues throughout the Department and eliminating age discrimination, particularly against older people. Age is a key element of the equal opportunities strategy and policy and will remain so.

  Our policy provides that all eligible people must have equality of opportunity for employment and advancement on the basis of their suitability for the work, which is assessed through competence based systems. There is no unfair discrimination on the basis of age, disability, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin. Additionally, we continually analyse management information relating to age, to monitor any adverse impact, and improve, our key HR systems.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools had over (i) 10 per cent., (ii) 25 per cent. and (iii) 50 per cent. of pupils who were asylum seekers' children in each of the last five years. [56874]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information on the number of children of asylum seekers in schools is not collected centrally.

  The Refugee Council has estimated that there is in the region of 80,000 children of asylum seekers and refugees in schools in the United Kingdom.

  This compares to an estimated 8,397,000 children aged five to 15 years in maintained and non-maintained schools in the United Kingdom and therefore represents on average 0.95 per cent. of school aged children.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent by her Department on paying pensions to retired employees of her Department in 2001–02; if she will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in(a) five years' time, (b) 10 years' time, (c) 20 years' time and (d) 30 years' time; if she will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (i) unfunded pension schemes and (ii) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if she will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [57363]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office on 23 May 2002, Official Report, columns 561–63W.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research her Department has conducted into the levels of awareness of HIV/AIDS among 10 to 24-year-olds between 1987 and 2002. [58784]
  1041W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills has not conducted research into the level of awareness of HIV/AIDS among young people. However, the Department of Health funds a four monthly tracking survey of young people aged 13 to 21 as part of the evaluation of the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy. This has consistently shown that 96 per cent. of those surveyed are aware of HIV/AIDS.

  A recent report by the Office for Standards in Education recommended that the coverage of HIV and AIDS in schools is enhanced. We have responded to the report by commissioning practical guidance for teachers on HIV and sexually transmitted infections.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average age is at which children in the UK learn about HIV/AIDS in school; and what guidelines are given to teachers on the context of such sessions. [58783]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Teaching about HIV, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases will normally be introduced to pupils at Key Stage 3 (ages 11 to 14).

  Strategies for teaching about HIV/AIDS are covered by our Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) Guidance which was sent to all schools in July 2000. The guidance makes clear that SRE should be firmly rooted in the framework of Personal, Social and Health Education, to ensure that young people learn to respect themselves and make responsible and well informed decisions about their lives.

  Press Releases
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many press releases have been issued by her Department in each month of 2002. [59484]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The following table shows the number of press releases issued each month this year to date:

  Month

  Number of press releases

  January

  21

  February

  19

  March

  22

  April

  20

  May

  20

  The above press releases can be accessed via the Department's website, www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/newslist.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many press releases were issued by her Department(a) in each month between May and December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [59483]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Table A shows the number of press releases issued between May and December in 1997

  Table A

  Month

  Number of press releases

  May

  36

  June

  41

  July

  71

  August

  22

  1042W

  Table A

  Month

  Number of press releases

  September

  35

  October

  43

  November

  49

  December

  41

  Total

  338

  Table B shows number of press releases issued each year from 1998 to 2001.

  Table B

  Date/Year

  Number of press releases

  1998

  598

  1999

  605

  2000

  538

  2001

  395

  All press releases dating from 1998 can be accessed via the Department's website, www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/newslist. Press releases dating before 1998 can be accessed via the Central Office of Information (COI) website, www.newsrelease-archive.net/coi/departments.

  Free School Transport
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she has collated on levels of non-attendance by(a) Asian girls, (b) Afro-Caribbean boys, (c) white working class boys and (d) pupils reliant on free school transport. [59284]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This level of detail is not available. Information on the number of pupils missing due to authorised or unauthorised absence is collected at school level. The characteristics of individual pupils cannot be identified from these data.

  Autism
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to provide appropriate educational facilities for children with autism; and if she will make a statement. [58929]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Local education authorities have a duty to secure sufficient schools in their areas and, in doing so, have regard to the need for securing that special educational provision is made for pupils who have special educational needs, including children with autism. Each year authorities must submit for approval, to the local School Organisation Committee, a School Organisation Plan setting out how they will secure sufficient provision, including the provision proposed for children with special educational needs. Local Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships are responsible locally, in association with local education authorities, for early years education and child care provision and are making special educational needs support a priority between 2002–03 and 2001 05.

  Children with autism are benefiting along with all other children from the considerable extra resources this Government have devoted to education, including the three-fold increase in the capital spending on schools from £775 million in 1997–98 to £2.2 billion in 2001–02. The forthcoming guidance from the Department's Autism

  1043W
  Working Group will help schools and local education authorities use the available resources to plan and make good quality provision for children with autistic spectrum disorders.

  Exclusions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if her Department will issue guidance to schools as to the circumstances in which(a) permanent exclusion and (b) fixed period exclusion are appropriate for pupils found to be taking or in possession of illegal drugs at school. [59903]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Existing guidance on pupil exclusion is contained in Circular 10/99, copies of which are in the Library. My Department will issue revised guidance on exclusion towards the end of this year which will clarify when exclusion is appropriate for incidents connected with illegal drugs including their use and possession in school.

  Drugs have no place in our schools and we recently announced a package of new measures designed to tackle the problem. Details are in my Department's Press Notice of 21 May, copies of which are in the Library.

  British Sign Language
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many British Sign Language tutors there are in the UK; and what are their qualifications. [60125]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There are no centrally held statistics on the number of British Sign Language tutors. However, inquiries indicate that there are around 800 tutors, but details of the level of qualifications held are not known.

  Start date

  Title of consultation

  Number of responses

  26 June 2001

  Professional Duties of Advanced Skills Teachers

  32

  24 July 2001

  Employment of Teachers who have successfully completed their course of teacher training but have not passed their skills test

  10

  11 June 2001

  Teachers' Professional Development—Standards Framework Consultation

  53

  11 June 2001

  Teachers' Professional Development Division—Development Portfolio Consultation

  20

  9 July 2001

  Extending the Use of Parenting Orders

  120

  30 July 2001

  Draft Regulations Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as Amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001

  202

  31 August 2001

  Registration and Monitoring of Independent Schools

  422

  18 September 2001

  Consultation on targets for English and mathematics at Key Stage 20 in 2004

  206

  8 October 2001

  City Academies: Arrangements for Pupils with SEN and Disabilities

  37

  5 October 2001

  Expert support for the development of Foundation Stage Practice

  166

  1 September 2001

  White Paper: Consultation on School Admissions

  480

  1 September 2001

  White Paper: Consultation on Exclusion Appeal Panels

  220

  1 September 2001

  White Paper: The Way Forward—A modernised Framework for School Governance

  4,385

  1 September 2001

  Better Beginnings—Improving quality and increasing provision in early years education and child care

  315

  11 June 2001

  Guidance on Producing a Portfolio

  49

  27 June 2001

  Education Development Plans from 2002—draft guidance

  85

  23 November 2001

  Teachers' Pay Reform—Performance Pay Progression Grant

  70

  6 November 2001

  Teaching Fellowship Scheme (Excellence Fellowship Awards)

  67

  2 November 2001

  Consultation on Proposals arising from the Treasury Review of I11 Health Retirement

  78

  24 September 2001

  16–19 Organisation—Organisation and Inspection

  332

  5 September 2001

  Schools White Paper: Achieving Success

  73

  12 October 2001

  Modernisation of Higher Education Student Support

  70

  25 November 2001

  Building a Strategy for Children and Young People—Children's Consultation

  518

  25 November 2001

  Building a Strategy for Children and Young People—Young People's Consultation

  643

  25 November 2001

  Building a Strategy for Children and Young People—Adults

  253

  18 December 2001

  Review of Arts and Humanities Research Funding

  117

  19 December 2001

  Review of Learning Partnerships

  138

  26 June 2001

  July European Commission Memorandum on Lifelong Learning

  250

  14 January 2002

  Accessible Schools: Planning to increase access to schools for disabled pupils

  144

  1044W
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to offer British Sign Language as an option for an additional language as a vocational certificate of education or an advanced vocational certificate of education. [60126]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Responsibility for offering vocational qualifications, and optional units within those qualifications, lies with the awarding bodies. There are no current plans to offer BSL within Foundation and Intermediate GNVQs, advanced vocational certificates of education, or within the new GCSEs in vocational subjects being introduced in September 2002. However, BSL qualifications are offered by the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People (CACDP). A range of BSL qualifications offered by CACDP, and included in the Department's list of qualifications approved for use in schools and colleges by pupils and students aged pre-16, 16 to 18 and over 18, will be available from August 2002.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the public consultations undertaken by her Department since June 2001, stating in each case the(a) number of respondents and (b) percentage of those specifically consulted who responded. [60141]

  Estelle Morris
  A table showing the public consultations undertaken by my Department since June 2001 follows as requested. The number of respondents to each consultation is also listed. Information on the percentage of those specifically consulted who subsequently responded is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  1045W

  Start date

  Title of consultation

  Number of responses

  30 January 2002

  Quinquennial Review of Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA)

  151

  25 February 2002

  The Adult Common Basic Data Set

  43

  24 January 2002

  Revised Guidance on Exclusions from School—Draft for Consultation

  206

  18 February 2002

  National Centre for Excellence in Science Teaching

  329

  4 February 2002

  Raising Standards—Training and Development for Leaders and Managers

  217

  15 March 2002

  School Workforce Remodelling Agenda

  68

  12 February 2002

  14–19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards

  1,049

  12 February 2002

  14–19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards Summary

  2,678

  27 February 2002

  Early Years and Childcare Regulations

  259

  14 March 2002

  Investors In Children

  272

  19 March 2002

  Publication of School and College Performance Tables in 2002

  195

  Anglo-Italian Meetings
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on how many occasions in the last six months members of her Department have met their Italian counterparts; and what subjects were discussed. [56895]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: My officials regularly meet their Italian counterparts at a range of EU fora covering education, lifelong learning and youth.

  Equal Treatment
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the women's organisations which have been consulted over the proposed legislation by her Department during the 2000–01 and 2001–02 Sessions; and if their responses have been published. [58184]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: My Department is keen to include all interested parties in developing policies that affect them. Information on informal consultation is not held centrally. However, the women's organisations which have been formally consulted in writing by this Department since 2000 are as follows:

  Women's National Commission

  British International Women Graduates

  Women in Journalism

  National Alliance of Women's Organisations

  Royal College of Midwives

  Bolton Metro's Corporate Women's Group

  National Council of Women of GB.

  Individual responses are not published but, in accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation, are generally made available to anyone who asks for them.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she has established a baseline for policy appraisals against which to measure progress on equal treatment; and what progress has been achieved. [58182]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: Our approach to ensure progress on equal treatment is to ensure that equality becomes part and parcel of every element of policy, programme and service delivery.
  1046W
  Our recent mainstreaming review indicated that while we have good equality practices in some areas of the organisation, we could do more in the policy processes to support this. As a result, we have further developed this approach by encouraging all our policy makers to "mainstream" equal opportunities into all programmes and policies. To this end, we have developed a webtool to help them build equality considerations into their work from the outset. The "Fairway" webtool also includes good practice examples showing how some policy teams have taken this forward. Other "equality" measures included:

  Embedding equality into our staff appraisal process;

  Equality processing our business planning and our end of year reviews with the permanent secretary;

  We regularly discuss equality and diversity issues with the senior members of the board and regular meetings between the senior equality adviser and the permanent secretary;

  A yearly Staff survey which has a specific chapter dedicated to equality and diversity issues.

  An example of these actions is that our Connexions Partnerships are required in their business plans to state how they will ensure that personal advisers come from a diversity of backgrounds. The Connexions Service National Unit monitors the diversity of each partnership's personal adviser work force, including gender and ethnicity.

  We publicise all this through our internal communications system and our external DfES website (if appropriate).

  Effective mainstreaming requires policy developers to work in consultation and partnership with organisations representing minority and disadvantaged groups, using research, monitoring and evaluation to understand customer needs and the impact their policies are having on them.

  We will continue to address this and measure our progress.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by her Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been(a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [58183]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: In 1998, in consultation with the Home Office and the former Department for Education and Employment, the Cabinet Office issued Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment

  1047W
  (PAET) guidelines to all Government Departments. DfES has intentionally not focused just on gender issues but have focused on a wider range of equality issues.

  Our recent mainstreaming review indicated that while we have good equality practices in some areas of the organisation, we could do more in the policy processes to support this. As a result, we have further developed this approach by encouraging all our policy makers to "mainstream" Equal Opportunities into all programmes and policies. To this end, we have developed a webtool to help them build equality considerations into their work from the outset. The "Fairway" web tool also includes good practice examples showing how some policy teams have taken this forward. Other "equality" measures included:

  Embedding equality into our staff appraisal process;

  Equality processing our business planning and our end of year reviews with the Permanent Secretary;

  We regularly discuss equality and diversity issues with the members of the board and regular meetings between the Senior Equality Adviser and the Permanent Secretary.

  An example of these actions is that our Connexions Partnerships are required in their business plans to state how they will ensure that Personal Advisers come from a diversity of backgrounds. The Connexions Service National Unit monitors the diversity of each partnership's Personal Adviser workforce, including gender and ethnicity.

  We publicise all this through our internal communications system or our external DfES website (if appropriate).

  Effective mainstreaming requires policy developers to work in consultation and partnership with organisations representing minority and disadvantaged groups, using research, monitoring and evaluation to understand customer needs and the impact their policies are having on them.

  We will continue to address this and measure our progress.

  Education and Youth Council
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Education and Youth Council held on 30 May. [59708]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I attended the Education session of this council. Jane Davidson, Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in the National Assembly for Wales, attended the Youth session.

  The Council held a detailed discussion on the follow-up to the Barcelona European Council which took place in March 2002, focusing in particular on the areas of: vocational training; foreign languages and European citizenship; organisational measures; and quality assurance.

  A draft Council Resolution on lifelong learning was agreed without debate and political agreement was reached on a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the council establishing the European Year of Education through Sport 2004. Ministers also gave political agreement to a proposal for a council
  1048W
  decision amending Decision 1999/311/EC adopting the third phase of the trans-European co-operation scheme for higher education (Tempus III) (2000–06).

  The council received information from the Commission on a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the council amending Decision No. 253/2000/EC establishing the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education "Socrates". A report on the outcome of the Summit of Heads of State or Government of the European Union and Latin America, held in Madrid on 17 and 18 May, was presented by the Presidency.

  In the Youth session, the council agreed a draft Resolution on the framework of European co-operation in the youth field. This Resolution will take forward action to implement the proposals within the European Commission's White Paper "A New Impetus for European Youth". Discussion followed on youth participation in society, which is the priority theme of the White Paper. Ministers confirmed the importance of this theme.

  The council received information from the Commission on the need to submit proposals in the next year for a new European Youth Programme to succeed the existing programme which is due to finish in 2006. The Presidency also presented a report on the actions it had taken since January 2002 to progress the youth agenda.

  A copy of the council minutes will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Racist Attacks
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she collects by LEA on racially motivated attacks in schools. [60256]

  Mr. Miliband
  Schools are required to record all racial incidents and to report these to their local education authorities annually. Local education authorities and schools are not required to send this information to the Department.

  Local Education Authority Targets
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list, for the most recent year in which both sets of information are available,(a) the targets agreed by each LEA with her Department and (b) their performance against those targets. [59239]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department has agreed pupil performance targets with each LEA for 2002 and 2004. Information on their performance against their 2002 targets will be available when this year's results are published in the autumn.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if she will list those initiatives of her Department which have been applied in(a) Lewisham and (b) the Isle of Wight, indicating the level of financial support she has provided in each case and the number of pupils in each LEA; [60229]

  (2) if she will list the activities pursued by her Department that have had a particular impact on the Isle of Wight since 7 June 2001. [57676]
  1049W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information required has been placed in the Libraries.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the activities pursued by her Department that have had a particular impact on the Wycombe constituency since 17 June 2001. [58626]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  PhD Students
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many PhD students are studying in universities in England and Wales, broken down by(a) university and (b) course; and what the equivalent figures were in each of the last five years. [55059]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest information available has been placed in the Libraries.

  Behaviour and Truancy
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the basis is for her statement that £60 million was spent on behaviour and truancy by the last Government. [59283]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Grants relating to truancy, disaffection and behaviour between 1992 and 1997 were as follows.

  Financial year

  £ million

  1992–93

  5

  1993–94

  8.9

  1994–95

  13.7

  1995–96

  15.4

  1996–97

  17.5

  Total

  60.5

  This is based on the relevant section of the Grant for Education Support and Training (GEST) which became the Standards Fund from 1998–99. All figures include LEA contributions.

  Departmental Sponsors
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the duties are of hon. Members appointed as sponsors to her Department; and what assistance is given by officials in her Department to them in carrying out these duties; [59976]

  (2) which hon. Members have been appointed as sponsors to her Department since 7 June 2001; and when each of them were appointed. [59961]

  Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 362W.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on how many occasions between 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [58729]
  1050W
  Estelle Morris
  Between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002, a special adviser in my Department travelled abroad on one occasion at a cost of £376.64. All travel by special advisers is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code, and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Nurseries
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many nurseries there were; and what proportion of these were located in rural areas, broken down by region in each of the last 10 years. [57462]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. The information available is shown in Tables 1 and 2. The figures are as returned by local authorities.

  The latest figures on day care facilities in England were published by my Department in Statistical Bulletin 08/01 "Children's Day Care facilities at 31 March 2001" in October 2001, a copy of which is available from the Library. An electronic copy of this publication is also available on my Department's website (http://www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics).

  Statistics are collected at local education authority level, not split between urban and rural areas. Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships (EYDCPs) are responsible for ensuring full coverage of both urban and rural areas within their areas of remit. EYDCPs have been set up in every local authority area of England.

  To maximise the support available in rural areas, an additional £22 million has been allocated for a round of smaller Sure Start programmes, delivered through EYDCPs. These new Mini-Sure Starts will provide additional resources to new neighbourhood nurseries and existing child care facilities in rural areas, small towns, and pockets of disadvantage enabling them to offer a wider range of family support.

  To date plans for Mini-Sure Starts show that over 65 per cent. of the programmes will be integrated with a neighbourhood nursery, helping to ensure families most in need have access to quality, affordable child care though neighbourhood nurseries and the additional services provided by Sure Start.

  Table 1: Number of day nurseries for children under eight—England. 1992–2001

  Position at 31 March each year

  Year as at 31 March

  Total number of day nurseries

  1992

  4,100

  1993

  4,500

  1994

  5,000

  1995

  5,400

  1996

  5,700

  1997

  6,100

  1998

  6,700

  1999

  7,000

  2000

  7,500

  2001

  7,800

  Notes:

  1. Includes facilities provided by voluntary organisations under agency arrangements, under section 22 of the National Health Service Act 1946.

  2. Data collection guidance changed in 1999.
  1051W

  Table 2: Providers in day nurseries by Government office region— England, 1999–2001

  Positions at 31 March each year

  All day nurseries

  1999

  2000

  2001

  England

  7,000

  7,500

  7,800

  North East

  190

  190

  220

  North West and Merseyside North West

  840

  910

  940

  Merseyside

  240

  200

  250

  Yorkshire and Humber

  700

  690

  710

  East Midlands

  560

  660

  550

  West Midlands

  870

  900

  970

  East of England

  570

  610

  600

  Greater London

  Inner London

  610

  650

  680

  Outer London

  550

  600

  620

  South East

  1.100

  1,240

  1,400

  South West

  770

  900

  910

  Note:

  1. All figures are estimates and have been rounded to the nearest 10 or 100 as appropriate. Figures may not add to totals because of rounding.

  Pupil Referral
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many places will be available in pupil referral units for pupils of each age cohort in each local education authority in September. [59282]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I am confident that by September 2002 there will be sufficient places within pupil referral units and other alternative education provision for all those who have been permanently excluded. A breakdown of the number of places within pupil referral units is not held, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  £ million

  NDPB

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Adult Learning Inspectorate

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8.00

  British Educational Communications and Technology Agency

  2.52

  2.42

  2.73

  3.11

  3.22

  Construction Industry Training Board1

  18.71

  19.98

  21.15

  23.21

  26.73

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board1

  1.05

  1.04

  1.27

  1.29

  1.34

  Higher Education Funding Council

  5.06

  5.13

  6.05

  6.90

  27.31

  Investors in People UK Ltd.

  0.80

  0.88

  1.01

  1.09

  1.31

  Learning and Skills Council

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  136.00

  National College for School Leadership

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2.22

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

  n/a

  14.27

  15.08

  15.51

  117.57

  Student Loans Company

  5.62

  6.80

  9.35

  10.42

  11.74

  Teacher Training Agency

  2.45

  2.84

  3.03

  3.63

  24.90

  1 The ITB's financial year ends 31 December

  2 Figure not yet audited

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [50418]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested for 2001–02 is listed in the table. The information for 2002–03 increases is not yet available.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of ordinary written questions for her Department were answered within a week of tabling in each month since June 2001; and what proportion of questions for named day received a substantive answer on that day in each month since June 2001. [58989]

  Estelle Morris
  The details requested are contained in the following table.

  Percentage

  Named day PQs

  Ordinary written PQs

  2001

  June

  60

  88

  July

  73

  84

  October

  45

  48

  November

  48

  45

  December

  38

  56

  2002

  January

  60

  60

  February

  48

  26

  March

  49

  33

  April

  23

  56

  May

  57

  38

  Staff Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what have been the total salary costs of each of the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible in each of the last five years. [50302]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is listed in the table below.

  2001–02 pay increase

  £ million

  Department for Education and Skills NDPBs

  3.53

  Adult Learning Inspectorate

  0.30

  British Educational Communications and Technology Agency

  0.10

  Construction Industry Training Board

  0.76

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  0.06

  Higher Education Funding Council for England

  0.28

  Investors in People UK Ltd.

  0.03

  Learning and Skills Council

  2.55

  National College for School Leadership

  0.19

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

  0.43

  Student Loans Company

  0.68

  Teacher Training Agency

  0.16

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to reduce the pay gap between school teachers and college lecturers. [58264]

  Margaret Hodge
  Teachers in maintained schools are subject to national schoolteachers' pay and conditions. Further education sector colleges are run by independent corporations established under the Further Education and Higher Education Act 1992 and there is no national pay structure in place. Colleges are free to establish pay scales that meet their needs and can be agreed with their staff. This Government have acknowledged the historic funding gap between schools and FE and we have pledged to bring up levels of funding and ensure upward convergence over time. Annual funding for FE has increased by over £1.1 billion between 1997 and 2002–03, up to around £4.3 billion. With a further increase of £300 million planned next year, the real terms increase in total funding between 1997 and 2003–04 will be 26 per cent. The Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI) budget is £31 1 million over the period 2001–04. This is to reward excellent teaching and is over and above any general pay rise. The additional investment we are making in the FE sector should help meet the pay aspirations of their staff.

  Further Education
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what strategy she has in place to recruit and train new staff in further education colleges. [58266]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are supporting colleges' recruitment strategies by making available over £310 million from 2001 to 2004 through the Teaching Pay Initiative, so that colleges can reward high quality teaching. From September this year, new teachers in shortage subject areas may qualify for payments of £4,000 under the "Golden Hellos" initiative and later this year, subject to the passing of legislation by Parliament, we will introduce a pilot scheme to help to pay off, over time, the student loans of newly appointed teachers in shortage subjects in England and Wales.

  We are supporting the professional development of FE teachers and staff through targeted assistance to colleges of £175 million in 2002–03 from the LSC's Learning and Skills Standards Fund. We have also introduced training bursaries for FE teachers in pilot institutions.

  Recruiting and training new staff is just one element of the Government's plans to improve the quality and responsiveness of further education. We have therefore started a debate with the sector and will announce later this year our proposals for implementing a strategy, supported by the outcomes of the Spending Review, to raise standards and performance and meet employer and skill needs.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Government have to change the balance in pay levels between further education colleges and secondary schools. [57509]

  Margaret Hodge
  Teachers in maintained schools are subject to national schoolteachers' pay and conditions. Further education sector colleges are run by independent 1054W
  corporations established under the Further Education and Higher Education Act 1992 and there is no national pay structure in place. Colleges are free to establish pay scales that meet their needs and can be agreed with their staff. This Government has acknowledged the historic funding gap between schools and FE and we have pledged to bring up levels of funding and ensure upward convergence over time. Annual funding for FE has increased by over £1.1 billion between 1997 and 02–03, up to around £4.3 billion. With a further increase of £300 million planned next year, the real terms increase in total funding between 1997 and 03–04 will be 26 per cent. The Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI) budget is £311 million over the period 2001–04. This is to reward excellent teaching and is over and above any general pay rise. The additional investment we are making in the FE sector should help meet the pay aspirations of their staff.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many further education colleges have not implemented the 2001 pay award for further education lecturers. [57508]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department does not collect this information centrally. However, we understand from the Association of Colleges that 17 per cent. of colleges have not implemented the 3.7 per cent. pay award recommended by the Association of Colleges and the trade unions. However, 73 per cent. of colleges paid the recommended 3.7 per cent. pay award and 10 per cent. of colleges exceeded the 3.7 per cent. pay award.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many additional places for 16 to 19 year old students in full-time further education will be created in Warrington in 2003; and what the average cost per student of funding those additional places will be. [56680]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: The information requested is subject to funding negotiations between colleges and local LSCS that will conclude later this year.

  Tuition Fees
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of those students in higher education who carry the post code premium were assessed to pay(a) full tuition fees and (b) no tuition fees in each of the last three calendar years. [57514]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information as requested is not collected centrally.

  Work-related Illness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many employees of her Department retired through work-related ill health in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost to the Department was. [56055]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills does not maintain records that enable ill health retirements to be separately identified as work related. For the Department for Education and Skills the number of staff retired with a medical retirement certificate issued by the civil service pension scheme medical adviser for the year 2001 was eight.
  1055W
  Benefits provided on medical retirement are as set out in the rules of the principal civil service pension scheme and laid before Parliament, and provide for an immediate payment of enhanced pension and lump sum. Ill health retirement is met centrally from the civil superannuation vote. For the year ending March 2002, provisional expenditure met from the vote was £310 million in respect of all civil service cases for which an ill health pension has been awarded. These cases number approximately 67,000 and include those who have formerly been ill health retired but who have now reached and exceeded the normal retirement age.

  Sixth Forms (Hendon)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what amounts were allocated for sixth forms to each of the secondary schools in Hendon for academic year 2001–02; and what amounts are being allocated by the Learning and Skills Council for sixth forms to each of the secondary schools in Hendon for academic year 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [57616]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information for 2001–02 is not available in the format requested. From April this year the Learning and Skills Council allocates funds to LEAs, including Barnet, for their sixth forms. The LSC

  Lancashire

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackpool

  19998

  Maintained nursery schools

  Teachers3

  74.78

  22.92

  9—

  Teaching assistants4

  114.16

  37.46

  9—

  Administrative staff5

  11.53

  3.31

  9—

  Other staff6

  0

  0.08

  9—

  Nursery classes in maintained primary schools7

  Teaching assistants in nursery classes4

  83.76

  16.16

  9.59

  Other education support staff in nursery classes

  4.03

  0.59

  0

  20008

  Maintained nursery schools

  Teachers3

  77.69

  25

  9

  Teaching assistants4

  112.1

  38.19

  9—

  Administrative staff5

  11.55

  3.59

  9—

  Other staff6

  0

  0.08

  9—

  Nursery classes in maintained primary schools7

  Teaching assistants in nursery classes4

  77.91

  17.11

  9.16

  Other education support staff in nursery classes

  6.11

  0

  0

  20018

  Maintained nursery schools

  Teachers3

  72.2

  19.45

  9—

  Teaching assistants4

  108.97

  38.91

  9—

  Administrative staff5

  11.69

  3.56

  9—

  Other staff6

  0

  0.08

  9—

  Nursery classes in maintained primary schools7

  Teaching assistants in nursery classes4

  75.61

  18.6

  9.79

  Other education support staff in nursery classes

  6.94

  0.35

  0.89

  2002 (provisional)8,10

  Maintained nursery schools

  Teachers3

  69.51

  19.09

  9—

  Teaching assistants4

  103.31

  40.18

  9—

  Administrative staff5

  13.09

  3.7

  9—

  Other staff6

  0.32

  0.08

  9—

  Nursery classes in maintained primary schools7

  Teaching assistants in nursery classes4

  11—

  11—

  11—

  Other education support staff in nursery classes

  11—

  11—

  11—

  1056W
  allocations for each school sixth form, by LEA area, are published on the LSC's website at www.lsc.gov.uk/ documents.

  Nursery Provision (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many nursery staff have been in service in Lancashire in each year since 1997. [57281]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The available information for maintained nursery and primary schools is shown in the table. Information is not available for early years settings in the private, voluntary and independent sectors.

  Full-time equivalent of staff in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in Lancashire1

  19972

  19982

  Maintained nursery schools

  Teachers3

  99.5

  97.41

  Teaching assistants4

  134.05

  140.93

  Administrative staff5

  14.92

  14.92

  Other staff6

  0.08

  0.24

  Nursery classes in maintained primary schools7

  Teaching assistants in nursery classes4

  101.93

  106.49

  Other education support staff in nursery classes

  3.61

  5.98

  1057W

  1 Position in January each year.

  2 Before local government reorganisation.

  3 Includes head teacher, qualified and unqualified teachers.

  4 Includes nursery assistants, special needs support staff, minority ethnic pupil support staff and non-teaching assistants.

  5 Includes secretaries and bursars.

  6 Includes other education support staff.

  7 There may also be teachers in nursery classes but it is not possible to separate these from the overall primary school figures.

  8 After local government reorganisation.

  9 Not applicable (no schools of this type).

  10 It is not possible to separate the number of teaching assistants or other staff in nursery classes from the overall primary school figures.

  11 Not available.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  National Child Care Strategy
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will indicate the proposals in the national child care strategy which will most benefit Londoners. [55936]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: The Government aims, over time, to ensure affordable, accessible, good quality child care in every neighbourhood, and to ensure a good quality free early education place for every three and four year old. Londoners are benefiting from the range of measures within the national child care strategy. For example: between 1997 and 2001, 122,000 new child care places have been created in London; in financial year 2002–03 we will pay some £16.7 million in child care grant to London local education authorities to support further development of new child care places; and we are targeting disadvantaged areas in London for 9,060 new neighbourhood nurseries places over the three years to March 2004, with total revenue support of some £39.9 million and capital support of some £16.9 million.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will report on progress with the child care strategy. [55926]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: The consultation on our document, "Building a Strategy for Children and Young People" generated a good range of comments which we are now considering. Separate reports analysing the responses from children and from young people are already available from the Children and Young People's Unit's website at "www.cypu.gov.uk/consultationresults." The Unit is currently analysing the responses from the consultation with individual adults and organisations, and this report will follow shortly.

  The responses have already been fed into the consideration of services for children in the current spending review. We intend to publish our final strategy document later this year.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students are on assisted places in the 2001–02 academic year; how much is being spent on these places; and if she will make a statement. [58652]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There are 12,550 pupils holding places under the Assisted Places Scheme in the 2001–02 academic year at a total estimated cost of £53 million in that year. We are phasing out the scheme in accordance with our 1997 manifesto pledge and using the resources saved to reduce infant class sizes.

  Departmental Budgets
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of her Department's budgets for the current financial year remain unallocated; and under what budget headings this money falls. [59105]

  Estelle Morris
  £30 million of the Department's 2002–03 budget remains unallocated. This is currently held under the departmental unallocated provision.

  Print and Design Costs
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much her Department spent on print and design costs in 2001–02. [59365]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The majority of the Department's print and design is commissioned by its Publicity Division.

  The costs of such work placed in the last financial year are as follows:

  £ million

  Print

  7.2

  Design

  2.6

  Total

  9.8

  Regional Organisation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what regional organisation her Department has; and if she will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [58944]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills works at the regional level through the Government offices for the regions. There are nine Government offices in England: south-east, south-west, London, east of England, East Midlands, West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, north-west, and north-east. The Government offices are funded by nine sponsor Departments: the Department for Education and Skills; the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the Department of Trade and Industry; the Department for Work and Pensions; the Home Office; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; the Department of Health; and Cabinet Office. The Regional Co-ordination Unit based in the Cabinet Office has overall responsibility for the Government office network.
  1059W
  The Department commissions Government offices to deliver a range of regionally focused services across the DfES agenda from early years to adult learning. Government offices also ensure that the Department's work is joined up with the regional implementation of programmes and policies of all sponsor Departments, and with the work of regional stakeholders.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to raise the 10 per cent. postcode premium recognised in higher education funding to 20 per cent. [59292]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is reviewing the funding it allocates to higher education institutions to recognise the additional costs of recruiting and retaining students from non-traditional backgrounds (the 'postcode premium'). HEFCE is consulting institutions on widening participation; this includes consultation on the appropriate basis on which the postcode premium is allocated. The deadline for institutions to respond is 19 July.

  Plans for spending in future years will depend on the outcome of the spending review.

  Scottish Executive
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many times her Office has made representations to the Scottish Executive since May 1999 broken down by(a) Department approached, (b) subject and (c) date; [59534]

  (2) how many representations the Scottish Executive has made to her Department since May 1999 broken down by (a) Scottish Executive Department, (b) subject and (c) date; [59535]

  (3) what plans she has to transfer the administration of reserved powers and functions of the Department for Education and Skills, its executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies within its remit from her Department to the Scotland Office. [59536]

  Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 600W.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the mandate of the Tempus Committee 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. [56718]

  Margaret Hodge
  The purpose and responsibilities of the Tempus Committee are set out in Council Decision 1999/311/EC of 29 April 1999, which established the third phase of the Tempus programme (Tempus III). The Committee has met twice over the last 12 months. Two officials from the UK attend the Committee meetings. Travel costs for one official are met from Commission resources for the programme. Travel costs for the second 1060W
  official and subsistence costs for both officials, incurred by this Department and the Department for Work and Pensions, are in the region of £1,420 per annum. The Committee is currently considering implications for the programme guide for applicants of the Commission's proposal to extend the programme to countries of the MEDA region.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of such committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (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 such committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the mandate of the Co-ordination Group to promote uniformity of application of the general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas (first general system) 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. [56754]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The mandate for this Group is set out in Article 9 (2) of Directive 89/48 EEC as follows:

  A co-ordinating group shall be set up under the aegis of the Commission, composed of the co-ordinators appointed by each Member State or their deputies and chaired by a representative of the Commission. The task of this group shall be

  to facilitate the implementation of this Directive,

  to collect all useful information for its application in Member States.

  The group may be consulted by the Commission on any changes to the existing system that may be contemplated.

  The group meets twice yearly and the UK is represented by a DTI official. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the Committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The main issues/topics considered at the last meeting were:

  Proposed legislative reforms of the system of recognition of professional qualifications;

  State of accession negotiations;

  Information points from the Education and Culture DG;

  Mobilisation of experts in the context of enlargement;

  Notification of the measures transposing Directive 99/42.

  Steps are being taken to increase the accountability and transparency of comitology committees in general. Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council

  1061W
  Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

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

  As part of the review process, the UK Government has 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.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer from the Deputy Prime Minister of 20 July 2001,Official Report, columns 461–62W on the Social Exclusion Unit, in which schools targets have been set for the reduction of truancy and which schools have met those targets; in what proportion of schools truancy was more than three per cent. above average in 2001 and what the current proportion is; and how many schools fall into each decile measured by the proportion of pupils days lost through (a) unauthorised absence and (b) all absence in the most recent year for which information is available. [58933]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In 1999 225 schools were asked to set targets to reduce unauthorised absence. These schools had unauthorised absence three percentage points or more above the average for their sector (primary, secondary or special) for the previous two academic years. Locally determined school level targets were agreed by the school's governing body in close discussion with the education welfare service. 117 schools met the targets that they set for themselves and in total 181 (80 per cent.) decreased their unauthorised absence rate.

  In the academic year 2000–01 326 schools recorded absence three percentage points or more above the national average for their sector (0.5 per cent. for primary schools; 1.1 per cent. for secondary schools and 2.2 per cent. for special schools). These are the most recent published results.

  It is impossible to calculate meaningful deciles due to the limited range of the data.

  Overtime Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is on overtime payments for staff in her Department. [49121]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information is as follows:

  Grades AA to SEO

  Grades AA to SEO working overtime Monday to Friday receive payment at time and a half or time off equal to the hours worked. Weekend and public holiday overtime attracts either payment at plain time plus time off equal to the hours worked, or payment at double time.

  Grades 6 and 7

  Once at least eight additional hours are worked in a week, grades 6 and 7 receive a set hourly discretionary payment for additional hours worked outside normal
  1062W
  conditioned hours during the week and for additional hours at the weekend. The hourly rates are:
  Grade 7

  London: £11.72

  Elsewhere: £10.89

  Grade 6

  London:£12.98

  Elsewhere:£12.42

  For weekend and public holiday attendance they also receive an hourly rate payment (restricted to the discretionary payment rates) plus time off equal to the hours worked. Time off not taken for the weekend attendance can be used towards the eight hours qualifying for discretionary payments.

  SCS

  Members of the senior civil service are not eligible for payment for any extra hours worked. Their contract of employment provides that they may be required to work such additional hours as may from time to time be reasonable and necessary for the efficient performance of their duties.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 16 April 2002,Official Report, column 895W, and with reference to Sir Gareth Robert's Review 'Set for Success—The supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills', if vocational qualifications are treated as non-academic. [60561]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) accredit qualifications in relation to three broad categories, general, vocationally-related and occupational. GCSEs in vocational subjects are available and suitable for young people of all abilities, and are categorised as vocationally-related. Other vocational qualifications are categorised according to the published QCA criteria as either occupational or vocationally-related. National curriculum GCSEs and GCE A-levels are categorised as general qualifications.

  Vocational/Academic GCSEs
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 16 April 2002,Official Report, column 895W, how (a) vocational and (b) academic GCSEs are defined. [60560]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  GCSE qualifications are defined by accreditation criteria set out in the national qualification framework. For new GCSEs in vocational subjects, the qualifications meet the common accreditation criteria for vocationally-related qualifications; for other GCSEs, the common accreditation criteria for general qualifications.

  In addition to meeting common criteria, the qualifications must meet additional criteria, specific to GCSEs and GCSEs in vocational subjects, and, where they exist, the requirements of the criteria specific to particular subjects.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which of the agencies and NDPBs
  1063W
  sponsored by her Department have a regional organisation; and if she will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in (a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [58945]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills sponsors no agencies or NDPBs that have a regional organisation.

  The counties and unitary authorities in each region in (a) 1997 and (b) 2002 are as follows:

  Region, counties and unitaries

  The unitary authorities that came into being as a result of the last review were established over three years.

  East of England Region
  Counties

  Bedfordshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Essex

  Hertfordshire

  Norfolk

  Suffolk

  Unitaries

  Luton1

  Peterborough1

  Southend-on-Sea1

  Thurrock1

  East Midlands Region
  Counties

  Derbyshire

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Northamptonshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Unitaries

  Derby1

  Leicester1

  Nottingham1

  Rutland1

  North East Region
  Counties

  Durham

  Northumberland

  Unitaries

  Darlington1

  Hartlepool

  Middlesbrough

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Tyne and Wear (Met)

  Gateshead

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  North Tyneside

  South Tyneside

  Sunderland

  North West Region
  Counties

  Cumbria

  Cheshire

  Lancashire

  1064W
  Unitaries

  Blackburn with Darwen1

  Blackpool1

  Halton1

  Warrington1

  Greater Manchester (Met) Bury

  Bolton

  Manchester Oldham

  Rochdale

  Salford

  Stockport

  Tameside

  Trafford

  Wigan

  Merseyside (Met)

  Knowsley

  Liverpool

  Sefton

  St. Helens

  Wirral

  South East Region
  Counties

  Buckinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  East Sussex

  Hampshire

  Kent

  Surrey

  West Sussex

  Unitaries

  Brighton and Hove1

  Isle of Wight (County)

  Medway1

  Milton Keynes1

  Portsmouth1

  Southampton1

  Berkshire

  Bracknell Forest1

  Reading1

  Slough1

  West Berkshire1

  Windsor and Maidenhead1

  Wokingham1

  South West Region
  Counties

  Cornwall

  Devon

  Dorset

  Gloucestershire

  Somerset

  Wiltshire

  1065W
  Unitaries

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Bournemouth1

  Bristol

  North Somerset

  Poole1

  Plymouth1

  South Gloucestershire

  Swindon1

  Torbay1

  West Midlands Region
  Counties

  Shropshire

  Staffordshire

  Warwickshire

  Worcestershire

  Unitaries

  Herefordshire1

  Stoke on Trent1

  Telford and Wrekin1

  West Midlands (Met)

  Birmingham

  Coventry

  Dudley

  Sandwell

  Solihull

  Walsall

  Wolverhampton

  Yorkshire and The Humber Region
  Counties

  North Yorkshire

  Unitaries

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Kingston upon Hull

  North Lincolnshire

  North East Lincolnshire

  York

  South Yorkshire (Met)

  Barnsley

  Doncaster

  Rotherham

  Sheffield

  West Yorkshire (Met)

  Bradford

  Calderdale

  Kirklees

  Leeds

  Wakefield

  1066W
  London Region
  London Boroughs (Unitaries)

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnet

  Bexley

  Brent

  Bromley

  Camden

  Corporation of London

  Croydon

  Ealing

  Enfield

  Greenwich Hackney

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Haringey

  Harrow

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kingston upon Thames

  Lambeth

  Lewisham Merton

  Newham

  Redbridge

  Richmond upon Thames

  Southwark

  Sutton

  Tower Hamlets

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth Westminster

  1 Established on or after 1 April 1997.

  Special Needs
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what types of specific(a) handicap and (b) special needs are defined as constituting special needs; and how many children there are with each specific type of handicap. [58930]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The guidance contained in the new SEN Code of Practice, which came into force in January 2002, does not assume that there are hard and fast categories of special educational need. It recognises that each child is unique and the questions asked by LEAs should recognise that there is a wide spectrum of special educational needs that are frequently inter-related, although there are also specific needs that usually relate directly to particular types of impairment. Children will have needs and requirements which may fall into at least one of four areas, and many children will have interrelated needs. The impact of these combinations on the child's ability to function, learn and succeed should be taken into account. The areas of need are: communication and interaction; cognition and learning; behaviour, emotional and social development and sensory and/or physical.
  1067W
  Information on numbers of children with specific types of handicap is not available centrally. The Department is considering introducing a requirement for schools and local education authorities to provide this information from 2004.

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children with special educational needs there are at each of stages one to four of the Code of Practice. [58925]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information is not collected in the form requested. Information on the stages of SEN was collected for the first time in January 2002 but in line with the new SEN Code of Practice which replaced the categorisation of SEN into stages 1–5.

  The number of SEN pupils without statements in maintained primary schools in England was 865,140 (or 19.8 per cent of pupils on roll) and 536,810 (or 16.5 per cent of pupils on roll) in maintained secondary schools in January 2002.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children have been statemented in Gloucestershire in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [60113]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Number of pupils with statements of special educational needs (SEN)1, Gloucestershire local education authority2 (position in January each year)

  Year

  Total pupils

  Number of pupils with statements of SEN

  1992

  75,244

  1,476

  1993

  76,873

  1,756

  1994

  78,447

  2,114

  1995

  80,267

  2,240

  1996

  81,527

  2,431

  1997

  82,630

  2,480

  1998

  83,496

  2,472

  1999

  84,586

  2,487

  2000

  85,407

  2,623

  20013

  85,695

  2,561

  20024

  85,972

  2,343

  1 Includes maintained primary and secondary and maintained and non-maintained special schools.

  2 Pupils attending schools within Gloucestershire LEA.

  3 Information submitted by some schools in January 2001 was known to be incomplete and estimates were made at national and regional level to allow for this. Figures shown for Gloucestershire LEA are, however, not adjusted and are as reported to the Department.

  4 Provisional.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children with statements of special educational need were taught in(a) maintained special schools and (b) other maintained schools in each of the last five years, broken down by local education authority. [58926]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  A table showing the available information has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average class size was in(a) schools and (b) secondary schools broken down by school year and local education authority in each year since 1997. [47481]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: A table showing the available information has been placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from health authorities, PCTs and NHS trusts about the obligation to fund NICE-approved treatments. [45932]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: According to the Department's records we have received no formal representations from health authorities, primary care trusts and national health service trusts about the statutory requirements to fund treatments recommended by National Institute of Clinical Excellence.

  NHS Costs
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the percentage changes in(a) all NHS costs and (b) NHS drugs costs in each of the past five years. [54017]

  Ms Blears
  The table sets out the percentage increases in the last five years for national health service drugs expenditure and total net NHS expenditure.

  Percentage

  Expenditure

  FHS drugs

  HCHS drugs

  Total NHS drugs

  Total net NHS

  1997–98

  8.2

  13.2

  9.3

  5.1

  1998–99

  6.2

  11.3

  7.3

  5.6

  1999–2000

  11.4

  13.0

  11.7

  8.9

  2000–01

  6.8

  11.8

  7.9

  9.7

  2001–02

  1—

  1—

  1—

  12.0

  1 Not available

  Dental Amalgam
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will commission research to ascertain whether the kinetics of mercury determined from occupational studies are applicable to patients with dental amalgam restorations; [48831]

  (2) if he will commission research to assess the likelihood of harm to pregnant women and their babies from dental amalgam fillings during pregnancy. [48830]

  Ms Blears
  The 1998 European Union expert report concluded that currently available data indicate that mercury from dental amalgam restorations will not cause an unacceptable health risk to the general population. There is little evidence that an unacceptable health risk is associated with occupational exposure of dental personnel providing due care is used in the preparation and handling
  1069W
  of dental amalgam. The same report also concluded that there is no scientific evidence that the use of dental amalgam is related to adverse effects on pre and post-natal health or fertility. There are therefore no plans to commission further research into amalgam safety. However, it remains the Department's advice that dentists should continue to avoid or delay any dental intervention or medication during pregnancy.

  NHS Dentistry
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the population of England was registered with an NHS dentist in each year since 1992, broken down by(a) region and (b) health authority. [56247]

  Ms Blears
  Arrangements are now in place to ensure that patients can gain access to national health service services simply by calling NHS Direct. This means that even if a patient chooses not to register with a dentist it will still be possible for that patient to access all forms of dentistry that are provided by the NHS.

  The following information has been placed in the Library:

  The percentage of the population registered with a general dental service (GDS) dentist by regional health authority is shown in table 1 for England at 30 September 1992 to 1995.

  The percentage of population registered with a GDS dentist by regional office is shown in table 2 for England at 30 September for each year since 1996.

  The percentage of population registered with a GDS dentist by family health service authority is shown in table 3 for England at 30 September 1992 to 30 September 1995.

  The percentage of population registered with a GDS dentist by health authority is shown in table 4 for England at 30 September for each year since 1996.

  Registrations were first introduced in October 1990. From September 1996, the registration period was changed from 24 months to 15 months for adults, and from 12 months to 15 months for children. As a result of this, data held on registration numbers after 1997 are not comparable to earlier years. The data may also be affected by gradual improvements in the methods used for the removal of duplicate registration records, which were first employed by the dental practice board in 1993.

  Some patients choose not to register, and can be seen under occasional treatment arrangements, which were introduced last year.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists there are per head of population in(a) Boston and Skegness, (b) Lincolnshire and (c) each other English county. [56150]

  Ms Blears
  The total number of national health service dentists per 10,000 population in England at 30 September 2001 is shown in the table for each health authority.

  The number of NHS dentists in Boston and Skegness, Lincolnshire county and by English county is not available.
  1070W
  The number of NHS dentists includes general dental service (GDS) dentists, dentists working in the salaried services of the GDS, hospital and community dentists and personal dental service (PDS) dentists. The figures are on a headcount basis rather than whole time equivalent (wte) and take no account of part-time working.

  Dentists working in more than one dental service are included in each service apart from dentists working in both PDS and GDS who are counted in the GDS only.

  Dentists working solely in private dentistry are not covered in these figures.

  Total number of dentists per 10,000 population by health authority at 30 September 2001–England

  Health authority

  Total dentists per 10,000 population1

  England

  4.5

  Avon

  5.5

  Barking and Havering

  4.2

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  5.0

  Barnsley

  3.2

  Bedfordshire

  4.5

  Berkshire

  4.5

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  4.6

  Birmingham

  5.1

  Bradford

  3.8

  Brent and Harrow

  5.4

  Buckinghamshire

  5.2

  Bury and Rochdale

  3.7

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  4.0

  Cambridgeshire

  4.3

  Camden and Islington

  9.4

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  5.3

  County Durham and Darlington

  2.9

  Coventry

  4.0

  Croydon

  5.2

  Doncaster

  3.7

  Dorset

  4.5

  Dudley

  3.4

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  5.5

  East Kent

  4.0

  East Lancashire

  4.2

  East London and The City

  5.0

  East Riding and Hull

  3.6

  East Surrey

  4.8

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  4.8

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  3.9

  Gloucestershire

  5.1

  Herefordshire

  5.7

  Hertfordshire

  5.2

  Hillingdon

  4.2

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and SE Hampshire

  4.5

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  6.3

  Kingston and Richmond

  5.6

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  6.4

  Leeds

  5.0

  Leicestershire

  3.5

  Lincolnshire

  3.1

  Liverpool

  5.6

  Manchester

  7.5

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  5.5

  Morecambe Bay

  4.6

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  6.2

  Norfolk

  4.2

  North and East Devon

  4.8

  North and Mid Hampshire

  4.1

  North Cheshire

  4.3

  North Cumbria

  4.0

  North Derbyshire

  3.7

  North Essex

  3.9

  North Nottinghamshire

  3.3

  North Staffordshire

  3.1

  North West Lancashire

  4.3

  North Yorkshire

  5.0

  1071W

  Total number of dentists per 10,000 population by health authority at 30 September 2001–England

  Health authority

  Total dentists per 10,000 population1

  Northamptonshire

  3.2

  Northumberland

  3.4

  Nottingham

  4.0

  Oxfordshire

  5.0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  4.4

  Rotherham

  3.6

  Salford and Trafford

  4.1

  Sandwell

  4.0

  Sefton

  4.5

  Sheffield

  5.4

  Shropshire

  4.1

  Solihull

  3.9

  Somerset

  4.2

  South and West Devon

  5.6

  South Cheshire

  4.6

  South Derbyshire

  3.8

  South Essex

  3.8

  South Humber

  3.2

  South Lancashire

  3.9

  South Staffordshire

  3.6

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  5.1

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  3.9

  Stockport

  4.5

  Suffolk

  3.8

  Sunderland

  4.1

  Tees

  4.5

  Wakefield

  3.8

  Walsall

  2.7

  Warwickshire

  3.9

  West Kent

  4.3

  West Pennine

  3.6

  West Surrey

  6.1

  West Sussex

  5.1

  Wigan and Bolton

  3.6

  Wiltshire

  4.5

  Wirral

  5.0

  Wolverhampton

  3.9

  Worcestershire

  4.2

  1 ONS 2000 mid year population estimates based on the 1991 census

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists there are per head of population in(a) the Chesham and Amersham constituency, (b) Buckinghamshire and (c) each other English county. [57993]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected in the form requested but by health authority (HA), many of which are coterminous with county boundaries. The total number of national health service dentists per 10,000 in England at 30 September 2001 is shown in the table for each HA.

  The number of NHS dentists includes general dental service (GDS) dentists, dentists working in the salaried services of the GDS, hospital and community dentists and personal dental service (PDS) dentists. The figures are on a head count bases rather than whole time equivalent (wte) and take no account of part-time working.

  Dentists working in more than one dental service are included in each service apart from dentists working in both PDS and GDS who are counted in the GDS only.

  Dentists working solely in private dentistry are not covered in these figures.
  1072W

  Total number of dentists per 10,000 population by health authority at 30 September 2001

  Health authority

  Total dentists per 10,000 population1

  England

  4.5

  Avon

  5.5

  Barking and Havering

  4.2

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  5.0

  Barnsley

  3.2

  Bedfordshire

  4.5

  Berkshire

  4.5

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  4.6

  Birmingham

  5.1

  Bradford

  3.8

  Brent and Harrow

  5.4

  Buckinghamshire

  5.2

  Bury and Rochdale

  3.7

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  4.0

  Cambridgeshire

  4.3

  Camden and Islington

  9.4

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  5.3

  County Durham and Darlington

  2.9

  Coventry

  4.0

  Croydon

  5.2

  Doncaster

  3.7

  Dorset

  4.5

  Dudley

  3.4

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  5.5

  East Kent

  4.0

  East Lancashire

  4.2

  East London and The City

  5.0

  East Riding and Hull

  3.6

  East Surrey

  4.8

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  4.8

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  3.9

  Gloucestershire

  5.1

  Herefordshire

  5.7

  Hertfordshire

  5.2

  Hillingdon

  4.2

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and SE Hampshire

  4.5

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  6.3

  Kingston and Richmond

  5.6

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  6.4

  Leeds

  5.0

  Leicestershire

  3.5

  Lincolnshire

  3.1

  Liverpool

  5.6

  Manchester

  7.5

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  5.5

  Morecambe Bay

  4.6

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  6.2

  Norfolk

  4.2

  North and East Devon

  4.8

  North and Mid Hampshire

  4.1

  North Cheshire

  4.3

  North Cumbria

  4.0

  North Derbyshire

  3.7

  North Essex

  3.9

  North Nottinghamshire

  3.3

  North Staffordshire

  3.1

  North West Lancashire

  4.3

  North Yorkshire

  5.0

  Northamptonshire

  3.2

  Northumberland

  3.4

  Nottingham

  4.0

  Oxfordshire

  5.0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  4.4

  Rotherham

  3.6

  Salford and Trafford

  4.1

  Sandwell

  4.0

  Sefton

  4.5

  Sheffield

  5.4

  Shropshire

  4.1

  Solihull

  3.9

  Somerset

  4.2

  South and West Devon

  5.6

  South Cheshire

  4.6

  South Derbyshire

  3.8

  South Essex

  3.8

  1073W

  Total number of dentists per 10,000 population by health authority at 30 September 2001

  Health authority

  Total dentists per 10,000 population1

  South Humber

  3.2

  South Lancashire

  3.9

  South Staffordshire

  3.6

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  5.1

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  3.9

  Stockport

  4.5

  Suffolk

  3.8

  Sunderland

  4.1

  Tees

  4.5

  Wakefield

  3.8

  Walsall

  2.7

  Warwickshire

  3.9

  West Kent

  4.3

  West Pennine

  3.6

  West Surrey

  6.1

  West Sussex

  5.1

  Wigan and Bolton

  3.6

  Wiltshire

  4.5

  Wirral

  5.0

  Wolverhampton

  3.9

  Worcestershire

  4.2

  1 ONS 2000 mid year population estimates based on the 1991 census.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in the Chesham and Amersham constituency take NHS patients. [57994]

  Ms Blears
  Data are not collected centrally for the Chesham and Amersham constituency.

  Myotonic Dystrophy
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of research into the(a) causes and (b) treatment of myotonic dystrophy. [49922]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has made no recent assessment of research into the causes and treatment of myotonic dystrophy.

  X-ray Plates
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of X-ray plates exposed in the NHS in each of the last five years. [49987]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  However, information on the number of imaging and radiodiagnostic examinations by imaging modality carried out by national health service trusts in England is available on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

  Students
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the NHS would be of providing(a) free prescriptions and (b) free dental care to students in full-time education; and if he will make a statement. [52910]

  Ms Blears
  Full-time students under the age of 19 are already entitled to free prescriptions and free dental care. Some other students may be entitled to free prescriptions and free dental care on low income or maternity grounds, or to free prescriptions because they suffer from a medical 1074W
  condition which confers entitlement to exemption from prescription charges. The estimated costs in England of extending free treatment to remaining students in full-time education are shown in the table.

  £ million

  Free prescriptions

  127

  Free dental care

  115

  1 Approximately

  Voluntary Organisations
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the contribution voluntary organisations make to the running of the national health service. [53073]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has not undertaken a specific assessment of the contribution of voluntary organisations to the national health service.

  Involving the voluntary sector, particularly within the framework of the compact agreement, is integral to NHS policy development and service delivery. The Department recognises the significant breadth of contributions made to the NHS at all levels by voluntary, community and charitable organisations. At national level these range from membership of the Department's policy development groups to contributing to specific consultation exercises. Locally voluntary organisations often provide specific services, for example volunteer hospital transport schemes to enable better patient access; and providing information and support networks for patients, their carers and families, about living with specific medical conditions.

  Asthma
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Buteyko method of asthma treatment. [52553]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The Department has not commissioned National Institute of Clinical Excellence to undertake a formal evaluation of the Buteyko method of asthma treatment and the Medical Research Council is not currently funding research into this treatment.

  The Department recognises that some people find complementary medicine treatments helpful in relieving the symptoms of certain conditions, particularly chronic conditions for which conventional medicine cannot provide a complete solution. Complementary medicine treatments, may be provided on the national health service if those responsible for commissioning health services on behalf of patients locally (primary care trusts) consider that they are a clinically and cost effective means of meeting an identified health need.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the cost would be of providing free medication to all asthmatics irrespective of age; [56442]

  (2) what plans the Government have to provide free medication for all asthmatics. [56443]
  1075W
  Ms Blears
  We estimate that the loss of prescription charge income in England would be over £50 million a year. Additionally, there could be significant additional costs to the drugs bill if people with asthma who currently pay charges sought prescriptions for medicines and other items which they currently purchase.

  Our policy is to give priority to helping people who may have difficulty in paying charges, rather than extending the exemption arrangements to people with other medical conditions including asthma.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Ministers from his Department last met representatives from the World Health Organisation to discuss the issue of asthma; and what plan of action was agreed to tackle the increase in asthma levels in(a) children and (b) adults. [59580]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]My right hon. Friend the Minister of State (Mr. Hutton) recently attended the World Health Assembly which took place from 13 to 18 May. This included a ministerial Round Table on general risks to health, however asthma was not a formal topic of debate.

  Heroin
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths owing to heroin overdose there were in each of the last three years in(a) England and (b) Bassetlaw. [59630]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. John Mann, dated 10 June 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question concerning the number of deaths owing to heroin overdose in the last three years in England and Bassetlaw. I am replying in his absence. (59630)
  Information is available on the number of deaths related to drug poisoning, where heroin or morphine was mentioned.1 The latest year for which figures are available is 2000. Information is therefore provided for 1998, 1999 and 2000 and is given in the table below.

  Deaths related to heroin or morphine poisoning,2 England, 1998 to 2000

  Number of deaths

  Calendar year

  England

  Bassetlaw3

  1998

  618

  3

  1999

  715

  2000

  874

  1 As heroin breaks down in the body into morphine, the latter is often detected at post mortem. For this reason, all deaths mentioning heroin or morphine have been included.

  2 Selected using the following codes from the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision, where heroin or morphine was also mentioned:

  292 (drug psychoses)

  304 (drug dependence)

  305.2–305.9 (non dependent abuse of drugs

  E850–E858 (accidental poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biologicals)

  E950.0–E950.5 (suicide and self-inflicted poisoning by solid or liquid substances)

  E980.0–E980.5 (poisoning by solid or liquid substances, undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted)

  1076W

  E962.0 (assault by poisoning—drugs and medicaments).

  3 There are too few deaths in Bassetlaw to show the figures for individual years.

  Source:

  Deaths occurring in 1998, 1999 and 2000, as recorded on the ONS database of drug-related poisoning deaths using geographic boundaries as at April 2001.

  Health Checks
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what means of assessing the success of the Government's programme for health checks for the over-75s are available. [53409]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Medical Research Council, with the support of the Department, has been conducting a trial of assessment and management of elderly people since 1994. The study is being conducted in over 100 practices in the United Kingdom, covering nearly 33,000 people aged 75 years or over registered with participating practices. The trial is now in the analytic stage, findings will be available in autumn 2002.

  Anti-TNF
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure health authorities implement NICE's recommendations on the prescription of anti-TNF for children and adults with severe rheumatoid arthritis. [55271]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 5 December 2001, we announced that we would meet our commitment to ensure that patients receive drugs and treatments recommended by National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) on the national health service if deemed appropriate by their clinicians. Directions have been issued obliging health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for recommended treatments.

  From 1 January 2002, the NHS has three months from the date of publication of each technology appraisal guidance to provide funding, so that clinical decisions made by doctors involving NICE recommended treatments or drugs can be funded.

  Prevenar
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the possible(a) side effects, (b) benefits and (c) risks of prescribing the pneumococcal vaccine Prevenar to children who are not identified as at high risk of paediatric pneumococcal disease. [55821]

  Ms Blears
  Prevenar was authorised by the European Commission in February 2001 for active immunisation of infants and children from two months of age to two years of age against invasive disease (including bacteraemia, sepsis, meningitis, bacteraemic pneumonia) caused by the streptococus pneumoniae serotypes contained in the vaccine. An assessment of the possible risks and benefits of the vaccine for this indication was considered by the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products, the advisory body to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) prior to licensing. The at-risk groups were not distinguished. The current product information lists known side effects.
  1077W
  Studies to document the full burden of morbidity attributable to pneumococcal disease in the United Kingdom's children and to evaluate the vaccine's suitability for use in the routine childhood immunisation programme are also in progress by the Department's vaccine evaluation consortium.

  In January 2002, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which advises the Department on national immunisation policy, recommended that the small number of children under two years who are at particular risk from pneumococcal disease, who would be recommended to receive polysaccharide vaccine if they were over two years, should now receive the new pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (Prevenar).

  Performance Targets
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the business of his Department is undertaken electronically with regard to the relevant PSA targets. [56279]

  Ms Blears
  Information about progress on public service agreement targets will be published in the Department's 2002 departmental report.

  Arthritis
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance his Department has been given to research into arthritis since 1997; what new treatments have become available for arthritis sufferers; and what payments are made to sufferers of arthritis to assist with medication costs. [56264]

  Ms Blears
  The main Government agency for research into the cause and treatments of disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC spend is available from 1999 and is an estimated £12.9 million on research relevant to arthritis.

  The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the national health service. The departmental spend on directly commissioned research projects on arthritis since 1997 is an estimated £2.5 million. The Department has also funded projects relevant to arthritis but with wider relevance, and the expenditure on these has not been counted.

  In addition to specific projects, the Department provides support for research commissioned by charities and the research councils that takes place in the NHS. Management of much of the research supported by NHS research and development funding is devolved and expenditure at project level is not held centrally by the Department. The total investment is considerably greater than the spend on directly commissioned projects.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) was asked to appraise the use of infliximab (Remicade) and etanecerpt (Enbrel) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. NICE issued its guidance on 22 March 2002. NICE has recommended the use of etanercept for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and etanercept and infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

  There are no payments made to sufferers of arthritis to assist with medication costs. People with arthritis are entitled to free NHS prescriptions if the patient is under
  1078W
  16 (or under 19 if in full-time education); aged 60 or over; or holds an exemption certificate; or is entitled on the grounds of low income. Prescription prepayment certificates save money for anyone who needs more than a certain number of items over a particular period.

  Enbrel
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Enbrel will be prescribed for arthritis on the NHS. [56915]

  Ms Blears
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) was asked to appraise the use of infliximab (Remicade) and etanecerpt (Enbrel) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. NICE issued its guidance on 22 March 2002. NICE has recommended the use of etanercept for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis and etanercept and infliximab for rheumatoid arthritis.

  On 5 December 2001, the Government announced that they would meet their manifesto commitment to ensure that patients receive drugs and treatments recommended by NICE on the national health service if deemed appropriate by their clinicians. Directions have been issued obliging health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for recommended treatments.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been achieved towards the target of implementing the national strategy to tackle alcohol misuse by 2004. [56565]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Plan said that the Government would implement a national strategy to tackle alcohol misuse by 2004. We are on course to achieve this target. We have made the following progress:Discussions have been held with other Government Departments on their current and future plans for tackling alcohol misuse;
  Links have been built between the strategy and the work on crime reduction;
  A framework for certain key elements of the strategy has been put in place; including:

  A training course for general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses is currently being piloted. This will enable GPs and nurses to identify patients who are drinking hazardously and to decide on whether to offer support and advice to these patients or whether to refer them to specialist treatment services.

  An increase in the resources available for substance misuse education in schools—an additional £29.5 million has been put into substance misuse education over the last three years.

  Value for Money
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2002,Official Report, column 269W, on value for money, if he will publish the information used to establish that the Department was on course to deliver the target on value for money changes in the 1998 public service agreement. [56608]

  Ms Blears
  The published measure for this target was that the Department would achieve its business plan objectives within the running costs limits set by the Comprehensive Spending Review. Running cost plans
  1079W
  and outturn against them (where available) have already been published in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) for the years 1999–2000 to 2002–03, copies of which are in the Library. The statistics demonstrate that the Department is on track to meet the target.

  Homeless People
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) number and (b) proportion of people (i) sleeping rough and (ii) living in temporary accommodation were looked after by local authorities when they were children. [56566]

  Jacqui Smith
  As at December 2001 there were some 78,600 households accepted as statutorily homeless by local authorities living in temporary accommodation. A household is the unit used to collect this data—it will include families with children and other vulnerable couples or single people who have a statutory right to assistance to meet their housing needs from local authorities. The rough sleepers unit estimates that as at November 2001 there were 532 people sleeping rough in England on any night. At present the Department does not keep statistics centrally about where young people are living after they leave care.

  The Children (Leaving Care) Act commenced in October 2001. This imposes a new duty on local authorities to ensure that care leavers are provided with suitable accommodation, which will not include temporary accommodation. From 2004, local authorities will be required to submit information to the Department about the performance of their leaving care services, including statistics on the numbers of care leavers placed in suitable accommodation.

  Reconfiguration Panel
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when will appointments to the reconfiguration panel be completed; and whether(a) Kent and Canterbury, (b) Royal Hospital Haslar, (c) Solihull hospital, (d) Kidderminster hospital and (e) West Cornwall hospital Penzance will be referred to the panel. [57093]

  Ms Blears
  It is vital that the independent reconfiguration panel (IRP) has both the confidence of the general public and credibility within the national health service. We are therefore considering our options very carefully before making any decisions about the membership.

  The IRP will offer advice to the Secretary of State for Health on any contested reconfiguration proposals that he asks the panel to consider. However, it will not be asked to consider any proposals that were referred to the Secretary of State for Health before the panel begins working—which we anticipate will be in the autumn.

  NHS Catering
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 451W, what significant and complex issues have been found by the Department with regard to the franchising and tendering of NHS catering. [57025]
  1080W
  Ms Blears
  The national health service is the single biggest organisation in Europe. It is also one of the biggest purchasers of food.

  In catering terms, the sheer size and complexity of the NHS are in themselves sufficient to raise significant issues for any examination of a franchise approach to hospital catering.

  Added to this must be the need to reflect the views and preferences of a wide range of patients; the variety of size and type of hospitals for example, acute, mental health and community hospitals; staffing issues; issues about purchasing models and value for money; the geographical dispersion of hospitals; the wide range of nutritional needs presented by patients—including diets for cultural, religious and clinical needs; the variety of catering systems currently in use and the impact of European Union requirements.

  Hospital Food
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 1017W, in what format the results of PEAT evaluations of hospital food will be published. [57092]

  Ms Blears
  The results of the unannounced inspections of the quality of hospital food will be published at the same time as those of the patient environment assessments undertaken between February and May 2002. The quality of hospital food will be assessed against a 'traffic light' criteria where 'Red' is further improvement needed, 'Amber' acceptable and 'Green' good. The inspections are currently under way and we expect to publish the results shortly.

  NHS Menus
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many leading chef dishes are on the new NHS menus; what they are; and how many hospitals have introduced each dish. [56964]

  Ms Blears
  There is currently a total of 139 leading chef approved dishes in the national dish selector. A full list of the dishes follows. Acute hospitals are required to include at least three of these dishes in their menus each day. No information is collected on which dishes are used by individual hospitals.Dessert

  Apple cake

  Banana brulèe

  Bread and butter pudding

  Butterscotch tart

  Cherry clafoutis tart

  Fruit cake and carrot cake

  Hot banana cake with custard

  Peach flan

  Posh pear and chocolate crumble

  Raspberry jelly

  Rhubarb and ginger stew with dumplings

  Sticky toffee pudding and butterscotch sauce

  Strawberry tartlet Teacup trifle

  Toasted oatmeal Trifle

  Vanilla mousse with preserved fruits

  Yummy yorkshire pudding

  1081W
  Dinner choice

  Aloo kheema mutter (minced lamb with potatoes and tomatoes)

  Bacon, leek and mushroom pasta bake

  Baked gammon

  Beef and horseradish risotto

  Beef and onion pie

  Beef bolognaise

  Beef casserole

  Beef lasagne

  Beef masala with potato bhaji

  Braised beef in mushroom sauce

  Braised chicken and butternut squash

  Braised chicken with lentils

  Braised lamb in cider with parsley dumplings

  Braised lamb with flageolet beans

  Braised pork with apple and ginger dumplings

  Broccoli and herb quiche

  Cajun fishcakes

  Casserole of lamb with apricots and rice

  Cauliflower and broccoli pasta

  Chicken a la king

  Chicken and ham pie

  Chicken and leek pie

  Chicken and pasta with tomato and herbs

  Chicken Biryani, tadka daal, cucumber sauce

  Chicken casserole

  Chicken escalopes with tomato and coriander sauce

  Chicken in mustard and coriander sauce

  Chicken pie and spring onion mash

  Chicken tikka makhani with cabbage and beans jeera

  Chicken with tomatoes and peppers

  Chicken, apple and potato pie

  Chilli con carne

  Corned beef and apple hash slice

  Cottage pie

  Creamed chicken and vegetables

  Fish in cheese sauce with mustard mash

  Fish pie with a potato top

  Fish portugaise

  Fricassee of chicken with grain mustard and tarragon sauce

  Grilled chicken breast with spicy tomato sauce and tagliatelle

  Hungarian beef goulash with dumplings Irish stew

  Lamb and vegetable pie

  Lamb casserole

  Lamb shahi korma

  Liver with braised sweet onions

  Meatloaf with onion marmalade

  Minced chicken and vegetable pie

  Nasi goreng with egg

  Naverin of lamb with couscous and grilled vegetables

  Parmesan fried chicken escalopes milanese

  Poached chicken with a vegetable and herb broth

  Poached smoked haddock in grain mustard sauce

  Pork goulash

  Pork, sweet pepper and tomato casserole

  Pork, apple and sage crumble

  Roast cod with leek and mushroom sauce accompanied by garlic

  potato purèe

  1082W

  Salmon and dill potato bake

  Salmon fishcakes with parsley sauce

  Sausage hotpot

  Soya mince bolognaise

  Steak and kidney pie with olive oil mash

  Stewed steak with dumplings

  Sweet and sour chicken with vegetable fried rice

  Thai chicken red curry

  Tuna, tomato and courgette pasta

  Turkey and apple hotpot

  Light lunch

  Cauliflower and very cheese sauce

  Macaroni with smoked haddock and herbs

  Real cornish pasties

  Sea food pasta with fresh dill and parmesan

  Smoked turkey and tomato baguette

  Salad

  Salad of spinach, tuna, egg and chickpeas

  Sandwich

  Good old corned beef and apple coleslaw sandwich

  Soup

  Butter bean and bacon soup

  Celery and red pepper soup

  Cream of carrot soup

  Two soups in a bowl

  Vegetable and herb soup

  Vegetables

  Olive oil mashed potatoes

  Vegetarian

  Bean goulash

  Boston beans

  Broccoli and herb quiche

  Cauliflower and very cheese sauce

  Cauliflower and broccoli pasta

  Cheese, leek and egg pie

  Cheese, onion and potato pie

  Country vegetable pie

  Curried vegetables

  Egg, cashew and chickpea kedgeree

  Lentil Daal

  Macaroni cheese

  Nasi goreng with egg

  Soya mince bolognaise

  Vegetable and bean cottage pie

  Vegetable chilli

  Vegetable goulash with dumplings

  Vegetable lasagne

  Vegetable moussaka

  Elderly

  Tomato and butter bean soup

  Red lentil broth

  Tomato, onion, gruyere and basil quiche

  Chicken, chicken liver and mushroom casserole

  1083W

  Braised salt brisket with carrots

  Braised liver and bacon hotpot

  Braised liver with green lentils

  Pink salmon, tuna and parsley fishcake

  Fillet of mackerel with braised lentils

  Sausage meat and bacon meatloaf with sweet onion gravy

  Sausage meat. carrot and thyme slice

  Ham, cheese, onion and leek pudding

  Roast chicken breast wrapped in bacon with stewed onions

  Pork blanquette

  Broccoli, smoked bacon and sweetcorn quiche

  Steamed raspberry pudding

  Raspberry blancmange

  Black forest trifle

  Apricot frangipan filo parcel

  Mincemeat and pear filo parcel

  Toffee apple roly-poly pudding

  Lemon posset

  Strawberry white wine jelly.

  Health and Safety
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the NHS estate was compliant with fire safety requirements in each of the last five financial years; and what the outstanding cost is of related repairs as of the end of the current financial year. [56944]

  Ms Blears
  The principal source of information in respect of establishing historic compliance with fire safety requirements is the estates return information collection (ERIC) system where data is returned annually by national health service trusts up to the end of the financial year being reported. Data in respect of non-NHS trust property that form part of the NHS estate (eg health authority offices, primary care groups etc.) are not available.

  The most relevant indicator is 'Costs to Achieve Statutory Fire Safety Compliance Standard B (excluding fire safety)'. In this context, condition B is the minimum standard required and is defined in the NHS guidance, estatecode, as meaning buildings which do not have backlog maintenance costs in respect of fire safety deficiencies and which comply with NHS firecode guidance and statutory requirements.

  NHS trust accommodation which is currently below condition B standard will include that for which there is work outstanding that is of a relatively low risk but required under statutory legislation. The NHS is always striving to keep up to-date with new legislation and to provide a safe environment for patients, staff and visitors. Fire safety is a serious issue, which is why we have set targets for the NHS in this area and every effort is made to remedy any concerns expressed by local enforcement bodies as quickly as possible. This is reflected in the extremely small numbers of injuries and deaths arising as a result of fires in NHS hospitals in England despite the high volumes of people who access healthcare premises annually. I have also imposed targets set by HSC 1999/191 to reduce backlog maintenance costs associated with fire safety and to achieve compliance with firecode.
  1084W
  The following table identifies the percentage of NHS trusts in England, over the five year period 1996–97 to 2000–01, who report having achieved the desired condition B standard having zero backlog maintenance costs associated with fire safety compliance:

  Percentage of total to achieve estatecode condition B—fire safety

  Year

  1996–97

  8.4

  1997–98

  9.4

  1998–99

  9.8

  1999–2000

  11.1

  2000–01

  21.0

  These figures demonstrate that the numbers of NHS trusts which comply with the fire code requirement are increasing. Clearly, we can do more, and we are doing so through setting and monitoring the aforementioned targets. In addition, progress is expected to further accelerate as the outcome of the increased major capital investment programme in the NHS reaches fruition.

  With regard to the current outstanding cost of repairs, the most recent data available are for the year 2000–01. This shows that the total cost of backlog maintenance for NHS trusts in England to achieve estatecode condition B in respect of fire safety compliance at the end of the fiscal year 2000–01 is £239 million. Planned major capital investment throughout the NHS should see the eradication of a large proportion of this backlog.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the NHS estate was compliant with health and safety requirements at the end of each of the last five financial years; and what the outstanding cost is of repairs as of the end of the current financial year. [56943]

  Ms Blears
  The principal source of information in respect of establishing historic compliance with health and safety requirements is the estates return information collection (ERIC) system where data are returned annually by national health service trusts up to the end of the financial year being reported. Data in respect of non-NHS trust property that form part of the NHS estate (eg health authority offices, primary care groups etc.) are not available.

  The most relevant indicator is 'Costs to Achieve Statutory Health & Safety Compliance Standard B (excluding fire safety)'. In this context, condition B is the minimum standard that NHS trusts are required to meet and is defined in the NHS guidance, estatecode, as meaning buildings which do not have backlog maintenance costs in respect of health and safety deficiencies and which comply with statutory requirements.

  NHS trust accommodation which is currently below condition B standards will include that for which there is work outstanding that is of a relatively low risk but required under statutory legislation. The NHS is always striving to keep up to-date with new legislation and to provide a safe environment for patients, staff and visitors. Health and safety is a serious issue, which is why we have set targets for the NHS in this area and every effort is made to remedy any concerns expressed by local enforcement bodies as quickly as possible. This is reflected in the relatively few numbers of health and safety incidents reported under the mandatory Reporting

  1085W
  of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR). I have also imposed targets set by HSC 1999–191 to reduce backlog maintenance costs associated with health and safety requirements and to achieve statutory compliance.

  The following table shows the percentage of NHS trusts in England, over the five year period 1996–97 to 2000–01, who report having achieved the desired condition B standard:

  Percentage of total to achieve estatecode condition B—health and safety

  Year

  1996–97

  10.3

  1997–98

  9.0

  1998–99

  9.6

  1999–2000

  7.8

  2000–01

  18.9

  These figures demonstrate that the numbers of NHS trusts which comply with the health and safety requirement are increasing despite the continual introduction of new legislation. Clearly, we can do more, and we are doing so through setting and monitoring the aforementioned targets. In addition, progress is expected to further accelerate as the outcome of the increased major capital investment programme in the NHS reaches fruition.

  With regard to the current outstanding cost of repairs, the most recent data available are for the year 2000–01. This shows that the total cost of backlog maintenance for NHS trusts in England to achieve estatecode condition B in respect of statutory health and safety compliance at the end of the fiscal year 2000–01 is £355 million. Planned major capital investment throughout the NHS should see the eradication of a large proportion of this backlog.

  Littlemore Hospital
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) assessment beds, (b) rehabilitation beds and (c) beds in pre-discharge flats there are in the medium secure unit at the Littlemore Hospital in Oxfordshire; [56951]

  (2) how many staff accommodation units there are at the Littlemore Hospital in Oxfordshire. [56950]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the average daily number of beds in each national health service trust is available from the Department website. Information by individual hospital site is not collected.

  Information on the number of staff accommodation units is not available centrally.

  Funeral Arrangements
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 March 2002,Official Report, column 545W, what the Department's definition of a permanent memorial or marker is. [56992]

  Ms Blears
  A permanent marker or memorial for a grave would be regarded as being formed from a non-perishable material, for example stone. A permanent marker in respect of a cremation would depend on whether ashes had been interred or scattered. This would 1086W
  take the form either of a marker for a grave, an entry in the book of remembrance, or a permanent memorial plaque.

  Pharmacies
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmacies were covered by the essential small pharmacies scheme in each of the last five years. [57026]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested and shown in the table is an extract from Table 6 of the Department's Statistical Bulletin "General Pharmaceutical Services in England and Wales 1991–92 to 2000–01".

  Year ending 31 March

  Number of pharmacies which received Essential Small Pharmacy Scheme payments (England only)

  1997

  256

  1998

  255

  1999

  255

  2000

  262

  2001

  243

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmacies there were in rural areas in each of the past five years. [57022]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Wheelchairs
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS wheelchairs were in use in each of the last five years; [56947]

  (2) what the average proportion of the cost of a wheelchair covered by a voucher was in each of the last five years. [56948]

  Ms Blears
  Figures on the number of national health service wheelchairs in use are not collected centrally, nor are figures for the average cost of a wheelchair covered by a voucher.

  Intensive Treatment Units
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive treatment units there are in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland. [56916]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Traditional and Alternative Medicines
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department has spent on evaluating(a) traditional and (b) alternative medicines in each of the past five years. [56960]

  Ms Blears
  In relation to the regulation of medicines, there are no existing regulatory categories defined as traditional or alternative medicines and it is not possible to estimate expenditure on the evaluation of such products. The Medicines Control Agency undertakes a wide range of evaluative activity in relation to herbal and homeopathic medicines, many of which have a basis in
  1087W
  tradition. These activities include determining whether a product should be classified as a medicine, assessing applications for marketing authorisations for herbal medicines, assessing applications under the homeopathic registration scheme, and assessing safety and compliance issues affecting licensed and unlicensed herbal and homeopathic medicines.

  The Department has directly funded a number of research projects which fall within the broad definition of traditional and alternative medicine, most of which are on-going, at a total cost of about £600,000.

  In addition, the Cochrane collaboration in the United Kingdom receives substantial support from the NHS research and development levy, and has contributed a large number of systematic reviews of alternative therapies to the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. The website of the Cochrane complementary field (http://www.compmed.umm.edu/Compmed/Cochrane/ Cochrane.htm) lists the titles of those Cochrane reviews.

  Health Action Zones
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many homes in Tyne and Wear have been insulated as a result of health action zone campaigns. [56932]

  Ms Blears
  Thirty-eight homes have been insulated and a further 188 have benefited from energy efficiency grants.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed in the National Patient Safety Agency at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients. [56858]

  Ms Blears
  The National Patient Safety Agency employed eleven staff at 1 April 2002, none of whom have clinical contact with national health service patients.

  This does not include the National Patient Safety Agency's Chair and 12 non-executive board members—of these, three are practising clinicians.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed in his Department at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients. [56863]

  Ms Blears
  The Department employed 5,288 staff at 1 April 2002.

  We cannot give a proportion of these staff who have clinical contact with national health service patients as we do not collect this data.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed in the National Institute for Clinical Excellence at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients. [56864]

  Ms Blears
  I understand that the number of staff employed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) on 1 April 2002 was 40.

  It is not part of NICE's role to provide direct clinical care to patients. In the preparation of its guidance NICE receives advice from individuals and organisations in the national health service who provide such care on a day to day basis.
  1088W
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed in the National Health Service Litigation Authority at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients. [56862]

  Ms Blears
  At 1 April the NHS Litigation Authority employed a total of 145 staff. None of the Authority's staff have any clinical involvement with national health service patients.

  Cane Hill, Coulsdon
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which agency in his Department owns Cane Hill, Coulsdon. [56907]

  Ms Blears
  The Cane Hill site is owned by the Secretary of State for Health as part of the retained estate.

  Speech Therapy Service (Southampton)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the nature and effect of staff shortages at the speech and language therapy service based at the Central Health Clinic in Southampton. [57086]

  Ms Blears
  The speech and language therapy service is managed by Southampton City Primary Care Trust (PCT) on behalf of several local PCTs including New Forest. The recruitment difficulties affecting the service are mirrored at a national level. The PCT is actively involved in "Improving Working Lives", a national initiative to attract people back to work and other initiatives to do everything possible to improve the recruitment and retention of therapists.

  In view of the shortages, the PCT is focusing attention on priority areas such as in-patients, particularly those patients with swallowing problems, which could be potentially life threatening.

  Juvenile Sex Abusers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many meetings he has had with ministerial colleagues in the last two years with regard to children and young people who sexually abuse. [57200]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have had no meetings with ministerial colleagues specifically regarding children and young people who sexually abuse.

  Hospital Beds
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost of a(a) hospital intensive care bed and (b) hospital surgical bed was in the last 12 months, broken down by trust. [57154]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the 2000–01 average unit costs (per bed day) for each NHS Trust in England for(a) intensive care unit beds and (b) paediatric intensive care unit beds has been placed in the Library.

  Average unit costs for other types of intensive care unit, for example, cardiac intensive care are available, in the Library.

  No data are currently available for the average cost of a hospital surgical bed.

  Audiology
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average wait for an audiology appointment(a) at the Northern Devon healthcare trust and (b) in England has been in (i) each of the last seven years and (ii) each of the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement; [57173]

  (2) how many people have been on the waiting list for an audiology appointment at the Northern Devon healthcare trust in each of the last seven years; what has been the average waiting list for an NHS trust for patients waiting for an audiology appointment in each of the last seven years; and if he will make a statement. [57174]

  Ms Blears
  Figures are collected by consultant specialty and not treatment specialty. As such it is not possible to extract the information requested.

  Drug Testing
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he takes to ensure, in the testing of drugs for potential carcinogenicity, commercial companies do not select animal species and strains of species where the incidence of carcinogenicity is low. [56017]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The rationale for selecting species to be used in the carcinogenicity studies is stated in the guidance documents produced as a result of the International Conference of Harmonisation.

  Road Accident Casualties
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money NHS hospitals have claimed from motor insurance providers to recover the cost of treating road accident casualties in each of the last 10 years. [56657]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: Prior to 5 April 1999 national health service trusts had responsibility for collecting from insurers charges for hospital treatment following road traffic accidents under the provisions of sections 157 and 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Trust accounts show the following amounts of road traffic income since 1994, the earliest year for which information is available:

  £ million

  1994–95

  13.1

  1995–96

  13.1

  1996–97

  13.6

  1997–98

  16.6

  1998–99

  19.6

  The system for recovery of these charges changed with the introduction of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999 which came into effect on 5 April 1999 and there is now a new centralised recovery system which is undertaken by the compensation recovery unit (CRU). Since April 1999 the CRU has paid the following amounts to NHS trusts:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  26.6

  2000–01

  67.0

  2001–02

  86.8

  1090W
  The amount collected for 1999–2000 does not represent total income to the NHS in that year. This is because income would have been received directly by trusts in the first part of the year as a carry-over from the old arrangements.

  MMR
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have suffered(a) febrile convulsions and (b) other adverse effects within 14 days of receiving the MMR vaccine. [40687]

  Ms Blears
  Since 1987, there have been a total of 3,578 reports containing 5,932 suspected adverse reactions associated with MMR vaccines reported to the Medicines Control Agency. For 2,683 of these suspected reactions it is stated that the reaction occurred within 14 days. There have been 82 reports of suspected febrile convulsions associated with MMR vaccines in which the reporter has stated that the reaction occurred within 14 days. The onset time of a suspected reaction is not always provided by reporters.

  Febrile convulsions are a recognised side effect of MMR vaccines and are listed as a side effect in their product information. A United Kingdom epidemiological study has suggested that the risk of febrile convulsions six to 11 days following MMR vaccines is around one case per 3,000 doses (Farrington et al. The Lancet 1995; 345:567–69).

  It is important to note that the reporting of a suspected adverse reaction does not necessarily mean that the vaccine caused the reaction and other factors such as concomitant medication and underlying disease may provide an alternative explanation.

  Mount Vernon Hospital
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish an assessment of the quality of cancer services provided at Mount Vernon Hospital; [48901]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the quality of service provided at Mount Vernon Hospital. [48908]

  Ms Blears
  Cancer services at Mount Vernon Hospital were peer reviewed against national standards in May 2001. This review was part of a national process and the final report was submitted to the Network Board, trusts and health authorities. It was also copied to both London and south-eastern regional offices.

  In August 2001 Mount Vernon Hospital was assessed for accreditation as a gynaecological cancer centre. It could not be accredited because it did not have diagnostic, surgical/oncology and palliative care services which would be found in a comprehensive cancer centre. Provisional arrangements have been approved pending the outcome of the long-term review of the Mount Vernon Cancer Network and Centre.

  Prior to this the Mount Vernon Cancer Centre was reviewed against Calman Hine standards in 1997. It was given temporary accreditation and asked to meet Calman Hine standards. This temporary accreditation lapsed in 1999 because Mount Vernon Cancer Centre failed to meet the required standards.
  1091W
  The recommendation(s) of the steering group of the Mount Vernon long-term cancer review will be publishing its recommendation(s) shortly to the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire health authority in its capacity as host health authority for the Mount Vernon Cancer Network.

  Haemophilia
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what clotting factors are available in recombinant products for people with haemophilia; and what assessment he has made as to whether all clotting factors with the least side effects are available to all haemophilia sufferers. [54858]

  Ms Blears
  The full range of recombinant clotting factors for patients with haemophilia are available for purchase by national health service trusts. Patients who develop antibodies against clotting factors, known as inhibitors, can be treated with a range of products including recombinant factor VIIa. The United Kingdom haemophilia centre doctors organisation has produced guidelines for clinicians for treatment on inhibitors. Treatment is a matter for individual clinical decision.

  Biobank UK
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission an independent body to undertake an independent scientific peer review of the scientific protocol for Biobank UK. [55635]

  Ms Blears
  The protocol for the United Kingdom's Biobank project was developed following extensive consultation with the scientific community. Independent international scientific peer review was used to inform the funding decisions made by the Department, the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Councils. In all, 12 experts were involved, 10 of whom were from overseas, including the United States of America, Australia and various European countries. None of these had prior involvement in the development of the protocol nor were they involved with organisations likely to participate in the study or benefit financially. A scientific management committee composed of senior scientific advisers will be responsible for overseeing data collection, setting targets, agreeing changes to the protocol, and monitoring scientific output. Scrutiny of the scientific protocol will be an on-going process and it is therefore considered unlikely that an additional body undertaking further independent scientific peer review will add significant value to the UK Biobank project.

  Blood Donation
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 771W, what assessment the Department has made of the reasons underlying the forecast fall in levels of blood donation by 17-year-olds. [57110]

  Ms Blears
  The table has been updated since the answer of 25 March 2002 to show the final figures for 2001–02.

  From 1998 when 17-year-olds were permitted to donate blood the numbers doing so increased for two consecutive years. However, the reduced donations in 2001–02 corresponded with a fall that year, albeit at a slower rate, in the number of 17-year-olds in the general population.
  1092W
  The numbers of 17-year-olds are projected to increase substantially in the next few years. The National Blood Service believes, therefore, that the decline in 2001–02 is likely to be a blip in an otherwise rising trend, rather than a significant downturn.

  Financial year

  17-year-old donor count

  1998–99

  13,777

  1999–2000

  19,133

  2000–01

  19,718

  2001–02

  17,493

  BCG Vaccinations
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason BCG vaccinations are not offered in(a) Oxfordshire, (b) Avon and (c) York and Selby. [56995]

  Ms Blears
  The Government have recommended continually since 1953 that BCG vaccine should be routinely offered to all school children aged between 10 and 14 years of age. This is based on the advice of an independent expert advisory committee, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).

  This recommendation was reviewed by the JCVI during 1996 and their advice was that the schools programme should continue; health authorities were advised of this in July 1996. The decision not to implement this advice in Oxfordshire, Avon and York and Selby was taken locally by the health authorities.

  Breast Cancer
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what prior advice is given to patients on the potential adverse effects of radiotherapy in their treatment for breast cancer; [59568]

  (2) what procedures are in place to ensure patients receive counselling services following the adverse effects of radiotherapy treatment for breast cancer. [59567]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: Radiotherapy centres are expected to make available information and advice for patients undergoing radiotherapy.

  A cancer information advisory group has been set up to oversee the development, content and availability of information for cancer patients.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is due to publish guidelines on supportive and palliative care in October 2002. This will include guidance on information, communication, psychological and social support.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of the new breast cancer drug Xeloda in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. [59410]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) have been asked to advise on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of capecitabine (Xeloda) for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Guidance is due to be disseminated in March 2003, provided there are no appeals.
  1093W
  In August 1999 the Department issued guidance which asks national health service bodies to continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies where guidance from NICE is not available at the time the technology first became available. These arrangements should involve an assessment of all the available evidence.

  Skin Cancer
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to increase the educational awareness of skin cancer in(a) children and (b) adults. [59574]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: Information about sun safety will be available from the normal routes as well as through NHS Direct. We launched on 14 March a new departmental website www.doh.gov.uk/sunsafe providing sun safety advice. The website has been designed with both young children and their parents and teachers in mind. We are also collaborating with other key stakeholders this year in ensuring that a range of sun safety advice is publicly available. For example, the recently launched Cancer Research (UK) leaflet "Malignant Melanoma" describes the facts and signs of melanoma, for which the Department provided funding.

  Cancer Treatment
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sum was made available for cancer treatment in the financial year 2002–03 at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust; what sum for cancer treatment at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells was sought for 2002–03; and what changes have been made to the allocation of resources for 2002–03 for cancer treatment at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust. [57004]

  Ms Blears
  In 2002–03 £17.7 million was made available to Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells National Health Service Trust for cancer treatment. The increase in the allocation of resources for 2002–03 for cancer treatment at the trust was £2.04 million.

  The 2002–03 Kent Cancer Service Delivery Plan, developed in October 2001, identified a requirement of £17.9 million for Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust.

  Oesophageal Cancer
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made about possible links between the use of chemicals in vegetables and cancer of the oesophagus. [58158]

  Ms Blears
  Reports of links between chemicals in vegetables and cancer of the oesophagus relate to speculation concerning possible effects of nitrate. I am informed that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) is aware of the scientific developments in this area and is investigating the matter.

  Vegetables, particularly green leafy vegetables, contain the highest concentrations of nitrate in the diet. Although some of this nitrate comes from the use of conventional and organic nitrogen fertilisers on crops most is naturally
  1094W
  occurring. Low light intensity during the growing period is the main influence on nitrate concentrations in plant tissue.

  Many studies have investigated the possibility of a link between nitrate and cancer, but these have failed to provide convincing evidence that nitrate intake in the UK causes cancer. A new study by Professor McColl at the University of Glasgow has speculated on a possible association with oesophageal cancer in Scotland. The FSA agree with Professor McColl that the results are preliminary and require further investigation. Other areas of the United Kingdom with high nitrate intakes do not show similar high levels of the oesophageal cancer reported in Scotland. There is also new evidence available which suggests that dietary nitrate has beneficial effects. The FSA has commissioned a three-year project to characterise the potential benefits versus possible toxicity to humans from nitrate in the diet. The results of this work will be available later this year.

  Lung Cancer
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of people in England diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer were entered into clinical trials in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [57943]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not collect this information centrally. However, the national cancer research network has just started to collate detailed figures on the numbers of people entering clinical trials for cancer.

  Abortion
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has collated on whether sex selective abortions are taking place in the UK. [57685]

  Ms Blears
  We have no evidence that sex selective abortions are being performed. An abortion may only take place on grounds under the Abortion Act 1967, as amended. While abortion on grounds of foetal sex alone is not specifically prohibited, it is illegal. The sex of an unborn child might, however, be a legitimate factor if in a practitioner's judgment, an abortion in a particular case is justified on the medical grounds specified in the Abortion Act, for example in sex-linked inherited conditions.

  Taiwan (World Health Organisation)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Taiwan has been granted observer status in the World Health Organisation; and if he will make a statement. [58137]

  Ms Blears
  Taiwan has not been granted observer status in the World Health Assembly.

  Myalgic Encephalitis
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people suffer from myalgic encephalitis in England, broken down by region. [58058]
  1095W
  Ms Blears
  Information on the prevalence of individual conditions is not collected centrally. The report of the independent chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis working group, published in January 2002, estimated a population prevalence of around 0.2 to 0.4 per cent. in adults and around 0.07 per cent. in children.

  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress with support and treatment for people suffering with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. [57622]

  Jacqui Smith
  In recent years the Department has encouraged a number of initiatives taken by professional bodies and voluntary groups to raise awareness of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and to facilitate accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment. We currently support, including provision of grant aid, the work of the "contact a family ADHD alliance" project.

  In guidance on the use of the drug methylphenidate in the treatment of ADHD in children, published in October 2000 by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), it was made clear that a diagnosis of ADHD should be based on a timely, comprehensive assessment conducted by a child/adolescent psychiatrist or a paediatrician with expertise in this disorder. Referrals for specialist assessment can come from a number of sources including family members, general practitioners, social workers and teachers. NICE also recommended that drug treatment with methylphenidate, where appropriate, should be seen as part of a comprehensive treatment programme, which includes psychological, educational and social interventions, for children with a diagnosis of severe ADHD.

  EC Decisions
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list those organisations(a) within and (b) without the UK that will receive information under Commission Decision 2002/253/EC; [57854]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the circumstances under which, under Commission Decision 2002/253/EC (OJ L86, 3 APR 02), patients' case histories may be circulated in the European Communities. [57856]

  Ms Blears
  Commission Decision 2002/253/EC merely establishes the case definitions to be used to compare national surveillance data from the member states. It does not establish systems for collecting or disseminating information.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the criteria for the selection of communicable diseases under Commission Decision 2002/253/EC. [57859]

  Ms Blears
  The criteria for selection of disease or special areas to be covered by epidemiological surveillance within the European network for communicable diseases surveillance and control are laid down in annexe II of the Commission Decision of 22 December 1999, supported by all the member states on the diseases to be covered by the community network.
  1096W
  Decision 2002/253/EC fulfilled the requirement of Article 3(c) of Decision 2119/98/EC setting up the Community network to determine case definitions.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the post-analysis action to follow the sharing of data under Commission Decision 2002/253/EC. [57858]

  Ms Blears
  Data for some of the diseases listed in Commission Decision 2002/253/EC establishing case definitions are already covered by disease specific surveillance networks which publish their analyses. A generic system to compare routine data on other diseases has not yet been established.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has(a) received and (b) called for, with respect to Commission Decision 2002/253/EC, from civil rights organisations; and if he will make a statement. [57855]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has neither received nor called for representations from civil rights organisations in respect of Commission Decision 2002/253/EC.

  Health Care
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects to produce proposals for reform of the complaints procedure used in the NHS when adverse medical events occur; [58143]

  (2) if he will make a statement as to the policy adopted in the NHS when adverse health care events occur. [58142]

  Ms Blears
  We are looking to introduce reforms to the national health service complaints system from 2002. As part of the reform process, we are considering how complaints can promote learning to help reduce risk to future patients and in this way improve quality of care and patient safety where relevant. We are also exploring how appropriate links can be made between complaints and the work of the national patient safety agency.

  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to amend the way in which provision for clinical negligence cases is made in the NHS accounts for England. [58144]

  Ms Blears
  National health service summarised accounts are prepared to comply with accounting standards, United Kingdom Government accounting and procedures, resource accounting manual and Companies Acts. There are no changes planned to these standards and regulations that will affect the disclosure of clinical negligence liabilities in NHS accounts.

  Organ Donation
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 963W, on organ donation, when the consultation paper on the review of the law governing the taking, removal and use of human tissue will be published. [58263]

  Jacqui Smith
  A consultative report has been completed and will be published very shortly.

  Coronary Care
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have specialist heart treatment units; and what proposals he has to increase this amount. [57815]

  Ms Blears
  29 national health service trusts in England have specialist heart units, undertaking heart operations. A further specialist centre is being built in Wolverhampton, which will come into service in 2003. Eight existing centres are being modernised and expanded, at a cost of £170 million, providing 12 additional cardiac operating theatres and 380 extra beds in some of the areas with the highest rates of heart disease.

  All acute NHS trusts provide a cardiology service, referring to a specialist heart unit when appropriate.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has gone into research of drugs to aid in the treatment of heart failure; and which of these drugs have become available since 1997. [57816]

  Ms Blears
  Pharmaceutical companies fund the large majority of research into new drugs. Information on their research for drugs to aid the treatment of heart failure is not collected by the Department.

  No drugs are licensed solely for the treatment of heart failure. A range of drugs originally developed for the treatment of coronary heart disease and hypertension have been found to be beneficial in the treatment of heart failure. The evidence for new indications usually arises over a period of time as research emerges from different trials.

  Most of the drugs used in the treatment of heart failure were available before 1997.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures have been taken since 1997 to address the incidence of heart failure; and if he will make a statement. [57814]

  Ms Blears
  Since 1997 we have made coronary heart disease, the commonest cause of heart failure in this country, a major focus of health policy. Prevention, treatment and care are addressed in "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" (June 1999), The national service framework (NSF) for coronary heart disease (March

  Health authorities with radiotherapy centres located within its boundaries. Also given is the number of operational linacs at January 2001

  Health authority

  Radiotherapy centre

  Number of operational linacs

  Cambridgeshire

  Addenbrooke's NHST

  4

  Norfolk

  Norfolk and Norwich university hospital NHST

  3

  North Essex

  Essex rivers health care NHST

  2

  South Essex

  Southend hospital NHST

  2

  Suffolk

  Ipswich hospital NHST

  2

  Hertfordshire

  West Hertfordshire hospitals NHST

  4

  Barking and Havering

  Barking Havering and Redbridge hospitals NHST

  2

  Barnet Enfield and Haringey

  North Middlesex university hospital NHST

  2

  Camden and Islington1

  Royal Free Hampstead NHST

  2

  University College London hospitals NHST

  5

  Ealing Hammersmith and Hounslow

  Hammersmith hospitals NHST

  5

  East London and the City

  Barts and the London NHST

  4

  Kensington Chelsea and Westminster

  Royal Marsden NHST

  8

  Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham

  Guys and St. Thomas' hospital trust

  3

  Manchester

  Christie's hospital NHST

  8

  North West Lancashire

  Preston Acute hospitals NHST

  3

  Wirral

  Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology NHST

  7

  1098W
  2000) and the NHS Plan (July 2000). The NSF establishes the standard of care the national health service will provide for patients with heart failure and outlines the strategy to tackle this over the next 10 years. Chapter six of the NSF sets out how the NHS and others can help people with heart failure live longer and achieve a better quality of life.

  Linear Accelerators
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the recommended number of linear accelerators per one million population is. [58640]

  Ms Blears
  There is no formal Department recommendation on the number of linear accelerator treatment machines which serve each million population. The Department is aware of the advice given by the Royal College of Radiologists that four linear accelerator treatment machines should serve each million population. Following two central initiatives, this target is expected to be achieved by 2004.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS health authorities provide treatment through linear accelerators; how many linear accelerators are operational within those trusts; and how old each linear accelerator is. [58639]

  Ms Blears
  All strategic health authorities commission radiotherapy services for patients at radiotherapy centres, which may be located within its boundaries. The following health authorities provided radiotherapy treatment using linear accelerators (linacs) at the trusts indicated at January 2001.

  From a survey carried out in 2001 155 linacs were identified to be operational in the national health service. The commissioning dates for each linac is published at www.canceruk.net. Since that survey it is estimated that 47 new machines have been delivered by central initiatives alone. Information concerning the numbers and ages of such machines in Wales is also available at the same web address.

  The Royal College of Radiologists is about to embark on its own survey of radiotherapy facilities, from which information will be made available on the same web-address in the forthcoming few months.
  1099W

  Health authorities with radiotherapy centres located within its boundaries. Also given is the number of operational linacs at January 2001

  Health authority

  Radiotherapy centre

  Number of operational linacs

  East Riding and Hull

  Hull and East Yorkshire hospitals NHST

  1

  Leeds

  Leeds Teaching hospitals NHST

  7

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  The Newcastle upon Tyne hospitals NHST

  6

  North Cumbria

  North Cumbria Acute hospitals NHST

  1

  Tees

  South Tees hospitals NHST

  4

  Berkshire

  Royal Berks and Battle hospitals NHST

  2

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  Brighton health care NHST

  2

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  Portsmouth health care NHST

  2

  Northamptonshire

  Northampton general hospital NHST

  2

  Oxfordshire

  Oxford Radcliffe hospitals NHST

  4

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  Southampton university hospitals NHST

  3

  West Kent

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHST

  5

  West Surrey

  Royal Surrey county hospital NHST

  4

  Avon1

  United Bristol health care NHST

  5

  Royal United hospital Bath NHST

  2

  Cornwall and Isle of Scilly

  Royal Cornwall hospitals trust

  0

  Dorset

  Poole hospitals NHST

  3

  Gloucestershire

  Gloucestershire hospitals NHST

  3

  North and East Devon

  Royal Devon and Exeter health care NHST

  2

  South and West Devon1

  Plymouth hospitals NHST

  3

  South Devon health care NHST

  1

  Leicestershire

  University hospitals of Leicester NHST

  3

  Lincolnshire

  United Lincolnshire hospitals NHST

  2

  Nottingham

  Nottingham City hospital NHST

  3

  Sheffield

  Sheffield Teaching hospitals NHST

  4

  Southern Derbyshire

  Southern Derbyshire Acute hospitals NHST

  2

  Birmingham

  University hospital Birmingham NHST

  5

  Coventry

  University hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHST

  3

  North Staffordshire

  North Staffordshire hospital NHST

  2

  Shropshire

  Royal Shrewsbury hospitals NHST

  1

  Wolverhampton

  The Royal Wolverhampton hospitals NHST

  2

  1 X 2 radiotherapy centres

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the recommended replacement age of linear accelerators is; and how old each linear accelerator in service within each NHS health authority that provide radiotherapy treatment is. [58641]

  Ms Blears
  There is no formal recommended replacement age for linear accelerators (linacs) within the national health service in England.

  The age of each linac in service following a survey carried out in 2001 is published at www.canceruk.net This lists each linear accelerator in use along with the dates when each machine was commissioned.

  Osteoporosis
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to investigate the use of(a) ultrasound and (b) biochemical tests in combination with Dexa scanning for identifying osteoporosis in (i) the population and (ii) a sub-set of the population; and if he will ask the National Screening Committee to commission a review of the area this year before its autumn workshop. [58394]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 3 April 2002,Official Report, column 1042W.

  The United Kingdom national screening committee will review its advice and the evidence available at its meeting on 26 June 2002 and make recommendations.

  Bounty Pack
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of the bounty pack issued to new mothers in the Library. [58768]

  Ms Blears
  The bounty pack is not issued by the Department. The bounty pack is provided by the commercial organisation Bounty UK Ltd. and consists of sample products. Full information on Bounty UK is available at www.bounty.co.uk.

  Patient Data
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in relation to the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, what steps he will take to inform patients about(a) the disclosure of personal data to cancer registries and other bodies and (b) their right to object to such processing of personal data; and if he will make a statement. [59220]

  Ms Blears
  All national health service bodies are already required by data protection legislation to provide patients with information about all likely processing and disclosures of personal data. The Information Commissioner has recently published guidance on the "Use and Disclosure of Health Data" which clarifies these requirements. The right to object to processing of personal data where the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002 are in effect is provided by the Data Protection Act 1998 and awareness of these rights is promoted by the Information Commissioner.
  1101W
  However, the Department will be issuing guidance to health service bodies that will both complement the Information Commissioner's and make it clear that where patients object to a disclosure under the permissive provisions of the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, their objections should normally be respected. A sample leaflet for informing patients about the regulations and what they should do if they are unhappy about possible disclosures will be included within this guidance.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to take if health professionals refuse to provide personal data to cancer registries and the like without the consent of the patient as required under the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002. [59219]

  Ms Blears
  I have no plans to introduce a requirement for health professionals to provide personal data to cancer registries. While the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, when they come into force, would permit me to introduce such a requirement in the public interest I will only do so if so advised by the independent patient information advisory group. In the absence of such a requirement, the regulations are permissive rather than prescriptive, allowing but not requiring information to be disclosed. However, if such a requirement were to be introduced the action to be taken in cases of non-compliance will need to be determined on a case by case basis.

  Still-born Babies
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the certification and registration of still-born babies of between 18 and 24 weeks gestation. [59162]

  Ms Blears
  The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, as amended, provides for the registration of babies born dead after 24 weeks gestation. When a baby is born dead before 24 weeks gestation (the legal age of viability), the law does not require the birth to be certified or registered.

  If a baby is born dead before 24 weeks gestation, parents can obtain a certificate from the doctor or midwife who attended the delivery, stating that their baby was born before the legal age of viability and showed no signs of life. This will enable the parents to have their baby buried or cremated. The Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society's Guidelines "Pregnancy loss and the death of a baby. Guidelines for professionals (1995)" recognise that forms and certificates are often greatly valued by parents who otherwise may have little or no evidence or mementoes of their baby's existence. It states that it is good practice to offer all parents a copy to keep, whether or not they need it for practical reasons and that the documents should, where possible, be sensitively and sympathetically worded.

  Care Home Beds
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the change in the number of care home beds in Somerset since 1997. [59354]
  1102W
  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the number of places in residential care homes and registered beds in nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics in Somerset area in 1997 and 2001. The total number of beds has increased by just over 11 per cent. between 1997 and 2001.

  Residential places1 and registered nursing beds2 in Somerset area in 1997 and 2001

  At 31 March

  Places in residential care homes

  Registered nursing beds in nursing homes3,4

  Total care beds

  1997

  3,380

  2,632

  6,012

  2001

  4,101

  2,580

  6,681

  1 Places registered within Somerset local authority, exclude children beds.

  2 Beds registered within Somerset health authority, all client groups.

  3 Registered beds in general and mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics.

  4 Figures for registered nursing beds relates to registered beds during the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual returns.

  Personality Disordered Offenders
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how ongoing support and supervision will be arranged for personality disordered offenders discharged into the community and managed primarily by health services. [59015]

  Jacqui Smith
  The care programme approach will be the key method for providing support for personality disordered offenders discharged into the community. The care plan is managed by multi-disciplinary teams lead by health professionals.

  There will still be a requirement for probation officers to follow up offenders. No one will be discharged without full support and unless assessed to be at low risk of causing harm to others.

  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what requirement there will be on those in the health service providing supervision and treatment to personality disordered offenders in the community to collaborate with other statutory and voluntary agencies in the provision of services and sharing of information. [59016]

  Jacqui Smith
  The White Paper "Reforming the Mental Health Act" says that in new mental health legislation "there will be a new duty covering the disclosure of information about patients suffering from mental disorder between health and social services agencies and other agencies, for example housing agencies or criminal justice agencies."

  The personality disorder strategy forensic group commissioned by the Department is collating examples of effective multi agency protocols for information sharing, in order to produce guidance on minimum standards for all multi agency public protection panels (MAPPPs). The draft strategy is likely to include guidance to mental health trusts for a requirement that senior clinicians sit on MAPPPs. A draft strategy will be available for consultation in October 2002.
  1103W
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that chartered psychologists are able to make a leading contribution to(a) the development of services for personality disordered offenders and (b) future revisions of mental health legislation. [59014]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department conducts regular meetings with key stakeholders like the British Psychological Society who will continue to be involved at key stages of the development of policy in this area.

  Included in the expert group commissioned by the Department to produce a strategy on services for people with personality disorder (PD), are four chartered psychologists. This will ensure that psychologists can take a leading role in development of the strategy.

  Oral Tobacco Products
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to introduce legislation to ban the import of oral tobacco products. [58901]

  Ms Blears
  The sale of oral tobacco products with the exception of chewing tobacco and tobacco intended to be smoked is already banned in the UK. Because of this there has not been a need to ban imports of these products.

  Since 1992 it has been illegal to place tobacco for oral use on the market in this country. A Community-wide ban was put in place in the 1992 Council Directive 92/41/EEC, and became part of UK law under the Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992 (SI 3134). The Europe-wide ban was renewed in 2001 in European Union Directive 2001/37/EC.

  The Government are committed to reducing all forms of tobacco use, and have introduced a comprehensive programme of action to address both the supply and the demand of tobacco products.

  Work-related Illness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many claims for work-related illness were settled by his Department in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was in compensation. [56075]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: There were two successful claims at employment tribunals, against the Department, linked to work-related illness during the year April 2001 to March 2002.

  The total compensation paid was £88,500.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many days of sick leave were taken by employees in his Department in the last year for which records are available; what proportion of those were due to work-related illness or injury; and what the cost was to the Department. [56077]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The latest annual report published by the Cabinet Office, "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service—2000", shows that, in 2000, the Department's unadjusted average working day absence per staff year was 5.5, down from 6.6 in 1999. Figures for 2001 or later years are not yet published.
  1104W
  While the Department collects data on sickness absence, which includes work related illness or injury, it is not possible to identify if the cause was work related. It is not possible, therefore, to identify these costs.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many employees of his Department retired through work-related ill-health in the last year for which records are available; and what the cost was to the Department. [56076]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: Records are not maintained by the Department which enable ill health retirements to be separately identified as work related. For the Department the number of staff retired with a medical retirement certificate issued by the civil service pension scheme medical adviser for the period 1 April 2001–30 April 2002 was six.

  As to the matter of costs, expenditure for medical retirement is not met by the employing Departments but centrally funded from the Civil Superannuation Vote.

  GP Exercise Referrals
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funding is allocated for general practitioner exercise referrals in the financial year 2002–03; [58318]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the GP exercise referral schemes; [58311]

  (3) what he is doing to promote GP exercise referral schemes; [58313]

  (4) what research he has commissioned into general practitioner exercise referrals; [58316]

  (5) how many general practitioner exercise referral schemes exist; [58315]

  (6) how many patients have been the subject of GP exercise referrals. [58317]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: The national quality assurance framework on exercise referral systems, published last year, aims to improve the quality of existing referral schemes and help the development of new ones. The guidelines were also promoted at two regional seminars for primary care and leisure services. The Department does not keep a national register of practices which offer these schemes, or the number of participants. These details are held locally by primary care trusts (PCTs) or local authorities.

  The Department does not organise and centrally fund such schemes. It is up to PCTs, in conjunction with local authorities, to determine whether an exercise referral scheme fits with their broader plans for promoting physical activity.

  The Department has funded two reviews by the former health education authority that documented progress and effectiveness of exercise referral schemes. The research showed that better designed referral schemes can lead to small levels of increased participation in activity, but that practice across the country was highly variable. There is on-going research of £1.1 million via the health technology assessment programme, including two projects looking at exercise referral schemes.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he expects to meet his target on mixed-sex wards by December. [58299]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: We remain confident that the target of eliminating mixed-sex accommodation in 95 per cent. of trusts by the end of the year is achievable.

  Ongoing monitoring of the progress of the project continues and indicates that progress towards the targets is being maintained. National health service trusts are working hard to ensure that this remains so.

  Additional professional and technical support is being made available to those who are finding meeting the targets particularly challenging.

  Managing Information
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is part of the job of the director of finance of the NHS Executive to ensure that up-to-date management information is made available to the Executive routinely and to Ministers on request. [58296]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: The director of finance for the Department is responsible for ensuring that Ministers and the departmental board are provided with relevant and up-to-date financial management information.

  NHS Executive (Finance Director)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the name and salary is of the finance director of the NHS Executive. [58303]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: The Department's finance director is Richard Douglas. His salary is £105,000 per annum.

  Nurses Agencies Regulations
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for the nurses agencies regulations upon which he has been consulting. [58319]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: In order to allow agencies sufficient time to prepare for implementation, the commencement of regulation by the national care standards commission for nurses agencies will be 1 September 2002.

  Final versions of the regulations and national minimum standards will be published shortly.

  Parliamentary Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) names and (b) responsibilities are of parliamentary advisers appointed to serve his Department. [56981]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

  Trust Directors
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many executive directors of NHS trusts were(a) made redundant and (b) retired early in 2001–02 as a result of reorganisations and mergers of NHS trusts; and what the total cost of the financial packages was, including redundancy payments and pension arrangements. [56499]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: Accounts information for 2001–02 will normally be available once validation checks have been completed by the Department in November 2002.

  The accounts will include costs incurred as a result of redundancy or early retirement including associated pension costs. However, the accounts will not separately identify the numbers or the total cost of financial packages for executive directors who were made redundant or who retired early as a result of reorganisations and mergers of national health service trusts.

  Casualty Units
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001 to be seen by a doctor for treatment in casualty. [57526]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: Information regarding average waiting times to see a doctor for treatment in accident and emergency (A&E) is not collected centrally.

  From August 2001, data on total time in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge has been collected.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many casualty units have been modernised since 1997. [57525]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: The accident and emergency (A&E) modernisation programme was launched in 1998. A total of £150 million has been invested enabling 180 A&E departments to be modernised.

  Sun Protection Cream
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) 24 April,Official Report, column 68W, on sun protection cream, how many hits the website www.doh.gov.uk/sunsafe has had since it was launched; and how much funding his Department has given to the National Radiological Protection Board this year to raise awareness of the general public of the dangers of skin cancer. [59578]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The sunsafe pages of the Department's website had 54,790 hits' between 14 March and 22 May 2002. The Department provides core funding for the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), but it is a matter for NRPB to determine what resources are devoted to raising awareness of the dangers of skin cancer.

  1hits are the total number of requests made on the server during the time period specified, but does not include images.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on clinical negligence claims faced by the NHS; and how many claims there have been in each year since 1995. [58209]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: The Department does not hold figures for all clinical negligence claims made against the national health service.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of medical negligence the NHS Litigation Authority is(a) investigating and (b) defending against compensation claims brought against health authorities by former patients. [59569]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The national health service litigation authority is currently handling 1,929 clinical negligence cases brought against health authorities. All of these claims are defended until they are settled or successfully repudiated and it is not possible to show which of these are being investigated.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the proposed White Paper on clinical negligence indicated in the Department of Health's response to the Kennedy report published in January. [58999]

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the White Paper on clinical negligence Reform. [59566]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: In July 2001 the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) was asked to set up an advisory group to look at the reform of clinical negligence in the national health service. It has not yet been possible to publish proposals for reform, because of the complexity of the issues raised by potential reforms, the need to consult widely (including through the Lord Chancellor's Department on how compensation is paid) and also to consider how potential proposals sit alongside a concurrent review of the NHS complaints procedure. Nevertheless, the CMO has now held the last of his advisory group meetings and will shortly publish the findings along with recommendations for reform.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated net value of outstanding clinical negligence claims against the NHS in England was at 31 March 2000. [59000]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The estimated net value of outstanding clinical negligence claims against the national health service in England at 31 March 2000, as reported in the NHS Summarised Accounts for 1999–2000 was £2.6 billion.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost to the NHS is of providing a patient with(a) a hearing test and (b) a digital hearing aid; and if he will make a statement. [49961]

  Jacqui Smith
  Some hearing tests are undertaken in audiological medicine out-patient clinics. The national average cost for a first attendance at these clinics in the financial year 2000–01 was £123, while the national average cost for a follow up attendance was £98. The 1108W
  fitting of hearing aids (which might include a hearing test along with counselling) in the same period cost £171 per person. The average cost to the national health service of a digital hearing aid in that period was £276. Since then the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency has been able to negotiate with several providers to reduce the average cost of those digital aids to £159. An NHS digital hearing aid negotiating team, chaired by James Strachan, Chief Executive of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, is leading further negotiations to achieve the best possible digital hearing aid price and contract.

  Repair and Maintenance
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money budgeted for repair and maintenance was not spent(a) in each NHS region and (b) in England, in the most recent year for which figures are available, indicating how much was attributable to (i) fire safety and (ii) other safety costs. [53400]

  Ms Blears
  Money for repair and maintenance is currently derived from block capital allocations provided annually to each national health service trust. The amount budgeted and spent on each element is then determined by each NHS trust. In addition, the major capital investment programme set out in the NHS Plan is making a significant contribution to improving the quality of the NHS estate. Figures are not collected centrally on the amount of block capital sums budgeted and expended against repair and maintenance by each NHS trust.

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of hours worked per week by general practitioners is. [56911]

  Mr. Hutton
  We do not collect actual hours worked by general practitioners, however we do collect contractual commitments i.e. full time, three quarter time, job share and half time. This information is available in table 3 and 4 of the Statistical Bulletin 'Statistics for General Medical Practitioners in England: 1991–2001' copies of which are available in the Library.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 631W, whether the findings of the Department's policy research programme and the health technology assessment programme will play a part in the criteria in allocating extra GP golden hello funding for local PCTs. [59556]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The current list of under-doctored primary care trusts eligible for additional payments under the national health service general practitioner golden hello scheme is based on general medical services census data and comprises the lower 50 per cent. of primary care trusts assessed on the basis of the number of general practitioners per 100,000 weighted head of population.

  We have undertaken to review the list of under-doctored primary care trusts periodically but do not propose to depart from using census data as the basis for the list.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what evidence he received of drug trials often not being carried out on older patients so drugs would not be designed to meet their needs, as published on page 6 of the NSF for Older People Interim report on Age Discrimination; and if he will place the evidence in the Library; [58852]

  (2) what evidence he received of age discrimination in staffing ratios, as set out on page 6 of the NSF for Older People Interim report on Age Discrimination; and if he will place the evidence in the Library; [58853]

  (3) if he will set out the evidence found of areas and services considered to be affected by implicit age discrimination, as set out in table 4, page 7 of the NSF for Older People Interim report on Age Discrimination; [58856]

  (4) if he will set out the evidence found of council policies identified in audits that could be age discriminatory, as set out in table 3, page 7 of the NSF for Older People Interim report on Age Discrimination; [58855]

  (5) what information he collects and monitors regarding Standard 1 of the NSF for Older People as set out in the NSF for Older People Interim report on Age Discrimination, page 10, paragraph 27. [58851]

  Jacqui Smith
  Monitoring of the milestones in standard one of the national service framework began with the October 2001 milestone, reported on in an interim report published in April 2002. As part of the monitoring of written age related policies the older people's local implementation teams (LITs) were asked to give examples of any issues of concern in relation to implicit or wider age discrimination that arose during their local scrutiny. All the issues in the questions were reported by various LITs as having being discussed as issues of potential concern. Monitoring information on the progress against the April 2002 milestone will be available in the summer.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further work his Department is undertaking to ensure that he receives greater detail about individual policy age discrimination, as set out in paragraph 13, page 6 of the NSF for Older People Interim report on Age Discrimination. [58854]

  Jacqui Smith
  The are no plans to collect more detailed information at a national level. A report of the local audit of written policies and the local plans to address any individual age discriminatory policies found are to be reported within the next published annual reports of local organisations.

  Victoria Climbie Inquiry
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Lord Laming will respond to the Victoria Climbie inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [58847]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Victoria Climbie inquiry, of which Lord Laming is the chair, is expected to report later this year. The Government will consider the inquiry's recommendations very carefully before responding to them.

  Fair Access to Care Services Guidance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the Fair Access to Care Services guidance. [58845]

  Jacqui Smith
  The guidance was published on 28 May 2002 under cover of a local authority circular, LAC(2002)13. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sudden unexpected deaths from epilepsy there were in(a) Blackpool, (b) the north-west and (c) the UK in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [58834]

  Jacqui Smith
  The figures for the number of deaths from epilepsy are as follows.

  England and Wales

  North-west1

  Blackpool

  1996

  836

  134

  Nil

  1997

  824

  126

  2

  1998

  848

  150

  4

  1999

  870

  141

  2

  2000

  850

  112

  3

  1 North-west Government office region

  Note

  "Sudden Epileptic Death" was defined as a death where the underlying cause was epilepsy and where "sudden death" appeared in the cause of death text when it was certified.

  Source

  Office for National Statistics

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what facilities and support are available to epilepsy sufferers and their families in the Blackpool area. [58835]

  Jacqui Smith
  An out-patient service which is based at the neurology department of the Blackpool Victoria Hospital is available to residents in the Blackpool area and surrounding locality. Those patients requiring more specialist assessments and treatment are referred to the Royal Preston Hospital which provides the specialist service for epilepsy sufferers across Lancashire and South Cumbria. This is a clinic-based service under the direction of two consultant neurologists. A specialist nurse is also available who can provide follow up support to patients and families as appropriate. Where necessary patients can also be referred to the David Lewis Centre in Cheshire which provides a specialist centre for assessing and managing severe or complex epilepsy.

  Accommodation Centres
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the proposed accommodation centres will be required to register with the Care Standards Commission. [59183]

  Jacqui Smith
  No.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if children in accommodation centres will have access to local child and adolescent mental health services. [59182]
  1111W
  Jacqui Smith
  Children in the proposed accommodation centres for asylum seekers will have the same access to local child and adolescent mental health services as other children.

  Foster Care
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children are in(a) public and (b) private foster care in each authority; and of those, what proportion are out-of-area placements. [58840]

  Jacqui Smith
  At 31 March 2001, there were 38,400 children being looked after by local councils in England, who were in foster care. Of these, 9,100 (or 24 per cent.) were in placements outside the boundaries of the council responsible for their care.

  The Department does not collect figures on the numbers of children in private foster care.

  Multiple Sclerosis Care
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are in place for the appointment of MS nurses. [59216]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are no formal central guidelines in place for the appointment of multiple sclerosis (MS) nurses. The development and funding of specialist nursing posts to treat specific conditions such as MS is for primary care trusts, in partnership with other local stakeholders, to determine.

  Health Service Circular HSC 2002–004 on the 'Cost effective provision of disease modifying therapies for people with multiple sclerosis' does, however, contain some guidance on the funding of MS nurses as they relate to that scheme.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects that the NICE guidelines on MS services will be issued. [59217]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence currently expects to issue its clinical guideline on multiple sclerosis services in June 2003.

  Communication Aids
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adults with physical disabilities have been supplied with communication aids by community equipment stores in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [59753]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ring-fence funding for communication aids within extra funds provided for community equipment. [59751]

  Jacqui Smith
  Additional funding for community equipment services has been, and will be, distributed through increased baseline allocations to health and social services in the years 2001–02 to 2003–04. Provision for improving funding for communication aids is part of those increased allocations and there are no plans to ring-fence it separately.

  Equipment Service
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the funding allocation to the Equipment Service has been spent on physical equipment. [59752]

  Jacqui Smith
  Additional funding for community equipment services has been, and will be, distributed through increased baseline allocations to health and social services in the years 2001–02 to 2003–04. Information about spend on physical equipment is not collected centrally.

  Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of establishing the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. [59870]

  Jacqui Smith
  Estimates of the cost of establishing the new health inspectorate will be made in preparing the required legislation.

  Legal Claims
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to address the issue of increasing legal claims against the NHS. [60016]

  Ms Blears
  In July 2001 the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) was asked to set up an advisory group to look at the reform of clinical negligence in the NHS. It has not yet been possible to publish proposals for reform, because of the complexity of the issues raised by potential reforms, the need to consult widely (including through the Lord Chancellor's Department on how compensation is paid) and also to consider how potential proposals sit alongside a concurrent review of the NHS complaints procedure. Nevertheless, the CMO has now held the last of his advisory group meetings and will shortly publish the findings along with recommendations for reform.

  Anti-TNF Therapy
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list each health authority area where anti-TNF therapy is(a) available and (b) unavailable; [414213]

  (2) what plans he has for increasing access to anti-TNF therapy. [41442]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answers 11 March 2002]: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is conducting an appraisal of anti-TNF treatments. Guidance was issued to the national health service on 22 March 2002.

  We do not hold information centrally about the current availability of these treatments.

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 18 April 2002,Official Report, column 1177W, what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of unpaid advisers who have assisted the work of his Department since June 1997 but are not included in the Cabinet Office's annual report "Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews 2000–01". [57037]
  1113W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: Ministers have not appointed unpaid advisers other than those accounted for in the list of task forces, reviews and other ad hoc advisory groups.

  However, a large number of outside experts provide their time and knowledge to the Department on an ad hoc basis as and when appropriate and without payment. I am grateful to all of them for their help which enriches the work of the Department. Information is not held centrally about such individual contributions.

  Midwives
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress to increase staff retention among midwives. [58189]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: The Department and the Royal College of Midwives are working closely to improve recruitment and retention by promoting flexible working, childcare, diversity and tackling harassment.

  Pay for midwives has increased by at least 26 per cent. Since 1997 and a new grading agreement has been introduced.

  The number of midwives (headcount) increased by 510 between September 2000 and September 2001. 2,000 more midwives are planned by 2006.

  Workforce development confederations are modelling the future maternity work force taking into account programmes such as Birthrate Plus.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the likely main incentives for attracting former midwives back into the profession. [59412]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The Return Journeys booklet is the result of an assessment of returners' needs and sets out the incentives for people to return to a career in midwifery, or other health care careers in the national health service. I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  The Improving Working Lives initiative is making return to the NHS more attractive.

  We are working with the Royal College of Midwives, local supervisory authorities for midwifery, heads of midwifery and workforce development confederations to improve the return journey for midwives.

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what selection criteria the contract to produce smallpox vaccine for the UK Government were awarded. [57377]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: Detailed confidential discussions were held with five major pharmaceutical companies who were known to have vaccine manufacturing capabilities either in the UK or in Europe. The key criterion for awarding the contract for smallpox vaccine was the ability to supply the quantity of vaccine of the preferred strain within the desired timescale.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a substantive reply will be given to Mrs. S. J. Havis's letter of 19 March, concerning child abuse deaths. [59226]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: A reply was sent on 20 May.

  School Nursing Service
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many qualified nurses are employed by the school nursing service in each PCT; [59419]

  (2) how many PCTs operate pupil drop-in surgeries by school nurses in primary schools; [59422]

  (3) what services to pupils are normally performed by the school nursing service; [59423]

  (4) what plans he has to expand the schools nursing service. [59420]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: Information is not collected centrally on the number of pupil drop-in surgeries run by school nurses, nor are numbers of nurses employed in the school health service collected separately from returns on the overall community nurse work force. Expansion of the school nursing service is a matter for primary care trusts, which are tasked with providing for the health care needs of their local population.

  Services to pupils normally provided by the school nursing service include supporting children and young people with medical needs in schools. Services are also designed to reduce health inequalities through programmes to improve and protect health such as sexual health and relationships, accident prevention, nutrition and physical activity, parenting, smoking cessation, and immunisation.

  Improving the health of children and young people and reducing inequalities are priorities for this Government. Additional work is being developed within the children's national service framework, national healthy schools standard and the teenage pregnancy unit.

  Biological Parents (Tracing Rights)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on enabling children conceived using donated sperm to trace their biological fathers. [59424]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: We have not yet taken a view on this matter. An open consultation continues until 1 July this year on the provision of information about donors. The consultation document asks, among other things, for views as to whether identifying information about future donors should be made available. Copies of the consultation document are in the Library.

  School Fruit
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 624W, on school fruit, what guidance

  1115W
  there is to ensure that his Department buys British when purchasing apples for the national school fruit scheme. [59557]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The Department contracts with various suppliers and distributors to supply fruit for the national school fruit scheme. In all of its procurements, the Department is obliged to secure value for money through competition and has to consider EC Procurement Directives; therefore, the Department is unable to insist upon only British products being purchased. We would, however, expect UK growers to be well placed to meet the challenge of supplying fruit for the scheme.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding has been allocated to each department within each NHS trust for NICE recommended treatments, drugs and technologies. [59559]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: We have not allocated earmarked funding for National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended treatments. However, national health service bodies have a statutory obligation to fund such treatments. General allocations to health authorities take account of the pressures on pay, prices and the cost of implementing NICE recommendations which they all face. Allocations have increased by at least 6 per cent. in real terms in 2002–03.

  Missed Appointments
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what methodology was used by his Department to quantify how much money it was costing the NHS from patients missing GP appointments each year. [59576]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: Information on missed general practitioner appointments is not collected by the Department which has consequently not published any estimates of costs.

  Locums
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to hospital trusts when negotiating for locum contracts for doctors and nurses with private agencies. [59441]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The Department is publishing a code of practice on the supply of temporary staffing shortly, which will support trusts in purchasing temporary staff from commercial and in-house providers of temporary staff.

  Commercial agencies are providing temporary staff to trusts through co-ordinated contracts, which include quality, risk and value for money criteria.

  NHS Consultants
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS consultants retired in each year since 1997. [59570]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The figures in the table show the number of consultants who received a pension award, from the National Health Service Pension Scheme, in each of the financial years
  1116W
  1997 to 2001. The figures include all types of retirement, including age, ill health, voluntary early, preserved pensions, and premature, which may be subject to retrospective adjustment following validation processes.

  Year

  Consultant Pension Awards

  1997

  415

  1998

  450

  1999

  400

  2000

  403

  2001

  497

  Total

  2,165

  Overseas Treatment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer on 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 626W, on overseas treatment, what the estimated number of patients for the next six months booked to receive overseas treatment was. [59558]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: No such information is held centrally. It is for local commissioners to decide, in the light of capacity constraints across their local health economies, and taking into account the different commissioning options available to them, whether or not to refer patients overseas for treatment.

  Fraud
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures are in place to encourage members of the public and NHS staff to report suspected incidents of fraud in the NHS. [59554]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: Since the formation of the National Health Service Counter Fraud Service (NHS CFS) in 1998, every health body is required in Secretary of State Directions to have a dedicated and accredited local counter fraud specialist (LCFS) who can be contacted by NHS staff to report any suspicion of fraud in the NHS. One of the many functions of the LCFS is to contribute to a wider change in public and staff attitudes towards fraud in the national health service, using a variety of measures to develop an anti-fraud culture.

  In addition, the NHS CFS has the Fraud and Corruption Reporting Line (FCRL), which is a secure channel for members of the public and NHS staff to report any suspicion of fraud in the NHS.

  A series of fraud awareness presentations (FAPs) has also been given to every health authority, NHS trust, primary care trust and local professional committee, to not only provide details of the work of the NHS CFS but how to report a suspicion of fraud through their LCFS, regional NHS CFS office or the FCRL.

  Over 600 of these presentations have been delivered to date and questionnaires completed by attendees reflect the development of an anti-fraud culture. The questionnaires have shown 99 per cent. of NHS staff are now clear about their role in countering fraud.

  The NHS CFS also has a series of counter-fraud charters signed with all of the professional associations, 113 patient groups and the Royal College of Nursing. The number of NHS staff and contractors covered by

  1117W
  counter-fraud charter agreements to work together to counter fraud is more than 400,000. Work continues to increase this number.

  These charters demonstrate the development of a real anti-fraud culture among those working within the NHS.

  Psychiatric Nurses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric nurses have been recruited to NHS mental health authorities in each year since 1997. [59572]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The national health service does not have mental health authorities. Information on overall numbers of psychiatry nurses is given by health authority. In 2001 there were 41,540 psychiatry nurses compared to 39,110 in 1997, an increase of 2,430 or 6 per cent.

  This information has been placed in the Library.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the new primary care trusts have a mental health specialist responsible for commissioning mental health services. [60568]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect information about the qualifications of staff involved following 'Shifting the Balance of Power' in commissioning mental health services. Primary care trusts (PCTs) will provide some services themselves; they will commission service from other providers, both local and non-local; and they will have collaborative arrangements with other PCTs for commissioning highly specialised services. PCTs are accountable to their strategic health authority (StHA) for discharging these functions effectively. In all cases, it will be important to work in partnership with existing stakeholders, pool expertise and ensure sufficient dedicated capacity to develop effective health needs assessments, and plan and secure effective service delivery. We believe that mental health local implementation teams offer a strong and stable platform to continue joint commissioning approaches to mental health service development.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recourse is available to people requiring particular mental health services at primary care level, when those services are not accessible(a) through their general practitioner and (b) within the area of their primary care trust. [60564]

  Jacqui Smith
  Most patients want the best treatment at a convenient place and service agreements will be designed to secure this. It is why we have embarked on a radical programme of modernisation to improve access, reduce unfair variation, raise standards, and provide quicker and more convenient services. Our programme of work includes a national service framework for the delivery of modern mental health and social services, and significant extra investment.

  Following 'Shifting the Balance of Power' primary care trusts (PCTs) are responsible for commissioning services for their populations. They are accountable to their strategic health authority (StHA) for discharging this function effectively. PCTs will provide some services themselves and will also commission service from other
  1118W
  providers, both local and non local. With regard to more specialised services that, by their very nature, are provided from relatively few providers, PCTs will increasingly have collaborative commissioning arrangements with other PCTs. This will enable them to pool expertise and ensure sufficient dedicated capacity to develop effective health needs assessments, and plan and secure delivery of services. In addition, there is the flexibility within the national health service of making referrals into the private sector if, in the judgment of clinicians and commissioners, an individual's needs warrant this, and the service is an appropriate one.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many primary care trusts have commissioned(a) counselling, (b) cognitive therapy, (c) psychotherapy, (d) complementary therapy and (e) exercise on prescription for people with mental health problems. [60566]

  Jacqui Smith
  Central records are not kept of commissioning by primary care trusts of the services listed. However, we are well aware that these approaches are of benefit in mental health promotion, and in the treatment of mental illness. Clinical decisions about their use for individual patients are taken locally in the context of national guidance, the evidence base, and the available resources. We have set out seven standards for the delivery of effective mental health services in the mental health national service framework. Standards one, two and three set out the action needed to ensure effective access to assessment and treatment in and through primary care. The Department published an evidence based clinical guideline 'Treatment Choice in Psychological Therapies and Counselling' to help guide referrers. 'Making it happen—A guide to delivering mental health promotion' was published by the Department later in 2001; it contains a section entitled Physical activity as treatment', and in March 2001 we published a response to the Lords inquiry on complementary medicine, welcoming the report's recommendations.

  Suicide
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources have been allocated for the public relations strategy to reduce suicide. [60532]

  Jacqui Smith
  We published a comprehensive, evidence-based strategy to prevent suicide for public consultation on 26 April 2002. We are currently developing a strategy to ensure that the final agreed national suicide prevention strategy, which we plan to launch in September 2002, is publicised effectively.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the Advisory Committee for the Transparency of Measures Governing the Pricing of Medicinal Products for Human Use 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. [55358]

  Ms Blears
  A consultative committee was established by Council Directive 89/105/EEC to implement the Directive, which relates to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use
  1119W
  and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems. Its task is to examine questions relating to the application of this Directive brought up by the Commission or at the request of a member state.

  The Committee last met in early 1999.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the advisory committee on the training of chemists 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. [56759]

  Ms Blears
  The advisory committee on pharmaceutical training (ACPT) is one of a group of committees set up to advise the European Commission and member states on matters relating to the training of workers whose professions come under sectoral directives guaranteeing free movement and automatic recognition of qualifications.

  The ACPT was set up by Council Decision 85/434/EEC. Its mandate is set down in Article 2, which states that:

  1. The task of the Committee shall be to help to ensure a comparably high standard of pharmaceutical training in the Community.

  2. It shall carry out this task, in particular, by the following means:

  exchange of comprehensive information as to the training methods and the content, level and structure of theoretical and practical courses provided in the member states,

  discussion and consultation with the object of developing a common approach to the standard to be attained in the training of pharmacists and, as appropriate, to the structure and content of such training,

  keeping under review the adaptation of the pharmaceutical training to developments in pharmaceutical science and teaching methods.

  3. The Committee shall communicate to the Commission and the member states its opinions and recommendations including, when it considers it appropriate, suggestions for amendments to be made to the articles relating to pharmaceutical training in Council Directives 85/432/EEC and 85/433/EEC.

  4. The Committee shall also advise the Commission on any other matter which the Commission may refer to it in relation to pharmaceutical training.

  Each advisory committee has three experts from each member state—one each from the practising profession, the education establishments and the competent authorities concerned. Three alternates are also appointed. Members and alternates are nominated by Ministers, following consultation with the relevant professional bodies.

  The advisory committee members' expenses fall to be paid by the Commission (or on occasion by the professions concerned). There is thus no direct charge to public funds.

  Member states are currently considering Commission proposals for streamlining the directives and processes relating to free movement of professionals. None of the advisory committees has met during the last 12 months; and none of them has any items under consideration.
  1120W
  In April this year, the issues arising from the Commission's proposals for the future of professional recognition were submitted to the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees (Explanatory Memorandum No. 7239/02— COM(2002)119 final),

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the Committee on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provision of the member states concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products 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. [57480]

  Ms Blears
  Under EU Directive 2001/37/EC on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products, provision is made for a Committee to be set up to assist the European Commission in developing and updating the provisions of the Directive. The Committee is currently in the process of being set up and its first meeting is anticipated to take place before the end of this year. The United Kingdom will be represented by one expert, and the costs associated with it are not yet known. The work programme of the Committee has not been confirmed but is likely to build on Article 11 of the Directive, which highlights a number of areas which should be reviewed or developed in the light of developments in scientific and technical knowledge.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the Committee on the Community action programme on injury prevention 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. [57475]

  Ms Blears
  Committee was established under Article 5 of the Decision 372/I999/EC, adopting a programme of community action on injury prevention in the framework for action in the field of public health, to assist the Commission in implementing the programme.

  The committee met twice in the last twelve months, on 20 June 2001, and 18 December 2001, when it was formally disbanded.

  The UK was generally represented by two officials from the Department and the Department for Trade and Industry. Three officials attended the June meeting.

  The travel costs are reimbursed by the commission for two delegates at each meeting. Therefore the cost to public funds was overnight subsistence for all the delegates, in accordance with the policy of individual Departments, and one return airfare to Luxembourg. A record of the individual costs to each Department is not centrally held.

  There are currently no items under consideration of the committee, as it was disbanded in December 2001.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line

  1121W
  with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

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

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the Committee for the implementation of the Community action programme on health promotion, information, education and training 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. [57477]

  Ms Blears
  The European Union Committee for the implementation of the Community action programme on health promotion, information, education and training was mandated under Article 5 of Decision 645/96/EC of the European Parliament and the Council. 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 twice in the last year, in May 2001 and February 2002. One UK official from the Department attended on each occasion.
  1122W
  Travel and subsistence claims paid from public funds were £346. The commission reimbursed international airfare costs.

  Details about the committee, the programme and funded projects can be found on Europa, the EU online website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/index en.html.

  Genetic Information
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government will introduce legislation for the protection of personal genetic information before members of the public are asked to donate blood samples to Biobank UK. [55631]

  Ms Blears
  The United Kingdom's Biobank will conform to all relevant ethical and legal guidelines regarding consent, confidentiality and use of human tissue, biological samples and genetic information. Also, as recommended in the report on research databases published recently by the human genetics commission ("Inside Information—balancing interests in the use of personal genetic information"), governance of the UK Biobank will be overseen by an independent body that is separate from its owners and users. The Government do not currently intend to introduce further safeguards for the protection of personal genetic information before members of the public are asked to donate blood samples to the UK Biobank.

  Retained Organs Commission
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed in the Retained Organs Commission at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients. [56856]

  Ms Blears
  The retained organs commission employed 19 full or part-time staff (a total of 17.2 whole-time equivalent staff) at 1 April 2002. None of these staff has clinical contact with national health service patients.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers Readby the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to make an official visit to Northern Ireland on Monday 17th June, when the House will sit. Accordingly, 1 trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Asylum Seekers: Language Testing
2.36 p.m.
Lord Quirkasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their assessment so far of experiments with language testing to expose false claims by asylum seekers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, the language analysis pilot started in November 2001 and is still under way. It is too early for us to make any assessment as to the value of language analysis within the asylum decision-making process until all the pilot cases have been decided and have been heard at appeal. We envisage undertaking a full evaluation of the outcome of the pilot during the first half of next year.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, placing people on the basis of their accent is more parlour game than forensic science. Therefore, I welcome the Minister's note of caution. Is it not the case that, in Sweden, where such
2
tests have been in use for some years, despite the strong opposition of academic linguists, numbers of asylum seekers have been, in consequence, deported to the wrong country? Will the Minister bear in mind that, in "My Fair Lady", Eliza.'s accent persuaded the rival phonetician that she was in fact from Hungary?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall not for one second set myself up as Professor Higgins. The noble Lord is right: the Government believe that there is a need to identify a range of measures where the nationality claimed is doubtful. Language analysis is just one of a number of such measures. Language testing has been undertaken in four other European countries for some time—namely, in Sweden, Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands—and has generally been found to be a helpful source of further information. I am certain that immigration appeal processes will use the evidence from language assessments as part of a balanced judgment; and all such decisions will be tested when and if asylum claimants take them to appeal.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to his new post at the Home Office. Perhaps I may say how sad we are to lose the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, whose robust approach we always welcomed.
According to the Government's own figures, more than £2·1 billion is contributed by migrant workers in this country. Would it not be a good thing to make a formal policy decision to allow migrant workers to take paid employment and to depend less on claims on the state?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government's White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, published in January, made clear that, as part of our approach to immigration, we wanted a balanced policy which made it possible for people who wished to work in this country to do so if they met skills shortages which we could not in the short term fulfil. That was very much part of the Government's policy. We shall seek to ensure, on the one hand, that migrant workers who can meet skills needs are welcomed, and, on the other, that

3
asylum seekers who have genuine claims will continue as always to he recognized—while, of course, resisting those who claim asylum when they are but economic migrants.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as foreigners often speak more correctly in English than we British do, might a relevant test be one of rhyming slang? For example, people could be asked how much of their journey had been made on their "plates of meat".
Lord Filkin: My Lords, asking people to complete limericks from their own country might be taking matters a little too far. More seriously, the discussions that take place in language tests—not English language tests but language tests in their own language—seek to put the person at his or her ease and to refer to their own experience and culture. They may refer, for example, to what it was like attending a village wedding in the area. So the test is a fair one rather than one that seeks any knowledge of cultures other than the one where people claim residence.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, what progress is being made throughout the European Union to make mandatory the taking of finger-prints of those who are making asylum applications—the better to guard against bogus applications using a whole string of aliases?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, we have introduced the mandatory finger-printing of all asylum claimants in Britain, including other biometric data that make it possible to be clearer who the person is, so that if the asylum claim is unfounded he or she can be properly removed at the end of the appeal process. Discussions are going on with our European colleagues to look at raising the minimum standards of reception and identification to try to ensure a level playing field in terms of processes for assessing, vetting and accommodating asylum claims across the European Union. I am not certain whether mandatory fingerprinting is part of that, but I shall look into the matter and write to my noble friend accordingly.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to tell your Lordships what initiatives the Government are planning for Refugee Week, which begins next Monday, to highlight the enormous contribution that has been made by refugees to this country's national life and prosperity?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, many of your Lordships are aware of the contribution that refugees have made to this country over the centuries. The Huguenots come to mind as one example, although there are many other much more high profile cases from the last century. The Government's position on legitimate refugees could not be clearer. We recognise the contribution that they have made and are committed to trying to ensure that genuine refugees who seek refuge here will find one. On the other hand, we do not accept as
4
refugees people who are not such, but are economic migrants. I am interested to hear of the celebration of the contribution that refugees have made. I am sure that the Government endorse that warmly.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is very difficult to deal properly and generously, as we would wish to do, with refugees and genuine asylum seekers at the same time as the country is suffering from too many fraudulent asylum seekers or, as the Minister has said, economic migrants who have no real reason for coming here apart from the fact that they think it would be rather enjoyable to be here?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in broad terms, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right. The substantial increase in asylum applications over the past 10 years—far greater than any previous experience, apart from during particular times of crisis—has made it more difficult to identify those with a genuine claim. Ensuring that we do so is a challenge to government and we cannot resile from that. It does not allow us to stand back and fail to treat all claims as seriously as possible and investigate them carefully. However, it clearly adds to the cost of the process and the time taken. The Government have to face up to that. It is clearly not possible or realistic to welcome everyone and have an open doors policy, although we recognise the human urge to improve oneself that drives many economic migrants. The other point is the serious criminal activity that underpins the problem.

Carers
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, on the first day of National Carers Week, I declare an interest as vice-president of Carers UK.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report recently published by Carers UK Without Us? which updates the figures showing the sums saved for the United Kingdom by carers from £34 billion to £57 billion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government recognise the enormous contribution that carers make to society. We will continue to support carers in health and social care through the National Carers Strategy, with improved information, better support and better care for carers.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I am happy to acknowledge the progress that has been made for carers through the clear commitment of this Government. However, a new survey published today by Carers UK shows that as well as saving the nation money by the caring that they do, carers are also drivers for social change: they set up services, they take part endlessly in consultations and they advise local

5
authorities and local health services. In view of that, will the Government consider issuing clear guidance, such as that issued about the carer's grant, urging local authorities to follow good practice in consultation, recognising the time and costs incurred by carers?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly recognise the importance of carers having a full role to play in consultative processes undertaken by health and local authorities. I am happy to commend good practice in that area to the NHS and local government. It is one thing to say that we need carers to be involved in consultation, but it is important that we provide the conditions under which they can make a full contribution.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the closure of a number of care homes result in a need for even more carers in the personal home? If so, will that great additional cost be borne by families or by social services? What help does the Minister think that the National Health Service or the Government will be able to provide?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the reduction in the number of nursing home beds in the past few years should be seen in the context of more support in the community—which has resulted in some people who would have entered nursing homes in the past not doing so—and of the impact of the intermediate care packages. Of course we are looking carefully at the situation in the nursing home sector. Our expectation is that in those areas where fees have been inadequate, the increased resources for local authorities in the next spending review will feed through into the fees structure. We have encouraged local authorities to work with home owners to reach a more general understanding of the circumstances in which nursing homes operate and ensure that local authorities take those into account when they make their decisions about fees at local level.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind the considerable contribution in this sphere made by young people in the family? Will he assure us that the Government will at all times have as a priority support for those young people, who, at considerable self-sacrifice, do so much to support their own families and the nation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend. The estimates that I have suggest that there are between 20,000 and 50,000 young carers in this country. Those are people under 18 who have caring responsibilities for another family member who is unwell or disabled. The Quality Protects programme is part of our strategy to help young carers. Connexions, the new youth support service for 13 to 19 year-olds, will also have an important role to play in helping to identify and provide support to such carers.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, the Association of Directors of Social Services recently reported that fewer than one in five local authorities has found sufficient resources to implement the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000. With that in mind, will the Minister say whether
6
the money allocated to social care in this year's Budget was a forward announcement of the Comprehensive Spending Review?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the announcement of 6 per cent real-terms growth in relation to the spending review was for a three-year period starting with the next financial year. I believe that that is a very high level of real-terms growth for local authority social services departments. We expect them to spend that extra resource wisely and effectively, and that some of that resource will go towards supporting carers.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, do the Government accept that there is already a shortage of 25,000 residential places in this country and that that number is bound to increase as the present number of carers reduces in line with the demographic trend? If so, will the Government insist that their excellent guidelines for the creation and promotion of village communities, particularly for the mentally handicapped, are respected at local level in future and not flouted as they have been so consistently for many years?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on Wednesday there is to be a debate in your Lordships' House on that very subject and I am sure that those points will be very fully covered. As I said, although there has been a reduction in the number of residential care places, the reduction has not been as great as has often been reported. The figures quoted also very often ignore the fact that, although there have been closures, new homes have opened. I recognise that the residential care sector is under pressure in some parts of the country. That is why the additional resource for local authorities and the concordat between care home owners and local government are so important in addressing those issues.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that employers should be made aware of the capabilities that carers bring not only to caring but to other aspects of their membership of the community? I do not think that that fact is often recognised when it comes to recruitment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend and think that there are some important lessons there for the NHS as an employer.

Island Site East of Westminster Bridge
2.52 p.m.
Lord Rentonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they can take with regard to the unused building on the island site east of Westminster Bridge, which used to be occupied by the Greater London Council.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the short Answer to the Question is, very little. The Government are unable directly to take action to secure the reuse of this

7
site. There is an application for redevelopment of the site currently with the local planning authority, Lambeth Council, following refusal of earlier schemes. I cannot comment on the proposals as they might be the subject of an appeal to the Secretary of State were they to be refused.
Lord Renton: My Lords, while welcoming the noble Lord to his new appointment and thanking him for his Answer as far as it goes, may I ask him to bear in mind that it is in the national interest that this unusable eyesore and architectural monstrosity should be demolished? There are two reasons for this. First, the building spoils the appearance of an historic part of London. Secondly, three highways converge at the site, each bearing a large amount of traffic, and traffic does not move freely because of the space taken up by that monstrosity.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as my learned friends have already been on at me about commenting on planning applications, I have to be careful about this. I can, however, comment freely on the traffic situation. I think that traffic management round the site is absolutely appalling. However, that matter is solely under the control of the Mayor and not the control of my department or the Government. We take the view that, in principle, it is best not to demolish sites until there is agreement on what should replace them. There is no prospect of demolishing this site and simply replacing it with a traffic island, as I think the Question suggests. As I said, Lambeth Council is considering a planning application. I understand that, in July, it will make a decision on the future of both the island and the accompanying former hospital site.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this site at Westminster is not the only one in London which deserves to be looked at by his ministry? I wonder whether he could get the Government to cease advocating, or at least try to persuade Mr Livingstone to cease advocating, what are absurdly called "traffic calming measures". My own experience of driving in London for 47 years now is that it has never been worse than it is at present. The traffic calming measures do not calm the traffic and they certainly do not calm the drivers. They seem designed to produce the maximum disruption in the minimum time. While I entirely appreciate the division of responsibility between my noble friend's ministry and the Greater London Authority, I wonder whether the Government could perhaps be a little more forthright about it.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the idea behind the changes made a fortnight ago was to separate transport from housing and planning. As there is now a separate Department for Transport, the issue is not between the London authority and my department. One of my noble friends will be answering questions on transport—which is something that I shall not do.
Lord Elton: My Lords, leaving aside the indivisibility of government responsibility for questions, is the Minister aware that, according to my noble friend Lord Plummer, who was in charge when the eyesore was put up, there is under the eyesore an extremely useful and very important underpass? Can the Minister tell us whether plans are being made to open it at each end so that it fulfils its intended purpose?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot comment on the detail or general principle of applications currently before the planning authorities. The authorities will decide this application in July and I do not know whether the decision will be yes or no. However, it would be wrong for me to comment on any of the detail. The planning application is a matter of public knowledge and everyone can see the details submitted by the developers. There is therefore nothing for me to add to what is already before the council.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, regardless of whether noble Lords feel calmed by the traffic management measures or offended by the site/sight, the matter is devolved both to the borough and to London government? The Conservatives seem to think that that should not be the case. Does the Minister agree that the time to have dealt with that matter was when what was left of the GLC was transferred to the London Residuary Body?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness is perfectly right. It is not as though there have not been ideas for use of the site—which was used by the GLC until 1986. Between 1987 and 1991, two sets of planning permissions were granted in relation to the site. In 1998, planning applications were issued but did not come to fruition. As I understand it, the current situation is the result of variations and reviews. One year ago there was a refusal after the Mayor instructed the council not to approve an application. That matter is being appealed but is in abeyance because of the current application—which was made only this March. The site has long been empty and is an asset to London. The matter should he dealt with as quickly as possible.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his new role. Is he aware that the new glass building being constructed for the Greater London Authority is reported to be far too small for the authority's purposes? Does he believe that that may be a result of the GLA following its predecessors' bureaucratic tendencies in increasing its membership?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is news to me that the glass building is on the island site to the east of Westminster Bridge.
Lord Renton: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we must get on; otherwise, it is not fair to the Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft.

Hunting with Dogs
3 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In asking this Question, I declare an interest as a board member of the Countryside Alliance.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they intend to take the views of Members of the House into account during the consultation process on hunting with dogs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, my right honourable friend Alun Michael, the Minister for Rural Affairs, will give due consideration to all views given by your Lordships in response to his letters of 10th April and 31st May seeking their views on the key principles of cruelty and utility in respect of hunting with dogs.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his Answer. Did he take on board the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench at the time he repeated the Statement announcing the consultation some two months ago that, in order to have any integrity at all, the consultation ought to be fair, open and transparent? Exactly what measures will the Government take to ensure that the consultation process and its conclusions are transparent and open so that the people who are affected by it—who at the moment, as the noble Lord will know well, are extremely angry and frustrated by the process—can have at least some feeling that the process has had the integrity and openness that it needs to have?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I always, of course, give due weight to the views of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who guides us all. The process is eminently open. The letter was sent to all organisations involved in hunting. Anyone else was entitled to contribute. We received 7,000 replies to the first stage of the consultation, including 30 or so individual replies from Members of your Lordships' House. They will be taken into consideration. My right honourable friend has written a further letter with some more detailed questions on cruelty and utility. Anyone can reply to that letter. As the noble Lord will know, my right honourable friend has also had a number of consultations with the main organisations involved on all sides of the argument.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was extremely impressed by the detailed nature of the letter of inquiry sent out by Alun Michael? I urge noble Lords to read it and to respond to it. However, as the Question asks how the Government will take into account the views of the Members of this House, will they also continue to take into account the views of
10
another place whose Members, unlike Members of this House, have to put their opinions on the line at general elections?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at this stage of the consultation Members of another place have exactly the same rights as Members of this House. However, of course, subsequent to that, any proposals which emerge at the end of the consultation process will proceed through the parliamentary process as announced by my right honourable friend when he announced the consultation.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that his ministerial colleague has sent out yet another letter in which he asks for evidence and proof. He emphasises the word "proof" several times. Will the noble Lord help me and other noble Lords by giving some examples of what is meant by proof; for example, proof of utility or non-utility or proof of cruelty or non-cruelty? How is that to be defined?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the point my right honourable friend makes is that the whole issue has been subject to a high degree of emotion and generalisation on all sides. He points out that, if people claim that utility should override issues of cruelty, or that cruelty is non-proven, they should indicate on what basis they are making those assertions. Likewise, those who argue the opposite case should indicate the basis for their assertions. If the noble Lord studies the letter in detail, he will identify where the appropriate proof and appropriate basis of fact are required to enable us to make a rather calmer assessment of the situation than is sometimes the case in your Lordships' House and elsewhere.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, will the Minister give us a guarantee that these issues will be decided on their merits and not on the basis of a political sacrifice to bored Back-Benchers in the other place?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the whole point of the process is that the merits will be considered and that both this House and another place will be able to consider the outcome. The final decision will be taken as described in the original Statement in another place, and this House will have the opportunity to consider the outcome. If there is still deadlock, as we have outlined the Government will be prepared to contemplate the use of the Parliament Act. That is not an indication of playing games; it is an indication that the issue needs to be resolved within the Palace of Westminster.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Burns report recommended that further research into a number of issues be taken forward by the Government. Has the Minister's department instigated any research projects? Furthermore, does the Minister agree with the Burns report that any legislation should cover England and Wales as a whole and that there should be no regional variations?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have taken into account the views of the Burns report as a starting point for

11
discussions. Further research on the social and economic implications of the matter has been carried out. However, the Burns report is not the final stance on the matter. One of the reasons that we seek further evidence is in order to establish whether there are differential areas of application and whether different views may be taken in different parts of the country. That must be part of the total consideration without prejudice to the final outcome.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, immediately after the House has dispensed with the Chairman of Committee's Motion that the sixth report from the House of Lords' Offices Committee be agreed to, my noble friend Lady Amos will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on India and Pakistan. It is assumed that that will take place after 3.30 p.m. when discussion has been concluded on the sixth report from the Offices Committee. However, should that discussion take place with phenomenal speed, the Statement will be repeated at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m.

Select Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, not wishing to encourage phenomenal speed, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Grocott be appointed a member of the following committees, in the place of the Lord Carter: Selection, House of Lords' Offices, Privileges and Procedure of the House.—( The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Grocott be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Fifth Report
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
12
Noble Lords will have received copies of the Offices Committee report to which is attached a copy of the working group report which had already been circulated to Members on all sides of the House in mid-February. In moving the Motion, I give my personal thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell, Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Sharman, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. I also thank my private secretary, Dr Christopher Johnson, who did all the really hard work in drafting the report which has received considerable acclaim.
I should also like to thank Members of both Houses and members of staff who gave us the benefit of their wisdom. The Offices Committee has since had two further opportunities to discuss the working group report and finally agreed its recommendations on 14th May. Noble Lords are now being asked to agree to the report, with the recommendations contained on pages 3 to 5 of that report. Members may wish to refer to the working group report but I make it clear that they are not being asked to agree to all of the recommendations in the working group report.
The problem with which we were faced is outlined in paragraphs 10 to 20 of the working group report. To summarise, we believe that there is failure of leadership in the House because the Offices Committee as it presently stands is too large and unwieldy. Most of its responsibilities are delegated to sub-committees. The domestic committee structure is confusing and Members, particularly Back-Bench Members, have little opportunity to influence the decisions that are taken. There is no one from the House to take a real grip on management and services or to take a long-term strategic view of the needs of the House or how best to meet them.
The central objective of the new committee is defined as follows:
"that the House as a whole should 'own' the strategy governing the provision of services and domestic management".
In a time of change, the domestic committees and the administration have to look to the future and they have much to do. Instead of an Offices Committee of 28 members meeting only occasionally, we recommend that there should be a smaller committee, called the House Committee, which would be 11 strong, meet regularly and build up its own expertise. The working group recommended that there should be nine members. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, argued that the smaller the committee was, the better.
Baroness Boothroyd: Hear, hear.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. However, even 11 members is a lot better than 28; that is what noble Lords are being asked to agree to.
The House Committee would not only set the strategy but control the purse-strings and it would have real power. It would therefore absorb the major functions of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee. Its strategic work would be separated from the detailed work of the other domestic committees, which would

13
be free-standing and not dependent on the Offices Committee. The intention is that they would canvass the views of Members and make recommendations to the House Committee but within the budgetary limits set by the senior committee. We want to avoid overlap in membership between domestic committees and the new House Committee. A current problem is that people who sit on a couple of sub-committees and on the Offices Committee hear the same argument two or three times; however, they do not always come to the same conclusions.
The House Committee would be supported by a management board made up of staff, chaired by the Clerk of the Parliaments in his role as chief executive. The board would develop a corporate and strategic approach to the administration, bringing together the disparate offices of the House. It would prepare the draft strategy and draft estimates and would prepare a business plan to implement the strategy. The intention is that the board will be established in the autumn. I am grateful to the Clerk of the Parliaments for carrying on his parallel changes in administration.
At a time of major change, with potential for further reform, with the continuing demands for more and better accommodation, the impact of legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act, and new initiatives affecting management across the public services, the House needs structures both at domestic committee and staff level that are capable of responding to those challenges.
In developing those strategies the House Committee and the staff must be responsive to the House as a whole and meet the legitimate expectations of its Members. New ways to ensure accountability must be found. We believe that Members should sit on the House Committee for long enough to build up expertise but the rotation rule, which has been discussed, is a matter for the Procedure Committee in the first instance—it is for the House to make the final decision.
En passant, I regret to say that there is a misprint in paragraph 6, line 3; "application" should be deleted and "rotation" should be inserted. With that alteration, the report makes much more sense.
Domestic committees are intended to act as "user groups", canvassing the views of Members on the issues within their remit. On that basis, they will make policy recommendations. The object is that Members should be able to make their views known before decisions are taken and to influence decisions, rather than for decisions to be taken out of sight and presented to the House as a fait accompli. Information must be more widely diffused and domestic committee papers should be published unless there are specific reasons dictating confidentiality. The case of Fielden House, for example, springs to mind. We were in negotiations to purchase its freehold. That is clearly a matter that could not be allowed into the public domain until decisions had been taken.
As is currently the case, the House should be invited to reach decisions on matters of particular weight. For example, the question of access to House of Lords facilities—that is contained in the Sixth Report, which we shall discuss shortly—falls into that category.
14
I turn to financial accountability. The committee recommends the appointment of an audit committee. It is time that an independent committee, including an external appointee, was created to review the audit function. That is already under way, with the support of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee. We are aware that some unhappiness has been expressed, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, about the fact that the working party did not confirm the recommendation in the earlier report of the appointment of a professionally qualified principal finance officer. Our reasons are contained in paragraph 57 of the working group report. We should bear in mind the fact that such matters are not immutable and that once the House Committee really is up and running, it could keep the matter under review.
The recommendations have been a long time coming and are by no means exhaustive. However, they represent the best opportunity for the staff to establish structures that are capable of responding to the demands that are placed on the administration by Members, the Government and the public.
Moved, That the Fifth Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 105) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Report by the Working Group on Management and Services
1. The Committee has considered the Report by the Working Group on Management and Services, which is printed in Appendix 2 to this Report. The Committee is grateful to the Group for its work, and supports its analysis of the problems underlying the present arrangements for the delivery of services in the House of Lords and the thrust of its recommendations for the future.
2. The fundamental objective of reform is that the House as a whole should "own" the strategy governing the provision of services and domestic management. We therefore invite the House to agree to the following recommendations:
ESTABLISHMENT AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
3. The Offices Committee should not be reappointed in the next Session. In place of the Offices Committee we recommend the appointment of a body specifically designed to provide leadership and strategic planning for the entire administration, domestic committees as well as staff. This body should be called the House Committee.
4. The House Committee should be appointed to fulfil the following functions:

— The agreement of a five-year strategic plan for the House of Lords administration.

— Scrutiny and approval of the Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and three-year forecasts.

— Approval of any expenditure items not provided for in the Estimates over a certain threshold (we suggest. subject to further review, £20,000).

—Approval of any changes in employment policy or practice.

— Approval of the Annual Report.

5. The House Committee should be chaired by the Chairman of Committees. The membership should be eleven: the Chairman, the Leaders of the three major parties (who, in their absence, could be represented by their Chief Whips), the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers (or a nominated representative), and six back-bench Members, two each from the Labour and Conservative parties

15
and one each from the Liberal Democrat party and the Cross-Bench Peers. We note the recommendation of the Working Group that the back-bench Members of the House Committee should be elected by the Members of the four political groupings, and acknowledge that this might assist in realising the fundamental objective that the House should "own" the strategy governing the provision of services. Nevertheless, we recognise that while some of the groupings may choose to go down this path it is for the three parties and the Cross-Benchers themselves to decide the mechanisms by which Members of the House Committee are to be nominated. Once the names have been put forward the Chairman of Committees should table a motion inviting the House as a whole to approve the House Committee's appointment and membership.
6. We note the concern of the Working Group that the Members of the House Committee should be allowed to build up experience in the interests of continuity and their recommendations about length of tenure and the application rule. This is a matter for the Procedure Committee and we think they should consider it in due course.
THE DOMESTIC COMMITTEES
7. In the interests of efficiency, openness and clarity of decision-making structures we recommend that in place of the current arrangements the domestic Committees, including the Advisory Panel on Works of Art, be reconstituted as full Select Committees. The Finance and Staff Sub-Committee should be abolished and its responsibilities absorbed by the House Committee. We recommend also that for the sake of clarity the Library and Computers Committee be renamed the Information Committee. Thus four new Select Committees will be created: the Administration and Works Committee, the Refreshment Committee, the Information Committee and the Works of Art Committee.
8. The domestic committees should function primarily as user groups, actively canvassing the views of Members and providing a forum within which they can make complaints or suggestions about services. They should also be charged with making policy recommendations to the House Committee on issues within their remit, and the House Committee should in turn be empowered to instruct a domestic committee to consider a particular strategic issue and return to it with recommendations. We anticipate that the domestic committees would only report to the House on those rare occasions where they were recommending a proposal that required the formal approval of the House as a whole. In such circumstances the Chairman of the Committee concerned would move the motion to agree the Report.
9. The domestic committees should be roughly the same size as at present-twelve Members sitting on each committee. The membership of the domestic committees should be proposed by the Committee of Selection, as is the case with other Select Committees. Though not Members of the House Committee, the Chairmen of domestic committees should be invited to attend its deliberations as necessary.
THE ADMINISTRATION
10. There should be a Board of Management composed of officials and chaired by the Clerk of the Parliaments. The membership of the Board should be sufficiently wide-ranging to reflect the range of services provided to the House and to encourage a sense of corporate identity among all members of the staff.
11. The Board's principal tasks will be to assist the House Committee in preparing the strategic plan, and then to formulate a business plan for the implementation of the strategy. This business plan will in turn be submitted to the Committee for approval. The Board will advise the Committee, scrutinising the papers to go before it and the draft Estimates. It will also respond to specific directions from the Committee-for example, to develop draft strategies on different aspects of modern management processes. In so doing, the Board may wish to seek expert advice from consultants or other external sources, and should be entitled so to do. The Board will exercise delegated authority in specific and defined areas.
OPENNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
12. It is essential that the House Committee and the domestic committees should be more open and accountable. We therefore recommend that back-bench members of the House Committee should report back to their party groups, perhaps by giving regular oral updates on domestic matters at party or group meetings. In addition Members would, as now, be able to table written or oral questions to the Chairman of Committees, which could, where appropriate, be answered on his behalf by the Chairmen of the other domestic committees. Background information about the work of the House Committee and the domestic committees should be freely available, both on the Intranet and in paper form. Agendas, memoranda and minutes should also be published, except when the Committees judge that special circumstances require that their deliberations should remain confidential.
13. There will always be some issues that require a decision of the whole House, When such an issue arises the House Committee, like the domestic committees, should publish a separate Report making a recommendation, and the Chairman would move a motion inviting the House to agree it. However, the convention that the House be automatically asked to agree to Reports of the Offices Committee should not be carried forward under the new arrangements. Instead we suggest that routine Reports of the House Committee should be presented for information-though it will be open, as at present, for any Member to initiate a discussion of a Report presented for information by tabling an unstarred question. Such Reports will provide periodic updates on developments, rather than a record of decisions reached, and they will therefore be more informative than Offices Committee Reports are at present.
AUDIT
14. We recommend the establishment of an Audit Committee to review the scope and results of the audit function (internal and external) and to advise the Accounting Officer. The Committee should be small, and should include an external element. The Peers concerned should hold no form of office within the House, and there should be no overlap between the membership of the Audit Committee and that of the House Committee or the domestic committees. The Audit Committee should report annually, and its report should be incorporated into the Annual Report. We note that the Clerk of the Parliaments, with the support of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee, has already taken steps towards the establishment of an Audit Committee, possibly before the summer recess.
IMPLEMENTATION
15. We recommend that the Chairman of Committees be mandated to take the necessary steps to ensure that the new arrangements are introduced at the beginning of the 2002–03 Session of Parliament.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Sixth Report
3.17 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The report covers various matters, most of which are reported to your Lordships' House for information. I shall deal with the minor matters first, the least important of which is paragraph 6, which relates to the salaries of the Chairman and the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees.

17
On reimbursement allowances, we draw to the attention of noble Lords the fact that the mileage allowance has been increased and that the bicycle allowance has now reached 7p per mile. Noble Lords will note the reference to the restoration of Old Palace Yard and the fact that the carriageway will be closed during the summer period while it is restored.
I turn to international telephone calls. It will now be possible for noble Lords to nominate a convenient extension from which they can make international telephone calls—on parliamentary business, of course—without being charged. Noble Lords will also be able to make international telephone calls from any other phone in the building simply by giving their name to the operating bureau, as happens at present. The only difference is that they will not get a bill in future.
I turn to the question of access to the facilities of the House. Noble Lords will remember that the issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in March in a Written Question and in a Starred Question on 22nd April, which was answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. We are all aware of the sensitivity that surrounds the issue, which involves Members of another place who have not yet taken the oath and the extent to which they should have access to your Lordships' House. In the end, that is a question of balancing the very strong feelings of individual Members, which we well understand, with what is practically achievable.
The recommendation, agreed by both the Administration and Works Sub-Committee and the Offices Committee, will perpetuate the informal arrangements already in place; namely, the privilege of appearing at the Bar of your Lordships' House, normally extended to Members of another place, will not be extended to those who have not yet taken the oath, and the same will apply to the privilege of being able to go into the Library.
So far as concerns the rest of the building, of course, people who have passes are entitled to go where they will. It is not within our remit to stop that.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, before the Question is put, perhaps I may ask the Chairman of Committees whether, since Members of another place are able to use our Library, Members of this House are able to use the Library of another place.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I understand that that is so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I want to ask a question about access to the House of Lords by people who have not taken the oath and their hangers-on, if I may so express it, and who may previously have been terrorists in Northern Ireland and perhaps even in parts of this country. When we last discussed this issue, I raised the question of Members of this House who have held ministerial office—some of them very senior ministerial positions—in Northern Ireland and who might well be at particular risk. I am still concerned. I should like to know what extra precautions are being
18
taken to ensure that such people who now have access to the Palace of Westminster are kept away from those I mentioned.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, people who have been granted a pass to the Palace of Westminster at the other end can go into any part of the Palace of Westminster, save in areas where your Lordships have total control. As I believe was said on the previous occasion when the matter was raised, people who are assistants, research assistants or secretaries to Members of another place are given security vettings. I am not in a position to deal with the way in which those are carried out. First, I do not know, and, secondly, it would probably be improper if I did know and said something about it. The position is that it has been agreed that such people are entitled to have passes. In that case, they can go anywhere in the building, save below Bar and in your Lordships' Library.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I want to ask a question hut, before I do so, has the Question been put to the House?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sorry. I was not clear about that. I wanted to ask on what grounds it is thought that it costs 7 pence a mile to ride a bicycle down a London street.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I have not the slightest idea how the calculation is made. However, I should have thought that, as a way of saving money compared with people driving motor cars at 50-odd pence a mile, it is probably rather good value and very good for our health.
Moved, That the Sixth Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 124) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Access to Facilities in the House of Lords
On 18 December 2001 the House of Commons decided to grant full access to Commons facilities to Members of that House who have not taken the oath. As a result the four MPs directly concerned have been issued with full Members' passes, and enjoy exactly the same rights of access to the Palace of Westminster as any other MP, with the exception that they may not enter the Chamber of the House of Commons or otherwise participate in proceedings.
It has long been a convention of both Houses that certain courtesies should be extended to Members of the other House. The courtesies extended by this House to MPs are as follows: they may stand at the Bar of the House to listen to debates; they may use the Library reading rooms; and they may use the Members' Gallery.
In addition, MPs may sponsor tours of the Line of Route, part of which passes through the House of Lords.
Since 18 December the four MPs who have not taken the oath have enjoyed the same privileges that have been granted by the House of Lords to MPs as a whole. However, as an interim measure staff have been instructed not to permit them either to enter the Chamber to stand at the Bar of the House or to use the Library. Should they request entry into the Chamber they will be directed to the Members' Gallery. Given that as ordinary

19
members of the public they enjoy an absolute right of access to the Strangers' Gallery, the House authorities have taken the view that there is nothing to be gained in barring them from the Members' Gallery. However, none of these interim arrangements has any formal standing: it is for the House to decide whether they should be formalised and put on a permanent footing, or changed.
The Committee has taken account of the strong feelings within the House, but has also weighed up what is achievable in practice. We understand that there may be Members who feel, as a matter of principle, that the four MPs should not be entitled to have access to any of the premises of the House of Lords. But regardless of abstract entitlement the House has to acknowledge that all passholders, Members as well as staff of both Houses, do as a matter of fact have access to most areas within the Palace of Westminster. Such a ban on the four MPs would not be enforceable except at wholly prohibitive cost.
In contrast, we believe that the House authorities can control access both to the Bar of the House and the Library effectively, and at minimal cost. Access to the Bar of the House is a practical as well as a symbolic privilege for MPs—it allows them to listen to debates in the House of Lords that are relevant to and may influence their own parliamentary work. MPs who have not taken the oath may not participate in any proceedings of the House of Commons, and we therefore see no reason why they should be granted the privilege of standing at the Bar.
The authorities of both Houses monitor security constantly, and we understand that all aspects of security have been reviewed since 11 September. One element of security within Parliament is the screening process that takes place before any individual is granted a pass. We look to the authorities of both Houses to ensure that the security of all Members and staff in the Parliamentary Estate is protected.
The Committee therefore supports the interim measures taken by the House authorities, and recommends to the House that the privilege of access to the Bar of the House and to the Library should not be extended to Members of the House of Commons who have not taken the oath.
2. International Telephone Calls
The Committee took note of the decision of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee that Members should be able to make international telephone calls free of charge. Each Member will be invited to nominate one convenient extension which will be "enabled" to make direct international calls. Members will also be able to make international calls from any other telephone within the House by calling the Operator Bureau, as at present, with the difference that they will no longer be charged. Fax machines in facilities rooms will be similarly "enabled", as will equipment in each of the Whips' Offices.
These arrangements will be for a 12 months trial period in the first instance, with an initial review after 6 months to assess take-up and cost implications.
3. Restoration of Old Palace Yard
The Committee was informed that the third and final phase of the project to restore Old Palace Yard, involving the granite paving of the carriage-way itself, will be carried out during the summer recess of 2002. The highway authorities have agreed in principle to a temporary closure of the road through Old Palace Yard while the work is carried out from 1 August to early October 2002. Through-traffic will be diverted via Horseferry Road, Marsham Street and Great Smith Street.
Normal vehicle access to Parliament will continue via Carriage Gates and Black Rod's Garden and pedestrian entrances will remain open as normal. It will not be possible to use Peers' Car Park during the period. However, the Abingdon Street car park will be available, and as in 2001, 30 spaces will be made available in the House of Commons underground car park.
4. Lords' Reimbursement Allowances
The Committee was informed of the annual uprating of the motor and bicycle allowances, in line with the increase in the retail price index, with effect from 1 April 2002.
20
The motor mileage allowance has been uprated to 54·4 pence per mile for the first 20,000 miles and 25·1 pence per mile thereafter.
The bicycle allowance has been uprated to 7 pence per mile.
5. Staff of the House
The Committee approved the adoption of a new pay structure for senior staff of the House, following the adoption of a new structure in the Senior Civil Service. The pay structure is modelled on the Senior Civil Service structure and has been developed in conjunction with the House of Commons authorities.
The Committee also approved the appointment of a financial adviser on a temporary 2-year basis at Senior Band 1; the creation of a new committee clerk post in the Committee Office to meet the demand for more committee work; the creation of a new post at pay span A2 as Head of the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Secretary to the Board of Management; the regrading of the post of Senior Information Officer from pay span A2 to pay span A1; and the creation of a new Housekeeper post in Black Rod's Office at pay span E2.
6. Salaries of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees
The Committee approved revised salaries for the Chairman of Committees (from £70,283 to £74,040 per annum) and the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (from £65,626 to £69,267 per annum), with effect from 1 April 2002.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tax Credits Bill
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 27,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 28 to 34,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 35 to 46,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 47 to 50,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 51 to 58,

Schedule 5,

Clause 59,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 60 to 69.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Adoption and Children Bill
3.24 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Every child should have the opportunity to grow up in a stable and secure loving family. When children cannot live with their birth parents, we have a responsibility to ensure that they can enjoy the kind of loving family life which most of us take for granted.
We know that outcomes have not been good for children in care. Compared with children who have not been looked after by local authorities, looked-after

21
children have poor chances of leading successful, settled lives when they leave the care system. Adoption can provide a new start in life for many children, particularly for children who have been looked after.
But, all too often, adoption has been seen as a last resort for these children when it should have been considered as a first resort. Too often the adoption system has let children down. Council performance is too varied. In some councils, 10 per cent of looked-after children are adopted; in others, the figure is less than 2 per cent. Overall, the system, including the courts, can be slow, cumbersome and unfair. The average time taken to adopt a looked-after child is two years and nine months—an eternity in a child's eyes. We have to change that.
That is why in December 2000 the Government published a White Paper programme for transforming the adoption service. It included: better support for adopters; an end to blanket bans; clear national standards; improved funding; a national register; a task force to help to deliver improvements; a relentless effort to drive up local authority performance; and support for adoptive families, who do such a marvellous and worthwhile job.
Progress is being made. For a second year, there has been a significant increase in the number of children adopted from care, with 400 extra children a year adopted. Since the beginning of the Quality Protects initiative in April 1999, we have seen a 40 per cent increase in the number of adoptions from care. That is very encouraging. But it must continue so that by 2005 an extra 1,100 children can benefit from a stable and secure family life each year.
We have put in place challenging national adoption standards to improve all aspects of the service. Local authorities will have to implement those in full by April next year. It is encouraging that the delays in the system are being reduced. It is also encouraging that those in question are now spending less time as looked-after children before being adopted. The time has fallen from more than three years in 1998 to two years and nine months in 2001. But we need to continue that progress.
The Adoption and Permanence Taskforce is also making a real difference in the field by helping councils to achieve a step change in the performance of their adoption services and by identifying and spreading best practice. The task force's first annual report shows genuine partnership between council staff and the task force members. This year they are working with 13 more local authorities.
Other positive work is under way. That work includes: supporting local recruitment activities to find suitable families for looked-after children; making fully operational in April this year an adoption register for England and Wales; recruitment campaigns to attract more social workers into employment; and funding—another £66·5 million for adoption services over three years. Therefore, a great deal of positive work is under way but there is still much room for improvement.
22
To underpin all that, there needs to be a wholesale modernisation of adoption legislation. The current Adoption Act 1976 is outdated and based on legislation that dates back to 1958, and it is not consistent with the Children Act 1989.
The Bill will completely overhaul the legal framework for adoption in England and Wales. It is the result of extensive consultation. When the Bill was introduced in the other place, it was sent to a Special Standing Committee for consideration and to hear the views of all those with an interest. We have listened to the points raised and many changes have been made. I believe that the Bill is better as a result.
Perhaps I may now highlight the key provisions in the Bill. We believe that first and foremost adoption is, and must be, a service for children. That is the simple founding principle on which the whole Bill is based. Clause 1 makes the welfare of the child, in childhood and later life, the paramount consideration for the court or adoption agency in making any decision relating to adoption. That brings the law on adoption into line with the Children Act.
It is also in the interest of the child that we bear down on harmful delays to adoption. The Bill makes clear that while in placing a child for adoption all agencies must give due consideration to the child's background, there is an obligation on the courts and all the agencies involved to bear in mind at all times that delay is likely to prejudice the child's welfare. Of course, the best adoptive placement for a child should reflect his/her religious persuasion, racial origin, cultural and linguistic heritage, but only if that can be found without unnecessary or harmful delay. What counts, and what the Bill enshrines, is that the interests of the child must come first.
As a key part of our drive to reduce delay in the adoption process, we have already established an adoption register for England and Wales. The information on the register is used to suggest families for a child in cases where a local match cannot be found within an agreed period of time or where the child needs to move away from the area. The Bill places the register on a statutory footing. However, the register is only part of our efforts to bear down on harmful delay.
The Bill includes further measures to cut down delays within the legal process by requiring courts to draw up timetables for adoption cases and issue any directions necessary to ensure that those timetables are met. In addition, the new system of placement for adoption and placement orders aims to provide a better, fairer legal process for adoption than the current widely-criticised system of freeing orders.
If we want to encourage more adoptions from care, we must go further than simply improving the legal process. We need to improve the support we give to adoptive families. Too often, adoption support services across the country are patchy and inconsistent. But that support is all the more necessary when we consider that many of those children in care waiting for an adoptive family have special needs or challenging backgrounds.

23
I have already expressed my admiration for the families who adopt and who overwhelmingly do a superb job. It is not an easy job because many of the children are not easy. They and their adoptive parents deserve more support. The Bill tackles the postcode lottery in adoption support services. To ensure high-quality services everywhere, the Bill requires adoption support agencies to register with the National Care Standards Commission in England and the National Assembly in Wales.
The Bill also introduces a new duty on local authorities across the country to make arrangements for the provision of adoption support services, and that will include financial support. The Bill includes a new right for all those directly affected by adoption to an assessment of their needs for adoption support services. It establishes a new independent review mechanism available for prospective adopters who feel that they are being turned down unfairly. We shall consult a wide range of adoption stakeholders in developing the independent review mechanism and the regulations to underpin it.
The Government want to see more children adopted from care. Noble Lords will be aware that as a result of a free vote in the other place, the Bill widens the prospective pool of those entitled to adopt jointly to include unmarried couples. As currently drafted, it would be for adoption agencies and the courts to decide whether an individual couple is suitable to adopt. In order to be able to be approved as adoptive parents, a couple would need to prove that they have a stable and lasting relationship and that they can provide a loving family environment for the child. We have said that we shall bring forward during the Lords' stages of the Bill the consequential amendments needed to complete the change endorsed by the other place. I am aware of the wide range of strongly-held views on this issue. That is why there was a free vote in the other place, and why there will be a free vote in this House too.
As well as promoting more adoption, we need to ensure that we are protecting vulnerable children. The Bill also enhances the current controls on advertising, payments and intercountry adoption. Your Lordships will be aware of the high-profile case last year of twins adopted overseas following an advertisement on the Internet. Adoption must be a service for children not for profit. It should happen in the interests of the child not as a commercial transaction. The Bill aims to put in place tighter safeguards to help ensure that that is, indeed, what happens. The Bill proposes a number of major changes to the laws on intercountry adoption, building on the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999.
We have already implemented provisions in that Act to make it an offence for a British resident to bring a child from another country into the UK for the purposes of adoption, unless they have satisfied certain requirements; for example that they are already approved adopters. It is also now illegal for anyone other than a local authority or voluntary adoption
24
agency to assess and approve prospective adopters. Privately commissioned home studies can no longer be accepted as part of the adoption process.
The Bill now goes further in strengthening the law on intercountry adoptions. First, it introduces a new offence where a child is brought into the UK after being adopted overseas by a British resident within the previous six months without the adopters following the proper approved procedure.
Secondly, it puts in place tougher penalties for those not following the proper procedures. The maximum penalty for those adopting overseas or bringing a child into the country for the purposes of adoption in contravention of those provisions will be raised from three months' imprisonment at present to 12 months. Those who break the law could face the maximum gaol sentence, an unlimited fine or both. Thirdly, it includes a new provision that will allow the Government to ensure that in future, adoption orders made overseas will be recognised in the UK only when the systems in that country meet criteria set out in regulations here. The criteria will include ensuring that proper consents have been given by the birth parents; that the prospective adopters are suitable to adopt, and that no profit has been made for the purposes.
The Bill takes two further steps better to protect the welfare of children from exploitation. It introduces tougher penalties for those who seek to circumvent the safeguards for arranging adoptions and payments for domestic and intercountry adoptions. It doubles the current penalties to up to six months in prison, a £10,000 fine, or both.
The Bill also introduces new safeguards for advertising children for adoption. Advertising can be an effective method of encouraging more people to consider coming forward to adopt, but that activity must be properly regulated in the interests of the children concerned. The Bill therefore amends and extends existing restrictions on advertising in the Adoption Act 1976. Anyone, unless an approved adoption agency, who publishes or distributes an advertisement for the adoption of a child in the UK, will be guilty of an offence. On conviction, the individual would be liable for imprisonment for up to three months or a fine of £5,000 or both. Both offline and online advertising will be subject to those new restrictions. Advertising via the Internet will need to be compatible with the e-commerce directive. We are currently working on the regulations needed to implement the directive. When those are finalised we shall ensure that the Bill reflects them appropriately, and shall bring forward amendments to that effect, if necessary.
Adoption does not simply affect people when they are children. Adoption is for life, and we need to consider its lifelong effects. That is why the Bill includes provision to ensure consistent access to information by people who have been adopted about their background and, indeed, about the circumstances of their adoption. Where it identifies individuals, that information can be highly sensitive.

25
That is why the Bill's provisions aim to deliver a system which tries to balance the welfare and the best interests of all those affected.
The Bill therefore establishes a single point of access to all information which could identify adopted persons and others involved in their adoption. That sensitive information will be made available only through adoption agencies. Where an agency is deciding whether to disclose identifying information we believe it is right that it should seek to consider the views and interests of those affected. But the Bill retains the right of adopted adults to have access to their original birth certificate.
Decisions made by adoption agencies about the disclosure of sensitive identifying information from the records they keep about a person's adoption will also be subject to independent review. It is right that, where adoption agencies have discretion, the people affected—both the adopted child and the birth family—have a right of review.
The Bill represents and sets out a comprehensive modernisation and reform of adoption law. It also accepts that adoption of course will not be suitable for all children. Older children may not want legally to separate from their birth parents, even though they may not want to live with them. Adoption may not be the best option for other children who are being cared for on a permanent basis by members of their wider family. But at present children have only one choice of legal permanence outside the care system—mainstream adoption. The alternatives are to stay in care, either with the local authority or with a foster family. The Bill introduces into the Children Act a further choice—new special guardianship orders. They give permanence to the child and day-to-day responsibility for his or her care to the special guardian without severing all legal ties with the child's birth family. Furthermore, the Bill provides that proper support services are available for those placements.
As a result of the debates and discussions over the past months, the Bill makes some important additional improvements to the Children Act. For example, it ensures that the courts will give proper consideration to the harmful effects of domestic violence when making decisions concerning a child. Furthermore, the Bill provides for an improved system of independent review of the progress of children looked after by local authorities, which is intended to ensure that local authority care plans are properly implemented and that the children's human rights are protected.
This is a complex and substantial Bill on a matter of great interest and importance. It gives the House an opportunity to make changes that will have a lifelong impact on thousands of children in the future: children in care who need and deserve a new family. The Bill can help give them a second chance to grow up in a permanent, secure and loving family. They deserve nothing less. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill he now read a second time.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
3.42 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, this is perhaps the most long-awaited Bill to come before your Lordships' House. It is hard to recall one where so many hopes and expectations ride on the deliberations which take place here.
Before turning to the detail of the Bill, I want to talk about the task which I believe is before us. As the Minister said, this issue is one of the most difficult and complex areas on which legislators have to spend time. It represents perhaps the most acute intrusion of the state into family life. Therefore, it is immensely controversial. It represents the state seeking to replicate the best of something which is complex and which throughout history has never been perfect— family life.
The subject carries with it a great deal of passion and conviction. We are all experts on families. We all have families. That leads us to hold very strongly held views and principles about family life. But we are asked to make judgments which will affect profoundly the lives of families which are very different from ours.
As legislators on the subject we shall be advised and lobbied by a vast array of organisations. We will be persuaded after we have been presented with strongly held arguments. They will conflict because they represent the different experiences of the adoption process that people have had. All those views are valid because they stem from an individual's experience, hut it does not make for art easy task to arrive at a judgment about what is presented before us.
In the past, with regard to other Bills I have often teased the Minister about his love of the word "balance". I am sure that that word will appear many times in our discussions over the coming weeks. I rather suspect that we will not achieve balance between conflicting views; we shall simply have to arrive at a judgment about which of those views should be paramount.
The Bill has been effectively subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. It has had two dry runs. It is all the better for that. In addition, during its passage through another place it was subject to a Special Standing Committee. That, too, had a beneficial effect on its wording. However, in another place, consideration of the Bill was regrettably inadequate. It was curtailed through strict programming. As we begin what I hope will be a thorough and thoughtful consideration of this wide-ranging Bill, it is worth noting that in another place the Government listened to reasoned arguments and changed their mind significantly on major issues. I hope that on all sides during our debate there will be a willingness to examine issues in depth and in a similar spirit of openness.
At the outset of our deliberations it is worth spending time clarifying what adoption and fostering is in our society today, and why the Bill is necessary. At the time of the 1976 Act—and I am very pleased to see that my noble friend Lord Hooson, one of the architects of that Bill, is in his place today— the majority of adoptions were of babies, 20 per cent of whom were born to unmarried mothers.

27
Happily, there have been changes in attitude since then—some reflected in the Family Law Reform Act 1987, passed by the last Conservative government— which have lessened the stigma suffered by one-parent families. During the 1970s the number of adoptions of infants dropped. At the same time, adoption of children in care increased. In the 1990s 40 per cent of adoptions were of children who had been in care. During the past 30 years the nature of adoption has changed. Rather than having children available for adoption by people unable to have children, the emphasis has changed to finding a permanent home for children who have families.
I do not want to go through at great length the statistics given by the Minister regarding the current adoption situation. I merely flag up two aspects. Many of the children up for adoption have had fractured and disrupted lives before going into care; 67 per cent have an identifiable mental health problem; and 30 per cent have statements of special educational need. Seventy per cent of children who leave care have no educational qualifications; between 14 per cent and 25 per cent of young women who leave care have a child; and, compared to the general population, those who have been looked after are 60 per cent more likely to become homeless. Thirty nine per cent of male prisoners under 21 have been looked after.
The Performance and Innovation Unit report of July 2000 identified three problems with the adoption system. First, decisions about how to provide a stable, secure and permanent placement are not made early enough or taken swiftly enough. Secondly, where plans for permanent placement are made they are not delivered quickly enough. Children wait on average nearly three years between becoming looked after and being adopted. Thirdly, services do not provide the support families need through the process of adoption and beyond into permanence.
Throughout my preparation for the Bill I have made it my business to talk to many people with personal experience of adoption and fostering. One woman's comment really tells the story behind the statistics. She said:
"I fostered a girl a few years ago. I work with children and I thought it was something I could do. The whole thing was horrendous. She was 11 when she came to me and she had been messed around so much that by the time she lived with me it was far too late. I don't know where she is now, probably burning down buildings. She needed much more help than I could give, and there was nobody to turn to for help and advice".
Sadly, that woman's experience is not exceptional. The Bill concerns children whose early experience of life has shattered their trust in adults. They have never known normal family life.
Many of the Bill's proposals are good and deserve widespread support throughout the House. The decision to make the welfare of a child throughout his or her life paramount is a welcome development on previous legislation. As a guiding principle, it is not without difficulty because of subjectivity: none the less it sets a basis on which decisions can be ranked. Special guardianship will create a new form of permanent care
28
without severing relationships with birth parents and will in all probability be a good solution for some children.
The creation of a legally underpinned adoption register for England and Wales may speed up the process of matching children and families. The recognition that a great deal of delay in the adoption process is caused by court proceedings must have a beneficial effect. However, the will to speed up court proceedings will become a reality only if courts have the resources to do so. The provisions for step-parents are good in that they reflect the reality of life for many people.
There has been a general welcome for the proposal to allow prospective adopters who have been rejected to lodge an appeal. However, there are those who believe that the facility to appeal should apply right through the adoption process—or certainly to other stages. One of the many issues we shall need to address is the extent to which appeals can be played off against the will to speed up the adoption process.
There are several areas in which the Bill as drafted is deficient. Although the welfare principle is at the heart of the Bill and the deficiencies of the current court system have been noted, there is no provision in the Bill for advocacy for a child throughout the adoption process.
The proposals to improve inter-country adoption are wide ranging. For many people, the issue of inter-country adoption is difficult. There are those who question whether it is right to remove children from their birth country and whether the processes for doing so are sufficiently rigorous. Personally, I have come to the view that whatever happens, inter-country adoption will continue to take place. If so, it is better for children, adoptive families and birth families that it happens in a way that is transparent and open to scrutiny. However—as we will discover when we discuss the subject in detail—the mechanisms in this country for managing inter-country adoption are seriously inadequate. The lack of a linking agency, in particular, causes problems.
Throughout the Bill, penalties and fines are mentioned. I ask the Minister whether those penalties and fines are sufficiently high to be a deterrent. Having read the Bill, my feeling is that in some cases they will not disbar anyone who is desperate to secure a child. I raise that as a key issue.
There are three main areas that should be the focus of our deliberations, although I fear there will be great pressure to do otherwise. Private fostering and adoption remains an enormous loophole—perhaps because little is known about private fostering as much of it happens away from the attention of local authorities. Despite work on the subject, such as that of Sir William Utting's report, People Like Us, little is still known about the subject. The Bill is an opportunity for us to ensure that things such as the death of Victoria Climbié do not happen again. We should give a great deal of consideration to the regulation of private social workers and private fostering.

29
As I noted earlier, this is the first major adoption Bill for 25 to 30 years. That seems to be the timetable for adoption legislation. An added impetus is therefore given to one particular matter: retrospection. The Children Act 1975 provided for the first time the facility for birth parents to find out what had happened to children they had given away for adoption. It was then accepted that the facility to make contact could be beneficial both for birth parents and the child without compromising the integrity of an adoption. However, the Act was not retrospective and applied only to post-1976 adoptions. It has left an anomaly whereby birth parents—anyone who listened to Radio 4 yesterday afternoon will realise the importance of birth fathers in this matter—are barred from making inquiries via an intermediary body about what has happened to a child.
I admit that my initial feeling was that we should not go down that route, but having listened to the arguments put forward, especially by organisations such as the National Organisation for the Counselling of Adoptees and Parents, I have changed my mind. Given that anyone involved in such an inquiry will be at least 28 years old, I cannot see any good reason why the state should bar adults from making contact with people with whom they have a blood relationship. I am certain that that process will be difficult and contacts that result will not all necessarily be good, but we should extend to those people the right to make those inquiries.
In the small time left to me, I should like to consider one other major issue. Dealing with the number of adoption organisations can be mind-boggling. There are hundreds of them, reflecting as they do people's different experiences of the adoption process. But one thing above all else unites all of those organisations. That is the need for post-adoption support—not for an assessment, but for support. That is the single most important thing that we can do in the Bill to help the adoption process to work. When a placement breaks down, three lives are destroyed—those of the parents and that of the child—and it becomes ever more difficult to find a placement for a child that will work.
I understand that the Treasury want the Bill to be cost-neutral, but I ask the Government to be joined up in their thinking and to consider the cost to the Treasury, apart from anyone else, of custodial sentences, of drug and alcohol services and of homelessness services for people for whom adoption does not work. Many people go into adoption for the best of reasons and with generous hearts. One recurring phrase in my talks with people about the subject during the past few weeks is that of a child suddenly exploding. Children need to be able to find someone to talk to, to help them through that process. The press will probably portray the matter in other ways, but I believe that to be the single most important issue in the Bill.
As I said at the beginning, we will not get things right for everyone concerned with the subject—we cannot possibly do that. All we can do is to put together a legislative framework in which families, children and
30
practitioners can together arrive at the best decision for an individual child and an individual family. Our task is to get that right.
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for introducing the Bill today and for his clear explanation of it. I also thank him and his colleagues for their understanding that I shall have to leave before the end of the debate—the first time that I have done such a thing in the more than 30 years in which I have been in your Lordships' House.
There is much in the Bill that we can all welcome. I agree that it is a very important Bill—hence the views expressed here today and in another place. Indeed, much of it is based on the research and work of the previous Conservative government, especially their White Paper of 1993.
My particular interest in the matter comes because the first committee of which I became chairman in the days when I was in local government was an adoption committee. Within my family circle, there are three adopted children who have brought us all the greatest joy and happiness—and I believe that we have brought joy and happiness to them as well.
So we can all welcome the principle that there should be more adoption as being in the best interests of many children—here I very much agree with the point made by the Minister in his opening remarks. And I believe we all agree that the needs of the child should be paramount, a point to which we shall return at later stages in the passage of the Bill.
I shall refer first to some statistics relating to adoption that are central to the Bill. Since 1976, the number of adoptions has fallen from 21,000 each year to 5,000 today. But that figure includes a growing proportion of looked-after children; we must all welcome that. If we examine the statistics in more detail, we find a snapshot figure of 58,900 for the number of children in care. However, as the Government's White Paper makes clear, 70 per cent of those children will, in any given year, return home within a year, and 40 per cent will do so within eight weeks.
The real concern—in many ways, the basis of the Bill—is over the other 30 per cent of children who do not return home within a year. Only about 6,800 are in residential children's homes; the rest are in foster homes. That means that local authorities are using fostering when adoption would be more appropriate. As the Prime Minister's review made clear, adoption is, for some social workers. a measure of last resort. I am glad that the number of adopted children from care has risen from 1,900 in 1997 to 3,100 in 2001. That suggests that the Government's target of 40 per cent more adoptions by 2004 is almost certain to be reached. I greatly welcome that.
There are many detailed proposals in the Bill aimed at achieving that increase in the number of adoptions. I have no doubt that there will he lengthy debate on clauses relating to whether the proposals for a reduction in the delays in adoption are adequate,

31
whether the safeguards relating to Internet adoptions are sufficient or whether the duty placed on local authorities to provide post-adoption support is adequate. On that matter, I have some sympathy with the points made by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering and already raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. The question of support for adoptive parents is one of great concern.
There is a reaffirmation of existing safeguards relating to arrangements for adopting children or advertising children for adoption other than through adoption agencies. There is also the matter of regulations governing overseas adoptions and the question of the appeals procedure. However, over and above those issues and others, I have a very real concern that far too much is being left to regulations that are, as yet, unpublished. We shall need to review those very carefully, and I am sure that we will return to that matter at various stages in the Bill's passage. It is a matter of great importance and is too important to be left to some future date.
There is a need for a change of attitude on the part of many social workers. As the Minister said, there are great variations between local authorities on the matter of adoption. As I understand it, the figures for adoption of looked-after children range from 1 per cent, for some authorities, to 14 per cent. The stories of the difficulties faced by would-be adopters are legion. Some are turned down because they are too rich or too fat or their house is too tidy—even because of their dietary habits.
The Prime Minister's review revealed that only one in 10 inquiries made by prospective adopters resulted in approval: 90 per cent were lost. That is a devastating statistic, and it must be corrected. What appear to be endemic attitudes—among some social workers, at least—must be changed. Otherwise, many of the good provisions in the Bill will be lost. After all, the people who are to work with the Bill must believe in it, if it is to work at all. Some local authorities have begun to clear the backlog of adoption applications, but there is a danger that that could, as it were, plateau out after the first impetus is over.
I come now to the most contentious part of the Bill—Clauses 44, 48, 49 and 103(4), introduced at the Report stage of the Bill's passage through the other place. The clauses would allow co-habiting and same-sex couples to adopt for the first time. As I understand it, the principal argument used was that it would widen the pool of would-be adopters, based on the view that there are not enough couples wanting to adopt. I am sure that the House will not be surprised to hear that I oppose those amendments. Every piece of evidence shows that marriage provides stability and security for children.
In the Special Standing Committee, it was said that,
"marriage, above all other relationships, provides stability and security for children".
The evidence backs that up. On a range of social indicators, the children of married couples generally have much better outcomes in life. In general, they
32
have better health, do better at school, are safer from child abuse, have fewer behavioural problems and are less likely to have under-age sex. I could go on. It is a devastating statistic that the rate of infant mortality is between 25 per cent and 35 per cent lower among the children of married parents than it is among children of co-habiting parents.
I do not understand why the Government have performed a U-turn on the issue. The Minister did not explain that fully. On 23rd April 2000, a Downing Street spokesman—presumably speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister—said:
"There are no plans to change the law to allow gays to adopt. This is about finding loving families to adopt children".
Barely six months ago, in November 2001, the Health Minister, Jacqui Smith, said:
"Joint adoptions should remain limited to married couples, on the grounds that a married couple is more likely to provide the stability and security a child needs".
She went on to say:
"Adoption by unmarried couples would raise several complex legal questions about, for example, the legal definition and treatment of an unmarried couple. There is no standard definition of an unmarried couple who are living together in the same way as a married couple ‖ although it may be possible through legislation to establish a legal relationship between each of the unmarried partners and the child, there would still be no legal relationship or mutual obligation between the two partners. That could lead to difficulties which we must consider in detail. It would be difficult and inappropriate to deal with the other complex issues involved, such as nationality and inheritance, the treatment of adopted children of unmarried couples, compared with the treatment of natural children—in isolation from the lively debate that I have referred to ‖ It would be difficult and inappropriate to pre-empt the conclusions of the civil partnerships review".—[Official Report, Commons Special Standing Committee, 29/11/01; cols. 384–5.]
That is a clear statement.
One of the reasons given for why electorates are not voting and are alienated from the political establishment is that leading members of Governments make statements and then, six months later, completely change their mind and say the opposite. That is a serious point. We need look no further than what has happened with this Bill for one of the reasons for political disillusionment.
What does the reference in the Bill to "an enduring relationship" mean? That must mean that it is intended to last—but for how long? I have taken some legal advice on the matter, and I understand that there is no commonly understood concept of what constitutes an enduring relationship. There is a real danger that that test will become self-defining and that judges and adoption agencies will find it invidious to make value judgments about the quality of individual relationships and will allow matters to go forward on a couple's say-so.
We need from the Government a clear explanation of how they imagine it is all going to work. These are matters of great importance which have yet to be resolved. I am bound to say that the needs of the child are not being treated as paramount in these considerations. The argument has become about the rights of adults.

33
I recall clearly our debate some 18 months ago on the Government's Bill to lower the age of consent. We had a Second Reading in April but there was no Committee stage. It was almost at the end of the parliamentary Session, so no time was available until the last minute for either Report stage or Third Reading. At that point, the Government invoked the Parliament Acts to complete that piece of legislation. It is my opinion and that of many people that, whatever the Parliament Acts were intended for, they were not to be invoked on an issue of a free vote and a matter of conscience. It would be helpful to know that the same kind of procedure will not be enacted on anything that may transpire at later stages of the Bill in your Lordships' House.
Before closing, perhaps I may make the following points. These new clauses in effect mean the downgrading of marriage once again. The fact is that co-habitees are by definition unwilling to make a permanent commitment to each other. Why should we believe that they will be willing to make a permanent commitment to a child? All the evidence is that co-habiting couples are far more likely to break up than married couples, nor is there evidence that unmarried couples want to adopt. If there was, there would be a greater use made of the loophole in the law whereby a single person can adopt when co-habiting.
On the point of same-sex couples, it is important to emphasise a point on which I should have thought we could all agree: that a child needs a father and a mother. As the right honourable Jack Straw said:
"We should not see children as trophies to validate a particular lifestyle".
This is an important issue and a serious debate. It is not one for a debating society, nor for the spin doctors, nor for the political advisers, nor for political correctness. It is about the lives of children. Those of use who have seen what tragic starts these children have had in life know how serious the issue is. Children, who have no vote, should be able to look to adults to protect them and see that in all circumstances their needs are paramount in any decisions about their future.

India and Pakistan
4.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the situation in India and Pakistan. Intense diplomatic efforts and decisions made in recent days by the Governments of India and Pakistan give grounds for some optimism, and the tensions have eased a little. None the less, with a million men under arms on either side of the Line of Control in a high state of readiness, the risks of a conflict are still significant. With both countries in
34
possession of nuclear weapons, the potential consequences for the region and the wider world are devastating.
"Let me give some brief background and then set out the action which Her Majesty's Government, working particularly with the US Government, have been taking.
"The territory of Kashmir has been the subject of dispute since Independence in 1947. Three major wars have been fought between India and Pakistan in 1948/49, 1965 and 1971 and there was a particularly bloody battle in Kargil in 1999, on the Indian side of the Line of Control.
"The people of Kashmir have been caught in the middle of all this, at a cost of tens of thousands of lives, with even more displaced. There has long been serious concern in the international community about the human rights deficit in Jammu and Kashmir, and about the conduct of some elections there.
"In the last decade or so the character of the conflict has changed with the incursion of armed militants across the Line of Control into India from the Pakistani side. A number of terrorist organisations including Laskhar e Tayyaba, Jaish e Mohammed and Harakat Mujahideen, each of which I proscribed when I was Home Secretary. have been at the forefront of violent activity within the region.
"India has long charged that such terrorism has had the covert support of successive Pakistani Governments, and in particular the Inter-services Intelligence Directorate (ISID), the main intelligence agency in Pakistan. Her Majesty's Government accept that there is a clear link between ISID and these groups.
"Towards the end of last year India suffered two serious terrorist outrages. On 1st October more than 40 people died in an assault on the State Assembly in Srinagar. On 13th December the Indian Parliament building itself in New Delhi was attacked, leaving 14 dead. In response to intensive diplomatic pressure, including the visit to the region by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, President Musharraf delivered a speech on 12th January in which he pledged that 'No organisation will be allowed to indulge in terrorism in the name of Kashmir'.
"From early May, when the heavy winter snows began to melt, there was however an increase in terrorist activity in Jammu and Kashmir and a rise in levels of infiltration across the Line of Control. This renewed violence included an attack on 14th May on a passenger bus and residential quarters of the Indian Army base at Kaluchak, killing 34 people, mainly women arid children. A week later the prominent moderate Kashmiri politician, Abdul Ghani Lone, was assassinated.
"The dispute between India and Pakistan is at root a bilateral matter which can be resolved only by direct dialogue between the parties. But it is a. dispute with potent international implications, both

35
because of the potential scale of any military action including the possible use of nuclear weapons, and because, post-September 11th, new imperatives have been imposed on all member states by UNSCR 1373 to take effective action to counter terrorism.
"Since last autumn, and particularly since the resurgence of violence in recent weeks, this conflict has been high on the international community's agenda. There has been intensive diplomatic activity from the US and UK Governments, Russia, China, other EU and G8 countries, and of course from those in the region. As part of this co-ordinated diplomatic effort, I visited Pakistan and India on 28th and 29th May. I had discussions in Pakistan with President Musharraf and Foreign Minister Sattar, and in India with Prime Minister Vajpayee, External Affairs Minister Singh, Home Minister Advani and Defence Minister Fernandes and Leader of the Opposition, Mrs Gandhi.
"In Islamabad, I underlined to President Musharraf the need for Pakistan to take visible, decisive and verifiable steps to seal the Line of Control; to stop supplies to militant groups; to help restrain the violent activities of these groups; and to close the militant training camps on Pakistan's side of the Line of Control.
"In Delhi, in my meetings with Prime Minister Vajpayee and External Affairs Minister Singh, I stressed that, as Pakistan demonstrated that it was taking the necessary steps to clamp down on terrorism, India should respond positively. A number of possible steps to reduce tension were discussed with both sides. I also underlined to the Indian Government, once again, the need for them to take steps to improve the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir and to ensure free, fair and inclusive elections in Jammu and Kashmir this autumn.
"Before my visit, Commissioner Patten visited the region and held discussions with both sides. Last week at a regional conference in Almaty, both Russian President Putin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin met separately with President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has spoken at length to both sides and to Presidents Bush and Putin about the situation.
"Following my trip, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage visited both countries last week. Mr Armitage was given a categorical undertaking by President Musharraf that the sealing of the Line of Control would be 'permanent'. The Government of India described that as a 'step forward' and said that they would respond `appropriately and positively'. Separately the US and UK Governments have assessed that there appears to have been a significant reduction in incursions across the Line of Control since the end of May.
"I am pleased to tell the House that when I spoke this morning to my Indian counterpart, Jaswant Singh, he told me that India was announcing today
36
that restrictions on overflights from Pakistan over India were to be lifted and that the name of the next Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan was being made public. I also understand that the western and eastern Indian fleets are returning to port.
"We have therefore seen both sides take first steps in the right direction. But the position is still precarious. Terrorism is still a threat. The situation will continue to require the engagement of the international community for some time.
"Like my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and President Putin, President Bush has made clear that he intends to remain personally involved. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will be visiting India and Pakistan this week. The international efforts against terrorism and the Kashmir crisis will be an important agenda item for the meeting of G8 Foreign Ministers in Whistler, Western Canada, which I shall be attending later this week. Fellow EU Foreign Ministers are discussing the matter today.
"The present crisis has of course had direct consequences for many UK citizens and their families. The UK has up to 3 million citizens who are of South Asian origin. As Secretary of State I have to balance our wider foreign policy interests against my duty of care for all UK citizens in the region and for British Government staff and their families, whether UK-based or locally engaged. In response to specific terrorist threats, I decided on 22nd May to reduce the level of staff in Pakistan. At the same time our travel advice was amended to advise against all but essential travel to Pakistan. As the House was about to rise, I wrote to all colleagues to give details.
"As tensions increased between the two countries, I announced on 31st May a draw-down of less-essential British staff and their families from all posts in Pakistan and from New Delhi and Mumbai and also issued new travel advice for India. Last Wednesday I announced a further strengthening of our advice in respect of both countries.
"We are also working hard to keep the South Asian communities here properly informed about what we are doing. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary met representatives of these communities on 29th May to listen to their concerns. And I held a similar meeting the following day on my return from the sub-continent.
"Our High Commissions in New Delhi and Islamabad are among the busiest visa and consular operations in the world. Throughout this difficult period we have maintained a service in India, albeit at a reduced level. Visa and consular operations in Pakistan had to be temporarily suspended, but I am pleased to tell the House that a limited service resumed last Thursday.
"Notwithstanding the more hopeful signs, the situation in the region remains dangerous. The problems between India and Pakistan cannot satisfactorily be resolved by military means. This would only lead to more suffering and potentially

37
devastating consequences for everyone. Working with our international partners, particularly with the US, our diplomatic efforts are there to encourage both sides to take the necessary steps to end terrorism, to reduce tensions and to enter into effective dialogue. Only then can we hope to break the cycle of crises and secure a permanent peaceful settlement to the issue of Kashmir".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating the full and detailed Statement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. Like her and the Government, we welcome what appear to be hopeful signs, including the removal of overflight restrictions and the return of the fleets to port. However, we also recognise that the situation remains extremely precarious and dangerous.
We, too, draw comfort from the apparently full pledge given by President Musharraf to end cross-border terrorism permanently. To the extent that they are positive signs, they will come as a great relief to the 3 million people in this country who have close connections with the sub-continent.
Perhaps I may ask a number of questions. The first I put to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, just before your Lordships' House went into recess. I asked what advice we had been able to give, perhaps for the longer term, as regards a proper set of arrangements providing a dialogue and hotline between the two nuclear-armed potential combatants. One of the terrors of the situation has been that no sub-structure has existed of the kind which sustained us during the days of mutually assured deterrence in the Cold War era in Europe.
I want to ask the Minister more about the meeting which took place in Kazakhstan during the recess when the Russian President, Mr Putin, and his colleagues apparently sought to use their good offices to bring the two sides together. Can she give any more information on the longer-term Russian interests and intentions in the whole area? Are there any more details about what was said to Mr Armitage? We have heard of the pledge given by President Musharraf. The American position is crucial as both potential combatants believe that the US is on their side. Indeed it is in the common front against global terrorism. Was anything said to Mr Armitage or to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary about closing the militant training camps on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control? Clearly, while they exist an enormous danger of resumed infiltration exists.
As regards advice given to British citizens and those with dual passports, to what extent do the Government assess that it is being heeded? How many people might be involved in the departure? Although in the past few days and hours the level of concern has become a little more subdued, it would be interesting to know how many people are likely to be involved.
38
Furthermore, will the Minister take this opportunity to put into perspective and possibly dampen down some of the weekend press stories about a potential colossal influx of refugees and the stories that sites for holding centres for the enormous number of people were being identified? Such stories need rapidly to be downgraded and put into perspective.
Will the Minister refute or clarify the suggestion made in some weekend newspapers that some international force will police the Line of Control and that it might include United Kingdom troops? If that is so, then from this side of your Lordships' House one has to ask which troops those would be. Given all the other commitments being undertaken at the moment, there cannot be all that many troops available.
We are grateful to the Government for continuing to keep us informed about this evolving situation. Although the parties may not like it, in particular our Indian friends, inevitably there are now international implications in a way that perhaps there could riot have been in earlier years. The matter is on the frontline of the war against global terrorism and our concerns in that effort. Furthermore, this is not a faraway country of which we know little for two glaring reasons, which I pointed out in response to the Statement made just before the recess.
The first reason concerns the events of September 11th and the bitter fact that Pakistan is right at the heart of the anti-terrorist war. Indeed, in the past the Taliban and al'Qaeda forces may well or even did receive substantial succour from the Pakistan side of the Afghanistan border. Thus terrorism winds itself around this issue, as it does around almost every issue of foreign policy as regards the United Kingdom. Secondly, it is a fact that the countries both appear to have tactical and semi-strategic nuclear weapons which would devastate each other, destroy large parts of the surrounding regions and create an atrocity and a horror against the whole of civilisation.
Those are the two ugly dangers. Unfortunately, while there has been a slight relief of tension, those dangers have not gone away. That is why I am sure that noble Lords would like to insist that we continue to be kept as closely informed as possible in the dangerous weeks ahead.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I echo the thanks expressed to the Foreign Secretary for the Statement and to the noble Baroness for repeating it. I also thank the Foreign Secretary for having kept us informed just before the House went into recess. I too welcome the reduction in tension and the steps taken by the Indian Government, not least those announced by the Foreign Secretary as revealed to him by the Indian Foreign Minister, Mr Singh, when they spoke this morning on the telephone.
Has any further advice been issued to travellers to the region or has any change been made to the drawdown of our diplomatic posts, as announced on 31st May? Alternatively, are the Government waiting until these reductions in tension further develop on the

39
ground before returning to their full-scale diplomatic complement in the two countries as well as relaxing the advice given to travellers?
As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out, the Statement refers to the dispute as one with potent international implications. That cannot be avoided, first, because of the threat of possible military action leading to the use of nuclear weapons by these two powers and, secondly, because of the role of terrorism in the region. Is not this situation in south Asia a threat to peace? At what point, if any, will the Security Council and the Secretary-General of the United Nations become involved? The Statement points out that we are working with the US Government, but what about the other players such as President Putin, President Jiang Zemin and so forth? How are we to co-rdinate our diplomatic moves with those of all the other world leaders in places such as Almaty? Will we never reach a point at which all the threads are, as it were, pulled together by the Secretary-General and the Security Council?
Does the noble Baroness think that the Line of Control can be sealed? How would that be monitored? The Statement refers to "verifiable" sealing of the Line of Control. In that connection, what purpose is being served by the continued presence of UNMOGIP representatives on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control when for over half a century its representatives have been sending reports to UN headquarters only to have them finish up in a filing cabinet somewhere in the basement without having been looked at either by the Security Council or by members of the public? Could it be suggested to both sides that the UNMOGIP reports are published more widely so that light is thrown on the problem of cross-border infiltration, as well as on the question of firing across the Line of Control? Who is responsible for initiating that? Perhaps it could also be suggested that both sides should withdraw their artillery to a distance of, say, 25 kilometres from the Line of Control—or istance would be sufficient to ensure that shells could not reach the other side—in mind that this kind of firing kills several hundred civilians on both sides every year? Despite that, it has little, if any, effect on the military situation.
Finally, does the noble Baroness agree that although, following the Simla agreement of over 30 years ago in which India and Pakistan declared that they would resolve all their differences, including those concerning Kashmir, through bilateral negotiation, high-level meetings have taken place every few years, these have been interspersed with long periods of non-communication between the two parties? After all this time, should not the parties recognise that the process itself is flawed and that a new mechanism is required if there is to be a solution to the problem? If that much is accepted, could not the international community ask the parties whether they would like help and advice on the process rather than on the solution itself? If some kind of reinforcement of the process is not provided, does not the noble Baroness agree that, however far we
40
may move away from the crisis confronting the subcontinent at the moment, there can be no guarantee that it will not return in a few years' time?
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for recognising our wish to keep Parliament informed. We shall continue to make Statements and thus ensure that noble Lords and Members of the other place are kept fully informed of developments. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out that the Statement sets out some positive signs. However, I should like to go through in turn the questions that have been raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked what advice we had given to India and Pakistan, in particular with regard to putting in place arrangements for a proper dialogue and hotline. The Statement makes clear that, to date, all the diplomatic activity has had as its aim the reduction of tension and the encouragement of dialogue between the two countries. I recognise entirely the point made by the noble Lord that a system of dialogue needs to be institutionalised. However, we feel that this is a sequence of moves which we are trying to ensure is taken forward. We will do all we can to ensure that some kind of system is put in place.
The noble Lord also asked about the meeting held in Almaty. President Putin met President Musharraf and President Vajpayee separately. I am not able to say any more about the content of those meetings, but they form part of the process being engaged in by the international community. I know that President Putin reiterated the concerns felt by the international community about the situation. He urged the leaders of both sides to find ways of reducing tension. Furthermore, he made the point which I repeated in the Statement; namely, that war would not solve any of the problems.
We are urging a step-by-step approach; the sealing of the border marks just the first step in relation to that. With regard to further details of the visits of the US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, I am unable to provide those but, as I have said, as the situation becomes clearer as a result of each of the visits, we shall keep both Houses informed.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, also asked specifically about the advice being given to British citizens, and in particular he asked about numbers. In India, we estimate that approximately 52,000 people are affected, made up of 61 UK-based staff, 10,000 tourists or short-stay—that is, up to six months—visitors, 10,000 long-term residents who are dual or mono-nationals, 22,000 British overseas passport holders who do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom, and 10,000 foreign nationals with a possible right of residence in the United Kingdom.
As to take-up and the heeding of advice, we have changed our travel advice for India and Pakistan on 23rd May, 31st May and 5th June. A number of people in India and Pakistan—for example, those who are visiting relatives—have not given any indication at this

41
point in time that they are ready to leave. That is partly because the situation, particularly in the cities, continues as normal. We shall continue to make our concerns known to those communities.
In Pakistan, we estimate that approximately 88,000 people are affected—that is, 70 UK-based staff, 8,000 tourists, 30,000 long-term residents who are dual or mono-nationals, 10,000 British overseas passport holders and 40,000 foreign nationals with a possible right of residence in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord asked also about the refugee situation and the reports in the press over the week-end. We have no evidence at this point to suggest that there will be a sudden influx of asylum seekers. We shall of course continue to monitor the situation closely. If it became the case that a large number of people were travelling towards Europe we would clearly need to discuss the situation at a Europe-wide level and agree a solution with our counterparts. However, I reiterate that we have no evidence at the moment to suggest that there will be a sudden influx of asylum seekers.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about further advice to travellers and the drawdown of staff. The last advice was given on 5th June when we advised against all travel to India for the time being and further advised all British nationals currently in India to leave. With respect to Pakistan, we advised against all travel to Pakistan and said that all British nationals currently in that country should leave. As to the further drawdown of staff, we have contingency plans in more than 100 countries of the world. We shall continue to monitor the position and make whatever arrangements need to be made as a result of the ongoing situation.
As to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in regard to the UN Security Council, its five permanent members have considered the situation and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to the UN Secretary General. The members of the group of live, the P5. have been most active in attempting to defuse the crisis, including the presence in Almaty of the presidents of China and Russia. The United States and the United Kingdom have been actively engaged and the new French Foreign Minister knows the region extremely well and has also been engaged.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked about reports of British troops being sent to verify the status of the line of control. These reports are inaccurate. We are working with India and Pakistan to help de-escalate the crisis over Kashmir. Verification will be a vital element and we know that some form of monitoring could be part of a long-term solution. One of the issues on the table is the possibility of joint verification exercises between India and Pakistan. This is still being discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether we would continue to help and advise on the process as opposed to the bilateral elements of the dispute. We shall of course bear this in mind. We have constantly to keep in mind the history of the dispute. There has been considerable international activity. All the
42
parties engaged in diplomacy in this effort are in constant contact. The noble Lord was concerned about co-ordination. There has been constant contact on this matter. Of course we will be there to offer help and advice on the process, if it is appropriate and if it is asked for.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I welcome the Statement that the noble Baroness has repeated. I should like to put two considerations to her. It is true that this is a bilateral dispute but, given the presence of nuclear arms, the effect of any conflict between India and Pakistan would be multilateral on neighbouring countries which are not part of the dispute. Does my noble friend agree that the very presence of nuclear arms requires that the international community should have an opinion on a speedy solution to the Kashmir problem? It is not as if this matter can be left to India and Pakistan alone because other countries in central Asia could be affected by nuclear fall-out.
Secondly, does my noble friend believe that it would be helpful for the UK Government to publish either "blue skies thinking" on ways of solving the problem, or at least an historical background to the issues and information on what has been done so far? There is a lot of misinformed debate going on, even within this country, in regard to the origins of the dispute and the issues on which the two sides disagree. It would help immensely with peace in our communities if some misunderstandings were removed.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the dispute between India and Pakistan is. at root, a bilateral matter. However, as I made clear in the Statement, it is a dispute with potent international implications because of the potential scale of military action. That is part of the reason that there has been such intense diplomatic activity, which will continue.
My noble friend also asked whether it would be helpful to engage in some "blue skies thinking". I believe that what is needed at this point is the kind of sequenced approach that we and others in the international community have taken. We are engaged in dialogue with the two sides. As a result of that dialogue a number of commitments have been made by each side. We would like to see those commitments carried through. We shall continue to see what help and support we can give to both sides and, as appropriate, if we are asked to give any further support we shall consider the matter.
I agree with my noble friend that there is a great deal of inaccurate information. We shall do all that we can to ensure that the debate is held in as accurate an environment as possible.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the very helpful Statement. It seems to me that during the days of the Cold War there were two main reasons why deterrence held. The first reason was the presence of a secure, secret, direct line, a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howell.

43
Can the Minister give an assurance that in the step-by-step approach that she mentioned, which is quite understandable, the Government will keep pressing until there is such a secure direct line? The crisis over Kashmir will not go away and, sadly, it may be needed in the future.
The second reason that deterrence held was a reality of what appalling destruction would be brought about by the use of nuclear weapons. One of the worst features of recent days has been the interviews with both soldiers and civilians in the Indian sub-continent giving the impression that nuclear weapons are weapons like any other weapons.
One of the good effects of CND in the bad days of the Cold War—I was never a member and to some extent opposed CND—was that it kept before the general public the appalling nature of these weapons. So far as I know, there is no equivalent to the CND in the Indian sub-continent. Is there any way in which Her Majesty's Government might prevail upon, for instance, Japan which has had first-hand experience of these weapons to engage in an educational programme in India and Pakistan about the nature of such weapons? They are not like other weapons.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. Nuclear weapons are not like any other weapons. It is important that awareness is raised within the populations of Pakistan and India of the possible effect of going down that terrible road. We shall do all we can and I shall take back to my colleagues the right reverend Prelate's specific suggestion.
The right reverend Prelate also raised the issue of a secure secret direct line, as did the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. As I said, we are engaged in trying to ensure that there is dialogue between India and Pakistan, and that there is a sequenced process. I shall take back both noble Lords' very good point that we should not desist until such time as we have agreement that such a direct line exists.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful for the Minister's encouraging Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, spoke about the origins of this dispute. I was in the sub-continent of India in 1946. At that time it was clearly understood that those rulers with a majority of Hindu residents would go to India and those with a majority of Muslims would go to Pakistan. It is well known that the Maharajah of Kashmir, Hari Singh, opted to be, and was, independent for a few months, eventually opting to go to India. That is the origin of this dispute.
It was also suggested at that time—I do not know how true it was—that at the very last minute the boundaries between India and Pakistan were moved some 20 miles west which gave India a frontier with Kashmir. That again was a cause for concern at that time.
44
Although it is important that the American President should be actively involved, it is even more important that the United Nations should be actively involved. The United Nations resolution of 5th January 1949 states:
"The question of the accession of the State of Jammu & Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite".
That is the only solution to the problem. Despite my advanced years, if a plebiscite were to be held may I offer myself as an observer of a totally impartial nature, with affection for both Pakistan and India?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, is not the only noble Lord in this House who has a great deal of detailed knowledge—a great deal more than I have, I confess—about the complex history of this dispute between India and Pakistan. We all recognise that the origins of the dispute are complicated.
I agree with the noble Lord that it is important to recognise the UN Security Council resolution. But it is also important to deal with the situation at present. It is important to move forward in a positive way. I shall bear in mind the noble Lord's offer to be present if by chance a plebiscite comes about.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate rightly reminds us that the world is forgetting the kind of weapons that nuclear weapons represent. The Minister rightly spoke about the information and education programme among communities in this country which have their origins in India and Pakistan. Should not that programme cover the nature of nuclear weapons? It has become clear in recent weeks that young people in particular who have grown up in this country but who have family links with India and Pakistan are ignorant of the nature of nuclear weapons and their effect. An education programme along those lines would be valuable.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those comments. I shall consider them with colleagues.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in the event of India being provoked into making a conventional military attack on Pakistan, and if Pakistan's territorial integrity appeared to be threatened by such an attack, does the Minister agree that it is unlikely that any Pakistan government would be able to resist the pressure to use nuclear weapons? I follow the reasoning of the right reverend Prelate. Apart from the catastrophic loss of human life on the subcontinent, the consequence would be seen as legitimising the use of nuclear weapons; and that would lead to their proliferation to an even greater extent. That would gravely undermine the security of the five permanent members of the Security Council which are the long-standing nuclear powers. As that is the fundamental objective of that part of the terrorist world represented by Al'Qaeda, it is probable that Al'Qaeda, as at present, is doing everything possible to

45
provoke such an attack on Pakistan. Do the Government recognise, therefore, that that is part of the international war against terrorism?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, despite the dispute being at root a bilateral matter, I believe I made clear in the Statement the potent international implications. Those are in part the result of the potential scale of any military action. Because in the post-September 11th world there have been new imperatives on member states having to take effective action to counter terrorism, we and our international partners recognise the dual elements of concern.
The noble Lord spoke about what might happen if India engaged in a conventional war. It is important that we do not speculate. At this time we are seeing some positive signs. The diplomacy upon which the whole of the international community is engaged continues. As I said in the Statement, the US Defense Secretary is expected in the region in two days' time. I agree with noble Lords that it is important to continue to raise awareness about the possible effects of the use of nuclear weapons, in particular with young people.
On proliferation, the experience of the United Kingdom, the United States and France is relevant. We in the West and the Warsaw Pact countries raised the bar against nuclear action. The result was that we resolved our differences by peaceful means. We recognise the potential implications. We must also take account of our experience, and the fact that our countries have been able to move forward—for example, only last week, we witnessed a NATO/Russia summit, an EU/Russia summit. In the midst of the Cold War, who would have believed that we would find ourselves in such a position today? I entirely take the noble Lord's point that there is continuing work that needs to be addressed. We must use our experience to ensure that proliferation does not become a reality.
Lord Paul: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary arid the British High Commissioner in Delhi, Sir Rob Young, for the marvellous job that they, along with their counterparts, have done to reduce the tension that was becoming most frightening. We really need to get both nations to sit down together and find a solution to their problems, instead of going through the history, and so on. They are well aware of the historical background. As long as we continue to stress upon them that war is not the solution I believe that we shall make more progress than if we continue to discuss other matters. Will my noble friend the Minister kindly confirm that that is the direction in which we are trying to push the two countries forward?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that that is so. When repeating the Statement, I believe that I made it clear that we do not regard war as a solution. I hope that I also made it clear that we are of the view that it is important for us to deal in a measured way with the situation as we find it at present; that is the core of our strategy.
46
I thank my noble friend for his kind comments about my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and about the work of our High Commissioner in India.I should like to express my thanks for the work accomplished by our High Commissioner in Pakistan. Indeed, both our High Commissioners have done an excellent job.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I endorse what my noble friend Lord Paul said about the work of the British High Commissioner in Delhi. I was with two very senior members of the Indian legal profession last night. I mentioned that a Statement was likely to be made today. They, too, said how much the work of the High Commissioner is appreciated in India. Is my noble friend the Minister able to confirm that the advice to British nationals will be kept under more or less constant review? If the situation changes for the better, as we all hope, can she confirm that that advice will be modified? Clearly, it is having a very serious effect on the Indian economy; and, indeed, will have an even more serious effect if it continues for any length of time.
Baroness Amos: Yes, my Lords; I can confirm that our advice is under constant review. As I said earlier, we have already changed the advice three times since 23rd May. Foreign Office staff are engaged in daily discussions with our staff working in the region. This has been a difficult time for our staff. I thank noble Lords for recognising that and the hard work that has been put in.

Adoption and Children Bill
5.3 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, like other noble Lords, and the adoption agencies, I very much welcome this Bill. At the moment, there are something like 60,000 children in care of whom only about 5,000 were adopted last year. Anything that can responsibly be done to increase the number of children in care who are adopted is to be fully supported.
The Churches have long experience in adoption matters. There was a time when virtually every diocese engaged in this work. Eight dioceses still do so, and, collectively, this group, the Diocesan Agencies Group, represents about one quarter of the voluntary agency provision in this country.
The purpose of the Bill is so important, and its key principle—that the welfare of the child be the paramount consideration for courts and adoption agencies—is so crucial, that I very much hope the debate about the unmarried couples' eligibility to adopt will not detract from this. As we know, a child can now be adopted by a single person, whatever his or her sexual orientation, if this is judged to be in the best interests of the child. I agree with the Children's Society that it seems somewhat arbitrary to deny to

47
couples what is allowed to a single person just because the couple is not married. It seems strange that the child should be denied the opportunity of two legal parents when it might be in his best interests and would normally be in his best interests if that relationship were judged to be a stable and enduring one.
As we know, most of the children now waiting in local authority care, usually in foster care, are over the age of one and many of them are over the age of five. They have nearly always had a number of difficulties in their early lives, including health problems or learning difficulties. The British Association for Adoption and Fostering brings out a magazine Be My Parent, which many of us have seen. It shows pictures of children waiting for adoption. Unfortunately, recent analysis shows that half the boys featured aged between five and 10 receive no inquiries at all from prospective adopters. As it is likely that the number of people cohabiting will continue to rise, it seems a pity to discourage such couples from adopting, if they are otherwise suitable. For it seems clear that at least some unmarried couples do not come forward because at the moment only one of them has the legal right to adopt.
The Church of England is fully committed to the institution of marriage. No one is more eloquent than the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her defence of marriage. However, I have to ask both sincerely and seriously whether we really support the institution of marriage by making adoption more difficult for unmarried couples who are otherwise judged suitable to adopt. It must surely be in the best interests of those children in care at present to be brought up in a stable, loving relationship, even if the adoptive parents are not married, than continue in care. In the case of a particular child, that could be the only other option available. Indeed, in the judgment of the court, it could be the best option available to the child at that particular time.
Of course, both the adoption agency and, finally, the courts are legally required to make a thorough assessment of the stability and, therefore, the suitability of all would-be adopters. It is, quite rightly, a searching and thorough process that would-be adopters have to go through. Clause 139(4) talks about "an enduring family relationship". No doubt that could be defined in many different ways. But surely a court will make a sober and serious judgment about any family relationship as to whether or not it really is "enduring".
As far as concerns same sex couples, again it must be emphasised that a single lesbian or gay person is already in a position to adopt, if it is judged to be in the best interests of a particular child that he or she should become an adoptive parent. This has been tested in the courts. The question is simply whether a couple should be denied this opportunity if it is judged to be in the best interests of the child to be adopted by a couple. The results of research are hardly surprising. I quote the conclusions of some research:
"Existing findings seem to suggest that aspects of family structure such as genetic relatedness, number of parents and the mother's sexual orientation may matter less for children's psychological adjustment than warm and supportive relationships with parents in a positive family environment".
48
Nor is it clear that children brought up in such relationships will be more confused about their sexual identity than children adopted by married or single people. The formation of sexual identity is a mysterious process in which at the moment there are no assured findings—but what matters above all, from the point of view of psychological health and long-term maturity of a child is that warm supportive environment.
So while I do not think that we should get this issue out of proportion, if there is a desperate need—as there is—to place more children with suitable parents and the interests of the child are always to be paramount, surely it would be wrong to make it impossible in principle for suitable couples, whether heterosexual, gay or lesbian, to adopt.
What particularly concerns the adoption agencies is not this issue but the serious under-funding of adoption support services, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, stated so powerfully. Most of the children placed by adoption agencies have particular complex social, emotional or learning difficulties; others bring with them a legacy of despair as a result of abuse and other problems. In order to continue to provide a satisfactory adoption support service for adopters and children placed for adoption, resources need to be expended on agencies carrying out this work, including voluntary adoption agencies.
There is recognition in the Bill that the issue of ongoing support for families taking on older children from the care system does need to be appropriately funded and there is a recognition that these children's needs should be assessed; but there is silence as to what should happen next and who should fund it. The Bill as drafted enables the adopted child and his or her adopters to have a full assessment of their support needs—which could be very significant for children who have suffered early neglect and abuse and who may have moved a number of times while in care. However, no duty is imposed on the local authority to provide those services. If as a society we are serious about helping these children to develop into mature adults who will live useful lives, we cannot avoid the fact that some, perhaps many, of them are likely to need serious post-adoption support.
The purpose behind the Bill—to increase the number of children in care who are adopted—is highly worth while. There seems to be agreement that most of the detailed provision in the Bill is to be supported. If we are to make that laudable purpose a reality, we must encourage, not discourage, a wide range of people who are able to offer long-term loving care to come forward as adoptive parents. They must be reassured that, in adopting children who will sometimes still suffer the effects of early neglect or abuse, they will receive all the post-adoptive support that they need.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, like other speakers, I believe that it has been a tragedy for far too long, and for far too many children, that there

49
has been no reform of the adoption laws for over 25 years—despite growing concern about the performance of the service. Credit must be given to the Prime Minister and to the Government for acting so promptly in response to the Waterhouse report. The crux of the Bill is making the child's interest paramount, bringing it in line with the Children Act 1989. That should be the test that guides all our deliberations.
In spite of there being some increase in the number of adopters, of the 58,000 children in care—62 per cent of whom are in care for reasons of neglect and/or abuse—only 3,000 were placed for adoption. Yet children who grow up in care are four times more likely to be unemployed and 60 times more likely to be homeless, and they make up one in four of the prison population—a situation which I am sure everyone wishes to change.
My right honourable friend Alan Milburn was right to emphasise that that was not a failure of the children in care but of the system of care. However, a key factor in reducing the number of children in care must be to cut unnecessary delay. The measures taken by the Government to establish a statutory national adoption register to supplement local authority matches has to be welcomed. Along with the provision for the courts to draw up timetables to which it must adhere, the measures should go some way to reducing the frustration of would be adopters and the delay in placements.
Although I agree that it is right that all agencies must give due consideration to the child's background and to religious, race and cultural issues, it is not right that they should be allowed to cause delay such as to prejudice the child's welfare. Children should not have to wait for an average of nearly three years before being adopted—during which time they often suffer further psychological damage from multiple foster placements and moves.
Unlike many other speakers in this debate, my awareness of and my interest in adoption are recent and I do not profess to have their experience or knowledge. My interest, however, was stimulated by being asked to chair a symposium organised by the Adoption Forum. I was staggered to learn at that symposium that, typically, a child moves about 10 times while in care, and that 30 to 40 moves are not uncommon. One case was cited of a child who had 235 moves. This is not only costly—ranging from £2,500 for a simple move to £20,000 for a more complex move—but, more importantly, it must be detrimental to the child.
Of equal concern must be the number of children who disappear in the system because there are no centrally held records. The Government are anxious to avoid children "drifting" in care; but it can be avoided only if there is a national and effective tracking system, so that records can travel easily between local authorities. I raise these points to illustrate the problems. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that both of these problems will be resolved within the Bill's provisions.
50
It had been expected that the introduction of placement orders would help in keeping track of children for whom the plan is adoption. But under the 1976 Act, a child can be freed for adoption with parental agreement, even if there is no certainty of a placement. As a consequence, if that placement breaks down before an adoption is made, a child may be left without a family.
I make this point to the Minister. Surely a placement order should mean just that—it should be a means of placing a child with a specific family via the courts. The present position can also create a misunderstanding on the part of birth parents who believe that they are agreeing to specific prospective parents and then find that that is not the case.
On the question of widening the pool of adopters, I accept what the Minister tells us; namely, that matters are improving. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, says about the bureaucracy that surrounds adoption. But I still believe that the pool of potential parents has to be extended. That is why I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young—although I am pleased to see in her place today. The provision for unmarried and same sex couples to adopt does just that.
Under the present law, no one is legally excluded from the right to adopt. Recent polling has shown that 41 per cent of unmarried couples would adopt, but only 6 per cent do so. That is mainly, as the right reverend Prelate said, because only one of them can become the legal guardian, while the other partner is downgraded to second-class status. It cannot be in the interests of a child for only one parent to be able to make decisions about his or her welfare.
I reiterate: it seems completely illogical that there is no requirement for foster carers to be married. Both partners are responsible for the child. However, should they wish to adopt, only one foster parent can in law become the adoptive parent. Any such change can have only a destabilising effect on the child Surely, it makes sense, where two people in a secure relationship have been assessed by the agency and the court as suitable to care jointly for a child, for that child to have the legal commitment of two parents.
Too many adoptions fail because families feel unable to cope and the support that they receive is limited. Post-adoption support is crucial. While local authorities have a duty to assess need for post-adoption support, there is no duty to provide such support, even if a need is established. The majority of children adopted from care are very needy children with deeply difficult histories.
It has been said that there is no precedent for being able to do this, but it is contrary to the case of a child with an educational statement of needs who has to be provided with help. There should be a clear duty to provide such services. To do so would reassure potential adopters, more of whom would be likely to come forward.
Local authorities have a very difficult job to do, involving issues that are often complex and emotionally fraught. Standards vary between local

51
authorities. The new national standards are long overdue. Social workers are the gateway to adoption, and their attitudes are crucial. It is therefore essential that they have the best possible information and skills with which to carry out their complex and sensitive job. I believe that the Government are making available £47·5 million for social care training. Will the Minister indicate how much of that money will be used specifically for the training of adoption workers? Equally, will the £66 million promised over the next two to three years be sufficient, given the requirements for extra intervention, support, assessment, inspection and registration?
Recent research suggests that single applicants and families on low incomes are under-represented among approved adopters. The adoption allowance system—which, again, varies from authority to authority—may affect whether they would consider adoption. Will the Minister clarify how the review of the system is to be conducted and what implications there might be for tax and benefits?
There are many other issues that will be raised as the Bill proceeds—many of which have been referred to by other speakers—that I do not have time to deal with today. However, I wish to mention briefly the issue of contact between children and abusive parents. If the theme of the Bill is that the interests of the child are paramount, we cannot ignore the vital issue of child protection. Of course it is right that the child maintains contact with both parents following separation wherever possible. However, the existing legal system fails to protect children from abusers who are known to them. There is something wrong when 15 children have been killed as a result of contact arrangements. A survey of 130 parents in 1999 found that a staggering 76 per cent of their children were abused during contact visits ordered by the courts.
The amendments introduced by the Government to extend the definition of harm are welcome, but they do not protect the child from direct abuse, neglect or abduction. As a survey by Women's Aid shows, regrettably, the good practice guidelines for judges, which are not mandatory, have not reduced the problem. I am sure that there will be much more detailed discussion on that and other subjects as the Bill goes through the process of scrutiny.
Despite the qualifications that I have mentioned, the Bill makes many important and worthwhile changes to improve the system for those families and the adopted child. I am sure that the Bill will be improved even further as we take it through the House. It is long overdue and very welcome and I hope that it will enjoy the support of the House.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Adebowale: My Lords, many important contributions have already been made to this important debate. I felt that it was important that my first speech following my maiden speech earlier this year should be on a subject that is dear to my heart and to my experiences as the chief executive of the
52
homelessness organisation Centrepoint and as a director of the Alcohol Recovery Project, many of whose clients were children and young people who had been in care.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred to the role of the state in replicating the family through adoption and fostering legislation. I suggest that only a loving relationship created by close involvement with responsible adults can do that. The state creates the framework, through this Bill, in which such a relationship might thrive. That is a matter of fine judgment on the part of professionals and, in the case of the Bill, by this House.
However, the state does provide a family substitute through the care system. Although I welcome the increase in the number of young children adopted and fostered from care, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, there is still a great deal to be done. At Centrepoint, one young person in five has been in touch with the care system. You only have to experience the sight of children too old for their years, who have been in placement after placement, often ending up on the streets because of the failures of the system, to realise that the Bill is critical in providing the support that will prevent many of those young people ending up on our streets. A young person to whom I talked on many occasions when I was at Centrepoint pointed out that there is an alternative to adoption and fostering—and it is often the streets.
I agree with much of the thrust of what the Government propose. It is correct and consistent with their manifesto commitments and is long overdue. However, the proposals do not go far enough to ensure that the pool of potential parents is maximised. Specific duties should be placed on local authorities to follow through post-assessment care with the necessary support services.
The Bill would be improved if adoptive families had a clear entitlement to support services after adoption, subject to proper assessment as to their necessity. Under the current proposals, the adopted child and the adopters will be entitled only to a full assessment of their support needs. We know that this can be very significant for children who have suffered early neglect and abuse. Many have moved a number of times while in care. Such children can present very challenging and demanding behaviour to their new family and may also have a range of unmet health and educational needs. As the chief executive of BAAF Adoption and Fostering said to me, to allow those children a full assessment of the services that they require and then not to impose a duty on the local authority to provide those services is a little like taking your car for an MOT, receiving an estimate of the work that needs to be done and then deciding that you will not bother or cannot afford it. A clear duty to provide services is essential. That will not only support new adopted children and their families where help is needed, but also reassure potential adopters, most of whom will then feel more encouraged to come forward.
On expanding the pool, even if we were increasing rapidly the number of children taken into adoption and fostering from care, we would have a duty to

53
increase the number of children who have the opportunity of a close and loving relationship with responsible adults. That is one of the main thrusts of the Bill. I would be very concerned if the debate disintegrated into a discussion on whether we can turn back the clock on our judgments about the validity of marriage or same-sex relationships. It is a fact, like gravity, that the clock cannot be turned back. We have to deal with situations as we see them now. The credibility of politics and of this House is enhanced if we deal with the facts as they are now rather than as we would wish them to be.
It is already a fact that unmarried couples and those in same-sex relationships can adopt. I have yet to hear a credible argument for removing that fact. However, as has already been said, only one partner in such a relationship can currently adopt legally. That needs to be put right. It can only be good for the child for both partners to have a legal responsibility and for the child to have the benefit of the considerations of both partners in this respect.
I find it difficult to accept an argument that same-sex relationships and lesbian and gay individuals and couples are somehow second-rate families or provide second-rate advice and support to children. I know from the children and families whom I have met professionally and personally that that is not the case. This House should show them the respect of understanding that in many cases such families can provide a very supportive environment, particularly for those young people who may find, through their own understanding of themselves, that they are lesbian or gay. This is not a matter of personal choice or of personal views or prejudices; this is a matter of fact and of how we can support those young people who are faced with very difficult choices in their lives and require the support of this House and of society at large rather than to be condemned, however lightly, to be considered as second-rate citizens, either individually or through the families who choose to support them.
I hope that this House will move forward and support the advice that has been given to me by many professional organisations, such as BAAF Adoption and Fostering, Barnardo's and NCH Action for Children. These organisations have many decades of experience with young children and have helped hundreds of thousands of children in this respect. I hope that the House will support the Government's proposals for unmarried couples and those of same-sex relationships to have the same rights.
On very few occasions does this House have the opportunity to make and support decisions that truly affect the lives of our young people. I respectfully say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others that it is a very difficult judgment, and I respect the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in making her case. However, we have to understand that these are very complex issues affecting the lives of individuals. We cannot legislate in a manner reflecting our personal prejudices. We have to deal with the facts
54
and give all children the opportunity to live in a supportive environment which supports them as they are, not as we should like them to be.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords. this Bill is welcome, as is the speech of the Minister as to its purpose and effect. However—to set this speech in context with those already made—may it be said shortly that I agree with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who established the true background against which we have to consider adoption, laying emphasis on the effect of delay, the current inadequacy of the process, and the need which other noble Lords have mentioned for post-adoption support as an entitlement.
I agree with part of the speech of my noble friend Lady Young, who identified the needs of those who do not have to return home from care and the need for change of the endemic attitude, as she put it, of social workers. However, as at present advised, I am not able to support an outright prohibition on homosexual couples as prospective adopters. Party policy is made neither from the speeches from the Privy Council Benches nor from those from these Back Benches. I agree that there must be a free vote to ascertain the true sense of this House and that it should be, whether in Committee or at any subsequent stage, on the Floor of the House.
To introduce what I have to say—which is in the interests only of clarification and implementation—I should like to advance some propositions. They are as follows. Under this Bill, the judiciary in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction within the statutory framework remains the putative ultimate arbiter of the interests of each and every child. Decisions of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House which establish the two principles as applicable to Clauses 1 and 46 should not be affected by amendment to this Bill. On procedural aspects of implementation of Clause 1, a rigorous assessment should be introduced of general application which does not discriminate against homosexual couples as such as prospective adopters; and this Bill may not be amended to afford discrimination incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The rigorous assessment will be included with other proposed procedural provisions in implementation of Clause 1 to be tabled at Committee stage concerning the exercise of the powers of the court and the adoption agencies.
As to the two principles, they were established many years ago under statutory provisions substantially similar to those in Clauses 1 and 46 in two cases in which I appeared as leading counsel on behalf of idle appellants before your Lordships' Appellate Committee. In the first of such cases, I acted for adoptive parents whose adoption order had been set aside by the Court of Appeal on the application of the mother that her consent should not have been dispensed with. The Appellate Committee quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal and reinstated the adoption order. The reasoning established the

55
principles on which the court may dispense with parental consent to adoption under Clause 46(2)(c) of this Bill. That case was In Re W (An Infant) 1971 Appeal Cases and has ever since stood as commanding authority.
In the second case, I was acting for the Lewisham Borough Council. The Appellate Committee concluded that a Court of Appeal authority had been wrongly decided and established that local authority care does not terminate on the request of the parent to take over care of the child. That has an indirect putative effect on adoption. That case was decided in 1979 and has stood the test of time as well.
As to disposing with parental consent to adoption, it has been proposed to amend the Bill to introduce a new test which is not well conceived: that unless a balance of advantage to the child is tilted in favour of adoption against an alternative provision, then the consent of the natural parent to adoption may not be dispensed with. However, such mandatory provision is inflexible and could work against the interests of the child. What about the Borough of Lewisham case? Is it not in conflict with Clause 1(2) and 1(6) of the Bill? Would it not conflict with the reasoning in In Re W as introducing a derivative of the "blood tie" argument which was accepted by a majority of the Court of Appeal but unanimously rejected by the five noble and learned Lords sitting on your Lordships' Appellate Committee? It was a unanimous decision. Would it not ignore the opinion of the editors of current Halsbury's Laws in that In Re W tells a judge all he needs to know and that previous decisions are unhelpful?
As to the procedural amendment to be introduced as a probing amendment in implementation of Clause 1 as to the exercise of the powers of the court and the adoption agency, it is proposed that the child should be told, if of sufficient understanding, of prospective adoption and should meet the prospective adopters, and that at all stages of the process of adoption should be entitled to be heard and have independent qualified representation.
An entitlement to support services on adoption, referred to by more than one noble Lord, should be established. No adoption order should be made unless a legal commitment as an enforceable obligation has been approved by the court and the adoption agencies have been enjoined to provide a uniform service to parents and relatives who seek assurance as to the welfare of the child.
Before concluding I refer to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I agree unreservedly with everything that he said. I agree that there is a lack of prospective adopters. I agree with what he said about unmarried couples. I agree with what he said about the provisions being sufficiently flexible to be applied by the court and that it is wrong to ban homosexual couples. The right reverend Prelate put this whole matter in its true and correct perspective. That is my personal opinion.
In conclusion, albeit that the process of adoption will continue to suffer a sea change, and has done so since 1971, the principle embodied in the leading case
56
of In Re W has not and, for example, would extend to apply to circumstances which did not arise in that case, such as those embodied in Clause 1(4)(e) and 1(5) of the Bill. Ought not that decision, which broke the mould of outworn precedent and pre-empted the Children Act of 1995 on the interests of the child—expressly acknowledged in Clause 1(2) of the Bill—to continue to tell the judge all that he needs to know?
5.42 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I do not intend to go into points of detail on the Bill but I should like to put down a marker that I shall, if I can, at later stages of the Bill, try to address the problem that today children are adopted much too late.
I wish briefly to examine the background against which we have to consider the Bill. Those of your Lordships who, like me, spent most of last Monday and Tuesday watching the jubilee festivities on television will have seen thousands of happy families and thousands of happy, secure and well loved children. Those, of course, are the majority. But there is, and always has been, a minority of the nation's children who, through no fault of their own, are born into families who simply cannot cope and who are not able to give their children the love, security and support they need. Being a good parent today is probably more difficult than it has ever been. For that reason too many children are inevitably being short-changed. They are not getting the security, love and support that they need to develop to their full potential.
Why does that matter so much? It matters so much for two reasons: first, because those children are being denied equality of opportunity for the whole of their lives; and, secondly, because it adversely affects our society as a whole. Although at any one time children comprise 20 per cent of the population, as has often been said, they comprise 100 per cent of the nation's future. It is today's children who will pay our pensions in a very few years' time. Functional families play a key role in the nurture of the nation's children. It may be too fanciful to suggest that the evolution of the human race has depended upon stable committed families. Homo sapiens is the only higher primate whose juveniles take 15 years or more to reach mental and physical maturity. Is it a coincidence that it is the human brain which has developed so much further than that of any other primate and that at the same time it is the human species which has developed social structures to protect and educate its juveniles during the first 15 years of their lives?
Statistics show that children who grow up in a stable, protective, loving family have better life chances measured against a whole range of factors—mental and physical health, educational achievement, employment and so forth, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. For those children whose birth family cannot provide that kind of care there is self-evidently a need for surrogate families. The importance of the Bill is that it is about one kind of surrogate family which can do that job. The Bill is about mobilising a resource which is under-utilised in

57
our society today—that reserve of good will, potential parenting ability and love which already exists in our society among many of those who cannot have children themselves or are prepared to take on more as well as their own.
We live in a society which believes in the diversity of family structures. Adoption contributes to that diversity. There is solid research evidence to show that some structures tend to work better than others. Carefully arranged and well supported adoption has a high success rate. Incidentally, statistically, it probably succeeds better than either single parent families or step families but that may be a contentious issue. That is why the Bill is important and that is why I hope that your Lordships will support it however much we have to do to improve it as it goes through this House.
I wish to make one more general point. Let us not be afraid to use the word "love". Because the word "love" is used so often by the tabloids to describe romantic love or sexual gratification, child professionals and others today prefer to talk of "caring", "relationships" and "attachment". Unselfish, dependable, forgiving love includes all those but it is also much more. Not long ago in response to a question of mine, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out that you cannot make a law that a father must love his son. Without doubt, that is true, but it is also without doubt that a child nurtured in a supportive, loving, functional family will tend to have a head start in life and that a child nurtured without love will tend to be at a disadvantage for life.
If we can get it right, this Bill should mean that significantly more of the nation's children will be able to grow up in the sort of family environment which will help them to develop to their full potential.
5.48 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, first, I apologise to the House as I shall have to be absent from the Chamber for about an hour later due to a prior commitment.
The Bill is welcome and much needed. Many issues and statistics have been raised already. The Bill emphasises that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration relating to adoption—a point that has been made many times. It places new duties and rights on those providing adoption services. It sets up review mechanisms. It suggests improved information systems and incorporates several useful amendments to the Children Act 1989. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree with the Health Secretary, Alan Milburn, when he said last year that
"society shares a responsibility to ensure that each child's life circumstances do not then limit their life chances. A kind and loving family is the rock on which society discharges that responsibility".
I shall not go into what we might mean by "family"; kindness and lovingness are more important than debates about what constitutes a family.
I hope that debates in your Lordships' House will not become over-focused on the issue of whether unmarried couples should or should not be able to
58
adopt. I recognise that there are strong feelings but I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, made a powerful case, based on his own experience, for recognising the facts, including the fact that our duties to children are paramount, too. Some of those children are in dire circumstances.
There are other issues in the Bill that are more important than that one. I shall raise one of them—it concerns listening to children and establishing the views of the child on adoption and care. Before I discuss that issue, I must declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children. I also want to pay tribute to the dedication and dynamism of the many voluntary organisations that work on behalf of children. They are unfailingly knowledgeable and helpful in their support and are active in making legislation for children more effective.
I move on to listening to children. More than 2·5 million children are now growing up as part of a step family and more than 1·5 million children visit a parent at the weekend and during holidays. The Children Act 1989 does not always ensure child safety when courts are considering the granting of residence and contact orders in private proceedings. That Act brought together public and private law provision. However, in public law cases, children have a guardian and a solicitor to listen to them and to present their interests in court but in private law disputes, the emphasis is on achieving an agreement between the adults concerned.
In November 2001, an amendment to Clause 1 was considered in a Special Standing Committee on the Bill. It sought to require courts or adoption agencies to speak to a child to ascertain his or her views regarding an adoption, where appropriate. Adopting at the moment can take place without any consultation with the child. The Minister of State at the Department of Health, Jacqui Smith, had sympathy with the amendment; she is well known for her concern for children's rights. Regulations and guidance were envisaged that would clarify how children might be involved in the decision-making process. I wonder whether the Minister would update the House on progress with such guidance and on how the Government will support the involvement of children. That issue should go across all legislation and I, for one, will continue to highlight the need to consult children on matters that affect them. Numerous surveys show that children want to be consulted and have clear opinions on what is best for them. We do them, and our system, a disfavour by not learning from their views.
The present system is based on two assumptions. The first is that, provided the parents agree, the arrangements will be in the best interest of the child. The second assumption is that parents will act reasonably and always in the best interest of the child. Those assumptions are not always correct and can have dangerous consequences. Some children may be forced to maintain contact with a violent or abusive parent—that was discussed by my noble friend Lady Gould. Another assumption may he that the child's mind may have been poisoned by the other parent.

59
Courts may not be able to identify children at risk because independent evidence on a child's behalf is lacking. In the majority of cases—provided that parents agree—there is no objective scrutiny of proposed arrangements for children or any consultation on their wishes. Judges are dependent on the written statement of arrangements or parenting plan documents that are compiled by the adult parties—the parents. Parenting plans are useful but they perhaps underestimate the acrimony and distress that can accompany divorce or separation.
During the passage of the Family Law Act 1996, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, expressed the view of the committee when he said that it would be desirable that the interests of children have representation in some way. Section 64 recognised the possible conflict that could arise between parents and children in private proceedings. Much of that Act, including Section 64, was shelved.
This Bill gives us the possibility of ensuring provision that is child centred and which can identify children at risk and provide courts with criteria for independent representation of their interests. There have been cases in which children have been murdered during unsupervised or unsuitable contact. Many others have been put at risk from domestic violence or warring parents. No child should be or wants to be in that position, but their views are denied.
Criteria for separate representation for children could be drawn up. They could include: cases in which parents are quarrelling and creating a situation that is not conducive to a child's best interest; where there is a history of violence; where contact with a non-violent parent is being denied; where a court accepts the need for medical or psychological reports on a child; where there is a conflict of interest between one or both parents, which could include conflicts arising in future as a result of the child disagreeing with court-approved arrangements that were made when the child was very young; and where the child is the subject of divorce proceedings for the second time or for subsequent times.
There are anomalies in our current system. Vulnerable children are at risk. That is inequitable and questionable in relation to the human rights of the child. The law must be clear and unequivocal about blocking that loophole and must include, in my view, the children's right to be heard. I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance that the Bill will improve the situation and ensure that the best interests of the child are served even better by listening to those most affected—the children themselves.
5.56 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I have two very positive reasons for supporting adoption. First, both my husband and I each have a very special cousin who has come into the family through adoption. Secondly, during my 33 years on the Bench, the most rewarding times were when I had the privilege of being involved in the adoption process.
60
One of the most enlightening pieces of legislation on the statute book is that which gives children who have suffered a trauma of some magnitude the opportunity of a new loving beginning and which gives to the adopting parents the precious gift for which they have longed. That may sound very simplistic but in the majority of cases that is how it is.
I welcome the Bill and its intention to make the needs of children paramount and at the heart of the whole process. I am glad that it had its origins in my party's review that took place in 1992. I am grateful to my honourable friend Mrs Caroline Spelman, who highlighted the issue of adoption and got it on to the agenda.
Over the years, the situation has changed. Far fewer adoptions take place—only 4,000 per year now, compared with 20,000 30 years ago. The proportion of children adopted from care has increased from 7 per cent to around 50 per cent over the same period. Thirty years ago, most were babies but now two-thirds are under five and 5 per cent are 10 or over.
I am also pleased that in 2000, the Prime Minister took the initiative of having a review of the adoption of looked-after children in care. In his personal introduction to the report, the Prime Minister commented on an anti-adoption culture within social work. He said:
"Too often in the past adoption has been seen as a last resort. Too many local authorities have performed poorly in helping children out of care and into adoption. Too many prospective parents have been confused, or put off by the process of applying to adopt, and the time the whole process takes".
I agree wholeheartedly with those sentiments. It is indeed horrific that we have an abundance of prospective adoptive parents and a wealth of children who are suitable and ready to join a new family but an organisation that does not place them but which keeps them within the care system. In addition, I deplore the culture of political correctness, which has no place in circumstances as sensitive as adoption, if it has any place in our lives at all. My right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith is deeply concerned that that is a stumbling block. He has also raised the problem that in some local authorities couples wishing to adopt have been rejected because they are of a different race from that of the child. It seems to me that some local authorities have gone way beyond filtering out unsuitable adopters, and many applicants appear to be put off at an early stage in the process by the general response that they receive.
In a case study that came to light in May this year, a married couple took two-and-a-half years successfully to adopt a girl aged four. They found the process,
"a total nightmare. It was too painful. There is too much incompetence, too much thoughtlessness and too much political correctness. Some of it defies reason".
What a condemnation of a system that is supposed to be helping children to a better life. Those particular applicants were interviewed in a dozen two-hour meetings spread over six months by a social worker, who, as they said, grilled them about their marriage, sex life, previous sexual relationships, finances,

61
childhood, attitudes to racism, to disability, to multiculturalism and to smacking. Twice they were turned down because the wife was potentially fertile. As the journalist who wrote about that couple's experience said:
"Some are turned down for good reason, but many perfectly good candidates just give up half way, humiliated and wrung dry by the long, drawn-out process".
Ninety-five per cent of adoptions are carried out by married people, and I believe that that should remain the case. The Office for National Statistics figures show that cohabiting couples are six-and-a-half times more likely than a married couple to split up within five years of the birth of a child. Adoption requires a commitment for life, but cohabiting couples seem unable to give that to each other. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that they could make that life commitment to a child.
Current legislation reflects the unique place of marriage in society. There is no doubt that marriage and the legal commitment that the couple have made to each other gives them the stability that is essential. Children in care have suffered enough and are often already the casualties of broken relationships. They need constancy and the security of life on an even keel. After all, it seems to me that, if unmarried applicants are keen enough to accept the responsibility of a child for life, it is not asking much of them to go through a form of marriage.
The other 5 per cent of adoptions are carried out by single people. Again, I hope that that situation will continue. I accept that children develop best when they have both male and female role models in the home. I understand that as I grew up without the benefit of my father, who died when I was 10. Single-parent families can work well. Indeed, in some cases, a child might gain from having just one caring parent.
I know of one case where a married couple with two sons adopted a daughter. Before the final procedure was completed, the husband was drowned but the wife went ahead with the adoption on her own. The daughter brought as great a joy to her mother and brothers as they brought to her.
In another place, an amendment was accepted to allow children to be adopted jointly by cohabiting same-sex couples. I have listened and wrestled with the arguments that that form of adoption does not disadvantage children. I respect other views, but I know that I could never support an Act legalising such a practice. I hope that this House will reverse the decision of another place and ask honourable Members to think again.
This is an important Bill and I am certain that your Lordships will give it the closest scrutiny. One thing is certain: I am sure that it will leave this House having had the utmost care that it and the children it will serve definitely deserve.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I give a very warm welcome to the Bill. It is a quarter of a century since the last Adoption Bill. 1 f one considers the enormous
62
changes in society and in attitudes over those years, the Bill is overdue. In fact, it completes a lot of the work that went into the Children Act 1989. That was a good Act and I am proud to have played a part when it was going through this House. One aim of the present Bill is to bring it into line with that Act. Clause 1(2) states that the paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the welfare of the child throughout his life, as is the case in the Children Act.
There have been huge changes in the adoption scene. In 1971, 21,495 children were adopted. In 2001, the figure was 5,500. For babies under 12 months old in 2000, 2,200 were in care and only 200 were adopted. So we can understand the Government's concern and why they aim to increase adoption by 40 per cent by 2005. I am sure that, with listening Ministers, we shall have an interesting and satisfactory Committee stage, as, indeed, was had in the Commons. I hope that the concerns that some of us have about certain aspects of the Bill can be sorted out and the Bill improved.
One of those concerns is about support for adopters after and, indeed, before adoption. The Minister mentioned that, as did many other people. As the Bill stands, adopters have the right only to an assessment of their needs. Those may be very significant if the children have experienced neglect and abuse. They may well have educational and health needs. They may have been moved a great number of times, either in care or in foster homes. But assessment alone is no help.
There should be a duty on local authorities to provide services, and there must be funding to pay for them. So far as I can see, there is no statement in the Bill about its financial implications. We know that certain moneys have been promised but we do not know exactly whether they will be enough. The Bill will give rise to huge financial implications and I hope that there will be sufficient to pay for training, which will be extremely necessary. Having read the Bill, I believe that the situation will be complicated, and social workers will have much work to do to get round it. Perhaps, in responding, the Minister will say something about the financial implications. I hope that he will also say when the Bill will be implemented as it is not clear to me when that will be.
I turn to another aspect—information and transparency. The situation is much better than it used to be, but surely a child's history should be available at the time of matching arid should not be left until he moves in with the adoptive family when a placement order is made.
The Bill contains some excellent provisions which will allow birth parents arid other birth relatives to be assisted in initiating contact with their adult adopted children. That will take place through the provision of an intermediary service by the adoption agencies or local authorities. Of course, most children now have clear memories of their birth families. But—this is important—these provisions will apply only to adoptions that take place after the Bill comes into force.

63
A generation of women who gave up their children between 1945 and 1980 have made repeated efforts, without success, to find out about their adopted children. Are they still alive? What have they made of their lives? Would contact perhaps be helpful? Those birth parents have no wish to interfere but they want to be there should they be wanted. That right should be made retrospective. Some agencies provide such a service, but not all. Surely this is a basic human right. What possible reason can there be for not giving that basic right?
I now want to mention a few points which are of concern to a consortium of adoption and associated agencies. I believe that the manner in which they have got together is very good. About 20 agencies have met and agreed what they want to do to change and improve the Bill. Therefore, it is important that we take note of their points. These matters were in fact the subject of amendments in the Commons but, unfortunately, due to the guillotine, there was insufficient time for them to be discussed. The issues remain live and, although they are too technical to raise in this debate, it would be helpful if the Government would, at this stage, give a preliminary response to the following questions.
First, how is the proposed wording for dispensing with consent in Clause 51(1)(b) compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998? The concern is that the simple welfare test in that clause will be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention because it is no different from the ground for any other Children Act order, such as a residence or special guardianship order. Yet, given that adoption is irrevocable, European case law suggests that there need to be exceptional circumstances to justify the state overturning parental consent.
My second question is whether the Government are willing to consider introducing a placement order in every case, including consent cases. That would be fairer to all parties because it would give greater clarity and certainty to the adopters that once the placement order is made there is little chance of turning back. That would give them greater confidence to invest emotionally in a child placed with them without the fear that the mother might change her mind and ask for the child to be returned. It would make clear to a consenting parent that once an order is made there is very little chance of reversing the placement. It would also ensure that members of the wider family have sufficient opportunity to make representations and come forward as potential carers before it is too late. While that might raise initial fears that it will increase expense and delay, there are compelling reasons for doing that, not least that the very complicated provisions concerning restrictions on removal in Clauses 29 to 34 could be simplified. If those points are ignored, it is likely that there may be a number of time-consuming and expensive appeals, which in themselves may cause detrimental delay to children in need of placement.
64
My third question is whether parents and children will be parties to adoption proceedings as opposed to placement order proceedings. If they are not, the court will not have the opportunity to canvass their views about contact issues and will hear evidence from only the adopters and the adoption agencies about whether adoption, as opposed to any other option, is best for the child. Given the finality of adoption, it does not seem right for the court to be presented with a partial view. My noble friend Lady Massey spoke of the importance of hearing the views of children.
My last question on this issue is what will be the role of the CAFCASS officer? Will it include investigative functions in consensual as well as non-consensual cases? It would be helpful to hear the Government's views on those matters in order to inform the work of the Committee in considering which amendments to table.
My final point concerns intercountry adoption. The Minister told us of some of the safeguards which have been put in place, which are welcome. However, I am anxious about our reputation abroad. Some countries—India, for example—refuse to deal with us. Chile, Costa Rica, the Ukraine, Russia and Vietnam are all unhappy with the United Kingdom procedures and would like to see proper agencies in the UK with which they can deal.
There are also concerns among many countries about the UK's attitude to immigration requirements and nationality. They want to see guarantees that those will be fulfilled easily and properly for the child rather than left to the discretion of officials at the time of entry. There is also the question of the ratification of the Hague convention on intercountry adoption, which Britain signed in 1994. Both that convention and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child state that intercountry adoption is a legitimate solution for children who have no chance of family life in their native country. The Department of Health recently said that ratification would yet again be delayed until next year. I appreciate, of course, that overseas adoptions may not be a burning issue for the Government at this moment when they are encouraging an increase in our own adoptions by 40 per cent.
This is a good Bill but I think that it can be improved. I look forward to Committee stage. I know that we have a number of interested Ministers who care about what we do.
6.14 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, along with my colleagues, I welcome the Adoption and Children Bill, which reflects the Government's determination to complete the overhaul of adoption services to ensure that children have successful, lasting placements with positive outcomes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, reminded us how complex childcare matters are. Adoption procedures are even more difficult and complex. There is one simple principle, set out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which we can all follow and hold central and which has

65
been repeated throughout this debate; that is, to ensure that the needs of children remain paramount throughout every consideration. It is not a question of balance. Adoption is not about finding children to meet adult needs to form a family; nor about dogma around what constitutes a family. It is about finding the right placement for children to grow up with love and security. More than that, it establishes the right of children to know their origins, having the opportunity to build bridges between the past and the present.
It was therefore with some relief that one found that the surprise proposal to remove the rights of adopted people to access identifying information about their birth parents had been dropped. I ask for reassurance from the Minister that that will not be reintroduced. Indeed, I hope that we can look to retrospective legislation so that more people can find out about the origins and the fate of their children.
There is no doubt that when it works adoption is the best answer for children left without a family, particularly children who have had the insecurity of growing up in care. But that security is lost in many and varied situations. I have spent most of my life working in social services or social care. It has always been clear to me that most—not all—children would prefer to retain contact with their birth family. That is why I am concerned about the dispensation wording in the Bill. It is easy in many circumstances to be convinced that the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with. It is much more difficult to meet the test that adoption would be so significantly better for the child than any other option as to justify overriding the parents' wishes. That should be added to the welfare checklist, which includes the consideration that alternatives to adoption have been adequately explored and eliminated.
As a social worker—I feel I need to speak up for social workers in this debate—I declare an interest because that is my profession, of which I am immensely proud. I remind noble Lords that matching children in families is an extraordinarily difficult process. There have been delays in the past. Social workers have been confused by the instructions of their local authorities. Some authorities are very pressurising about continuing to protect a child's family home and then have a different instruction about meeting targets for adoption. Consistency for social workers has given them the context in which they have been able to move forward and we have seen the results outlined in statistics, which I shall not repeat.
However, we must not become sentimental about placement. A small percentage of children are extraordinarily difficult to place. Anecdotally, perhaps I may say that I spent some weeks recently supporting two friends as they watched their adopted child die in hospital. She was the result of a difficult background. She was one of two adopted children, one who has succeeded the other. That has had a devastating effect on the rest of the family. These are very real, difficult situations.
66
There are provisions for time checks and targets in the Bill, recognising that speed is essential in the lives of children. However, it is also essential that real, deep, proper assessments are made. We should remind ourselves that large numbers of adoptions break down. I would ask the Minister that during this time when we are trying to speed up placement, we undertake enough research to understand what element it is within that placement that leads to breakdown.
In welcoming this legislation, and generally the good concern and protection it affords for children. I turn briefly to two other aspects. As I have said, most children are best placed with their birth family, and, when that is not possible, with an adoptive family. We all agree on that. But it is not true for all children. There is a substantial concern that the existing legal system fails to protect children from abusers who are known to them.
One of my colleagues mentioned that in recent years 15 children have been killed in England and Wales as a result of contact arrangements. Many more have suffered abuse and trauma. When I was chief executive of Childline, we undertook a survey in order to find out how many children called to complain that their mothers were forcing them to make false allegations about their fathers. Children call Childline about every conceivable situation, but we could not find one case—not one case—in that category. What we found were frightened, angry and, often, sobbing children, begging us to explain why they had to go to see an abusive, often sexually offending father and why no one could do anything about it.
Contrast that with the care with which we aim to ensure the placement of adopted children. If it is known that there is a violent offender in an adoptive home the placement simply will not take place. But, as yet, the Government do not ensure that contact or residence arrangements are safe for a child. While welcoming the Government's intention to extend the definition of "harm" in the Children Act to include witnessing domestic violence, it is essential that there is an assessment of risk in private law, contact or residence proceedings.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said, we pay much lip service to listening to children, but what prevents us from listening to those children in those circumstances? There is something incoherent about law which requires the court to set a higher standard of proof in cases involving more serious allegations, where the views of children who do not want contact with a non-resident parent are dismissed, and where there is no representation for the child. Just as adoption secures as safe as possible a home for a child, so we must ensure that contact or residence orders are safe for children.
We do not hear these children because there is no independent representation on their behalf. Childline, Barnardo's, the NSPCC, the Children's Society, the national youth advocacy scheme and Women's Aid hear these children's cries, but who speaks for them?

67
There is no direct social work reporting into the system and children have no entitlement to legal representation.
I support the British Agency for Adoption and Fostering and other adoption agencies in pressing for the last minute amendment which allows unmarried couples jointly to adopt. We are in a changing world. Every day 650 children see their parents divorce or separate; 300,000 children have parents who have been married before to other people; and over 2·5 million children are growing up as part of a stepfamily. Family patterns are changing. Many children seeking new adoptive families would face an alternative of care with all the uncertainty that that brings.
I hope that this part of the debate will not become focused on issues around gay adoption—they are so few—but on finding the right placement for the child. Children's needs vary. It is the child's needs that are important. To quote the leader of The Times:
"Laws which prevent responsible citizens providing love for the most vulnerable in our society are laws ripe for reform".
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that I use the word "love" frequently, even though I am a professional social worker. It is a very important word. Or maybe we are saying that only marriage gives one the responsibility in society. In that case I do not qualify and neither do several colleagues in the House.
I have spent most of my life involved with vulnerable, difficult and high-need children. They deserve the best individual assessment to meet their individual needs. They deserve a family to fit their needs, not to reinforce any lifestyle—married or unmarried—but to give them love and stability.
As the debate progresses, let us keep the children at the front of the debate, listen to them and ensure that they are represented, and, in appropriate circumstances, properly supported and protected.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before we proceed any further, it has been pointed out to me that a number of your Lordships may be in the Chamber quite properly in order to hear the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill debate. Those noble Lords may not have seen on the screens that it has been agreed that that debate will not take place today but is postponed until Friday 21st June. I thought that it might be helpful for noble Lords to know that.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I start by congratulating the Government on bringing forward this legislation. I think that they have set themselves and us an ambitious target by proposing an increase of 40 per cent in the national adoption target by 2004–2005. I wish them the best in fulfilling it. I also applaud their aim of providing children in care with better educational support, as well as speeding up the time it takes courts to administer the adoption process. Those measures are long overdue and deserve our support.
68
This debate, as many noble Lords have said, is first and foremost about children. Out of the 58,000 children in institutional care, 5,000 children nationwide are currently waiting for an adoptive family. We are the fourth richest nation in the world. It is a sad comment on our society that we can tolerate so many children living in institutional care and/or waiting for adoptive families. We have an opportunity over the coming years to address some of those issues.
First, I must warn the House that the Bill is in danger of being hijacked by a debate about the eligibility of unmarried couples to adopt, and, in particular, the eligibility of same sex couples to adopt. I ask the House to think very carefully about who the victims are of this hijack. It will not be the Christian Institute which seeks to reinforce marriage—whose position I completely oppose in this debate—or Stonewall (which I support) which seeks to reinforce the rights of gay and lesbian couples. The victims will be the silent ones, for they have no soap-box: they are the children in the children's homes; they are the young waiting for parents; and they are the vulnerable that need—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—love.
We should be bigger in this House and not allow what is best for children to be sidelined in this debate. We should be able to discuss sensibly the future of these children—I know the majority of your Lordships want to do so—without polarising our positions into a debate more fitting of Section 28 than the care of our children.
My starting point, like that of many other noble Lords, is the welfare of children. What is best for those children? I ask those who oppose the extension of adoption of children to unmarried couples to think again. I do not care if this House puts unmarried couples and same-sex couples to the back of the adoption queue. Let married couples have priority, if that is what your Lordships want. But we must face reality, because there is no adoption queue. There is no queue of couples waiting to adopt these children. Until there is, it is simply immoral—and I choose my words carefully—that these children are being brought up in an institution when there are loving couples willing to adopt them.
Even if one extra couple finds one extra child and creates a home and gives him a chance to unlock his potential, this Bill will have served its purpose. I shall watch the debate carefully. I shall listen to all that is said. But I put on notice those people who seek to restrict the extension of adoption to unmarried couples, or those who try to hijack this debate. You have a moral obligation to those children in institutional care and you will have to make a case to them as to why you wish to deny them access to loving homes. If you cannot do that, or your arguments run short, I hope that this House will stand up, not for the rights of unmarried couples, gay couples, or even for the rights of married couples, but for the children who need a loving, caring home.
This is indeed a debate about morality—a complex morality—but more importantly, it is about the needs of children. The needs of children need to be placed at

69
the centre of this debate, not political correctness nor Christian intolerance. Adoption is about finding parents for children, not children for parents. It is absurd that there are children without homes and couples who want to adopt them. The choice is not between married couples versus unmarried couples; it is about unmarried couples versus a life of institutional care. We all know what that involves. The Bill has a strong sense of moral purpose and I hope that petty intolerance will not stand in its way.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I greatly welcome the Bill, as have all your Lordships who have spoken this afternoon. Currently, the average wait for a child prior to adoption is, as the Minister said, two years and nine months. The measures in the Bill, the adoption register and post-adoption support services among them, should decrease that delay and increase the number of children adopted—we hope by as many as 1,100 by 2005, as the Government intend.
Increasingly, older children with more complex needs are being adopted. Outcomes for such children are far better in adoption than in care. I shall concentrate my remarks on the importance of stability for such children—stability that adoption often provides. I shall seek reassurance that the Bill's provisions for adoption support go far enough. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, the noble Baronesses. Lady Barker and Lady Young, and other noble Lords all expressed strong concern on that point. I shall consider the safety of children in contact arrangements for non-resident parents. I shall ask for the Bill to include a duty on local authorities to provide children in care or who have left care with an independent advocate—that service to be available to them when they make a complaint.
Who are those are older children with complex needs? David Pelzer was such a child. I shall cite from his biography.
"'You've made my life a living hell!' she sneered. 'Now it's time I showed you what hell is like.' Gripping my arm, Mother held it in the orange-blue flame. My skin seemed to explode from the heat. I could smell the scorched hairs from my burnt arm. As hard as I fought, I could not force Mother to let go of my arm. Finally I fell to the floor, on my hands and knees, and to tried to blow cool air on my arm … Mother then ordered me to climb up onto the stove and lie on the flames so she could watch me burn".
Another such child was Alison Cooper. She was a victim of violent incest from the age of 10. Audley Harrison was such a child. Now he is Commonwealth and Olympic super-heavyweight champion. He was expelled from school at the age of 15 for fighting. Recently, he visited the House of Lords under the auspices of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. He told of the winter days when his father called him out naked into the garden and proceeded to flog him with a set of car battery leads. His father alternated between beating him and taking a drink of his beer. I apologise to him if I have misremembered any of the details of his story.
One of the key means of compensating for such traumatic childhoods is providing stability. Had those children with complex needs been taken into care in
70
either England or Wales, would they have found stability? Most likely not. For those looked-after children in residential homes, there is a widespread problem of staff retention—far greater in some geographical areas than in others. Many staff are temporary, attached to agencies. Staff turnover is high; staff leave with a little or no warning. All looked-after children are at risk of suffering from the flux in social work provision. There is considerable difficulty keeping one social worker and one looked-after child together over a period of time.
The Government are seeking to address that problem of instability. The "Quality Protects" scheme has been making some headway and has been widely welcomed. For instance, it has introduced training for most care staff to National Vocational Qualification level 3. It has funded teaching assistants for looked-after children in schools and has set a target of a maximum of three placements per annum for a looked-after child.
Under the heading of stability, the number of placements in foster care, residential care or otherwise causes the greatest concern, as many of your Lordships have said. Five per cent of looked-after children experience more than 10 moves. I am advised by Professor Jackson of the Institute of Education and the Coram Family that approximately half of looked-after children in long-term care experience frequent moves. A child may have little notice of a move. He may move into a home of strangers whom he has never met before. He may well leave behind pets and friends. He will sometimes have to leave his school. Professor Jackson reports often meeting children who have experienced between 10 and 20 moves and meeting one 12 year-old who had had 52 placements.
So the boost to adoption that the Bill provides is most welcome because adoption can, under the right circumstances, provide far greater stability in the long term for children who have been in public care. I welcome the duty on local authorities to provide a post-adoption support service, to produce a post-adoption support plan, to provide post-adoption key working and to provide assessment for those who wish it.
I am concerned—I look to the Minister for reassurance on this point—that if there is no duty on local authorities to meet the needs of adoptive families as recognised in their assessment, we may yet fail the older children with complex needs for whom we are most anxious. Young couples may adopt such children believing that they will receive the support that they are likely to need. In a few years' time—perhaps after the Government's target of 2005—many of those couples may realise that they have been encouraged to take on society's most difficult and troubled children without receiving adequate support. As appears to be the case with our doctors, nurses, teachers and social workers, as a body, they may become disillusioned. Fewer adopters may come forward. The long-term project of finding the best homes for older children with complex needs may fail.

71
I recognise the budgetary constraints on the Minister. Local authorities are already overspending considerably and two-thirds of their overspend is directed at looked-after children. I hope that that figure is correct. However, given the long-term adverse costs of failing adequately to nurture those children, which have been so clearly described by other noble Lords, I hope that the Minister will sympathetically consider placing a further duty on local authorities.
Turning to a new subject, concern has been expressed about contact arrangements for nonresident parents. The noble Baronesses, Lady Howarth and Lady Gould, spoke eloquently on that point. I shall say only that it is estimated that about 30 per cent—15,000—of such cases feature domestic violence. It is recognised that the current provision for the supervision and support of contact is inadequate. I know that the Lord Chancellor's Department is beginning to address that. Could the Bill be used to raise more funds for essential contact services? For instance, might a charge on perpetrators of domestic violence for supervision be a helpful innovation? Such a charge is already extracted in the United States.
Finally, the children's consortium including the NSPCC, Barnardo's, and Voice for the Child in Care, of which I am patron, has been seeking to obtain a duty on local authorities to furnish children in public care and care leavers with an independent advocate when the child or care leaver has a complaint. It has sought that for three years. The Bill may be the last opportunity for several years to grant children that right in statute. Given all that we know about the experience of care and given what I said about stability, I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to my request.
I welcome the improved prospects that the Bill brings for providing good, loving and stable homes for children in the situation once faced by people such as David Pelzer, Alison Cooper and the other young man whom I mentioned, as they start out in life.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the Bill is a major overhaul of the adoption system. I welcome many of its provisions. In the main, it builds on the significant work undertaken by the Conservative government to improve the framework for adoption in this country. It is fitting that we should pay tribute to the work of the honourable Member for Meriden, who did so much in the other place to return the issue to prominence. I also pay tribute to the work done by professional and voluntary agencies. I agree with the Minister that we should be grateful to families who adopt and foster children.
No one could fail to be moved by the stories of so many children who are waiting for adoption. I was deeply moved by the family-finding magazines Children Who Wait and Be My Parent. More and more children enter the care system with ever greater problems, caused by neglect and abuse. The hurt is obvious behind the smiles of the children in those
72
magazines. We must ask why society is willing to allow such children to be so harmed before anything is done for them, by which time their problems are difficult—often impossible—to unravel. Such children need a loving, stable environment as much as those who remain with their birth family.
Children who are emotionally disabled as a result of neglect in the first months of life are the hardest to help. Such children place the greatest strain on adoptive families. There is a crisis of need among children of isolated single parents—mainly mothers—who abuse drugs and alcohol. Often, those mothers are exploited by a series of male partners, and they are likely to neglect their children, who are also at risk from those partners.
There is increasing evidence from neuroscience and neurobiology that neglect in the first months of life profoundly affects the development of a child's brain. Often, such children will be hyperactive and unable to concentrate or to form bonds of affection with other human beings. If they are boys, they are likely to be antisocial and aggressive; if they are girls, they will be withdrawn and depressed. They are prone to mental illness in childhood or later life. Because the damage has occurred at a critical period of brain development, it is impossible to cure it. That is why love is not enough. Families adopting a child who has been neglected or abused must have access to support from properly trained doctors, therapists, social workers and psychologists. Striking statistics from the Department of Health show a steady rise in the number and proportion of children coming into care because of the risk of—or actual—abuse or neglect.
Recently, there has been a small but encouraging growth in the number of fostering and adoption placements of children with physical, emotional or behavioural disabilities. In practice, however, many such children have experienced multiple failures in placement. If stability of placement for any moved child is to be maintained, children need thorough assessment and active co-operation between the health, education and social services to ensure good quality care and support.
The Government's response to the Children's Safeguards Review document of November 1998 included sensible recommendations for improving multi-agency co-operation. They included the pooling of budgets by social services and the NHS and the piloting of joint reviews, involving the Social Services Inspectorate, Ofsted and the Audit Commission. In 1991, in his review, Children in the Public Care, Sir William Utting expressed concern at the particular vulnerability of children with disabilities. He emphasised the need for the appointment of independent visitors who would play an important role in protecting children from abuse, providing access to representation and complaints procedures and monitoring the child's care plan.
The backdrop to the Bill is the radical change in the nature of adoption over the past 30 years. In 1970, there were 20,000 adoptions; now, there are only 4,000. The number of children in care is, typically, now

73
around 58,000. That provides its own challenges. Children who have been in care and who may be older are a more complicated prospect for adopting families. The problems that attach to children in care are serious. Sixty-seven per cent have an identifiable mental health issue; around 30 per cent have special educational needs; and 70 per cent leave care without any primary educational qualifications. They are 60 times more likely than members of the general population to end up homeless. Of all male prisoners under 21, 39 per cent have been looked-after children. Those statistics mask numerous tales of personal tragedy.
Many married couples would like to adopt. The problem is the delays that occur between each stage of the system. Worse still are the manifestly unjust and irrelevant. recommendations on adopters' lifestyles that have been identified by the Government's Performance and Innovation Unit. I hope that the rules relating to mixed-race couples and older couples can be relaxed to widen the scope for adoption by married couples.
I welcome the commitment to the improvement of adoption support services. That is a step towards providing a better framework for assessing the needs of adoptive parents and ensuring that the child and the parents have the best possible environment for care. Similarly. the improved registration processes will provide greater assurance of quality and effectiveness, coupled with greater consistency. However, I have a problem with the Bill's definition of couples who are suitable to be adoptive parents. The interests of the child must be paramount in all cases, and the Bill aims to enshrine that as a cardinal principle of adoption policy. Although I accept the genuine desire to expand the pool of potential parents, I do not accept that that should drive adoption policy at the expense of the child.
An adoptive child, even in the most stable environment has a great deal with which to cope emotionally. Feelings of rejection and the problems of coming to terms with the concept of adoption are considerable. I am, therefore, concerned at the plans to include unmarried and homosexual couples. Marriage has the strongest potential to create a powerful, stable unit. Unmarried couples who have children are six and a half times more likely to split up than married couples. Looked-after children are already the casualties of broken relationships. It cannot be right to place them in an environment in which, according to the statistics, history—in the form of custody battles and the like—is likely to be repeated. The necessary long-term commitment to the child is much more likely if the long-term commitment of marriage is present.
The question of homosexual couples as adoptive parents is in my view even more clear cut. The welfare of the child is the most important element. I am not an intolerant Christian, but I do not believe that homosexual couples would provide as stable a foundation for adoption as a heterosexual couple. A great stain would be placed on the child as he or she grows up.
74
The points of concern I have raised are serious ones, but the Bill has much to commend it. I look forward to its next stages and to helping constructively to ensure the best possible framework within which adoption may continue to play a pivotal role in securing stable and loving families for children who desperately need them.
6.51 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Barker, in a memorably humane and broadly based speech which demonstrated her grasp of the difficult issues lying behind the Bill, has laid down the broad approach these Benches will take. I shall deal with a few details rather than attempt to parallel the strength of her speech.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, who spoke immediately before me, like many noble Lords highlighted the benefits to children of adoptive parents as compared with life in a dangerous or unsuitable birth family or in a children's home. It is for that reason that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Astor, I support the availability to children of stable and loving homes provided by unmarried or single-sex couples.
I give wholehearted support to the emphasis that my noble friend laid on the importance of post-adoption support. As she said, whereas the obligatory assessment of post-adoption support of both adoptive parents and adopted children has been widely welcomed, there has been equally widespread concern that the provision of such support is not obligatory.
The Minister may feel that he can reassure us that the Government's intention is to make post-adoption support available to parents and children who need it when they need it and at the level at which they need it, but I doubt he will be able to convince us without detailed examination of the relevant clauses in Committee. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the cost of such services, as and when they are provided, is likely to be far less than the cost of remedying other problems such as offending behaviour, and we should not forget that family breakdown is the single greatest predictor of such behaviour.
I have witnessed a young offender's distress and desperation at the cruelty he has both witnessed and suffered in his parental home and his realisation that his own capacity to relate to others has been damaged by his childhood experience. We must bear that in mind at all times. This is one area where putting first the child's long-term interest will deeply repay society as well as assisting in the creation of a stable adoptive family. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, told us how difficult that is.
I turn to intercountry adoptions, which were dealt with in great detail by the noble Baroness, Lady David. At this stage in the debate, with another 15 speakers still to come, I shall not repeat all her comments, but I thought her approach was completely right and we on these Benches support it. Some argue that intercountry adoptions are undesirable in themselves. But if we are

75
concerned with providing children with a better option than upbringing in care, we should accept that such adoptions are a legitimate solution to their problems as well as to the problems of those who wish to adopt and cannot find a suitable child in this country.
I hope that as a result of Committee we shall be able to go further into that part of the Bill and reassure ourselves that it is properly laid out. Surely we should at least try to ensure that all children brought into this country have the same care devoted to them? In that respect, I turn to a matter that is not, strictly speaking, adoption. The Climbié case illustrated the dangers of children brought in by parents who do not have any particular status with regard to the care offered to them by social services. In that case both parents and the child came from abroad. It became evident to many people that the child was in danger and yet, through circumstances there is no point in discussing here, the child died.
Whoever the children are and whatever the circumstances in which they are placed in this country, we must be concerned that such children are more vulnerable and their interests should be given as much support as possible.
I support all those who have spoken about the need to give children a voice and to listen to that voice. Throughout my reading of the Bill I have tried to put myself in the position of the child. My question has been, "When do I get a look in?" We are often not talking about very small children, but quite developed children, upwards of seven or eight years, who are able to express their likes and dislikes. We should trust that expression of their likes and dislikes. Other noble Lords have referred to the need not to return children to dangerous homes. Often the children themselves will try to insist on that. Their voices must be heard, preferably through the provision of an advocate, as Section 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides.
I hope that we shall come to that issue and make progress with providing such an advocacy role when we come to Committee.
6.58 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I suppose I am very thick, but I wonder whether I am the only speaker to have found this Bill remarkably difficult to understand without constant reference to a number of previous Acts which are difficult to identify. It seems a pity that it could not, at the same time as introducing new material, have been a consolidation Bill, even if it would have taken longer to draft.
As I understand it, the purpose of this Bill is to make adoption easier and quicker, and so reduce the number of children in care, a very laudable and vital objective. There can be few worse fates for any child than to be brought up in care. Indeed, "in care" is a real misnomer, for in a "care" home there is no one who really cares for or loves that child, who is turned out at the age of 18 and left to fend for himself with no one to turn to in time of trouble or illness, nowhere to go
76
for Christmas and other holidays, with no one who belongs to him and to whom he belongs. For, despite the shrill cries of some people, usually women, that they belong to no one, only to themselves, we, who are lucky enough, all belong to one another: to our parents, to our children, to our grandchildren, to our friends. Everyone pities a dog who has no owner. A human being who belongs to no one is at least as pitiable.
I have long thought that to remain even in a fairly bad home is better than to be taken into care. After all, what is the point of being removed from one source of abuse only to find oneself in another? I am afraid that only too often that is what happens. I say that having talked to children who have been in care.
I just hope that this Bill really is going to have the effect of reducing the number of children in care and increasing the number who are adopted, but I cannot help wondering. I have long understood that there were more people willing to adopt than children available for them. I think one of the greatest obstacles to adoption is the time the process takes and the hoops the prospective adopters have to go through.
Certainly safeguards are necessary and prospective adoptive parents must be carefully vetted. But this should be done with a degree of what for want of a better word I can only call tolerance. That is not always the case. Political correctness too often comes into it. People who would make perfectly adequate adoptive parents are rejected because they smoke, because their houses are too tidy or too untidy, because, having been through every known medical process in an attempt to have a baby of their own, they are considered too old, because they propose to go back to work and employ a nanny; and for a host of other frivolous reasons, some of which were mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Seccombe, and by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever.
The Government and the social services responsible need to remember what is the alternative for such children. I should like to see some common sense brought into this area if it is possible. But unfortunately common sense is not the kind of thing which can be written into a Bill. Still, I would like carefully to scrutinise any regulations made on this matter.
Now I turn to Clause 48. A "couple" can mean a couple who are not legally married. I think we are now on dangerous ground because, easy as divorce has now been made, it is still more difficult to part from someone to whom one is legally married than from someone with whom one is merely cohabiting. Evidence shows that a legally married couple are more likely to stay together long enough to care for a child until he or she is grown up than are a cohabiting couple. Furthermore, I would suggest that if a cohabiting couple really mean to stick together, they might consider legalising their union in order to be able to adopt.

77
There are a number of cohabiting couples—mostly couples where one is a person of some substance—who will not marry because under the present divorce laws a large part of their assets could be claimed by a partner in a divorce settlement. The Act which made that possible was a real gold-digger's charter and has a lot to answer for.
Then there is the question of homosexual couples, whose track record as regards permanence is, I am afraid, worse still. All in all, I suspect that the number of adoptions will not be greatly affected by confining the right to adopt—
Lord Alli: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. At the beginning of her speech she described in detail how appalling institutional care is. She said that she would not consign any child to institutional care and that a bad home was better than such care. She also said that there are insufficient adoptive families for children, but I believe that she is wrong about that. Does she not accept that unmarried or same-sex couples will give a better home to children than institutional care?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, yes, I do accept that to live in the home of an unmarried couple would be better. However, I do not accept that the couple should adopt; I believe that one of the partners should adopt. When the partnership falls apart—and I am afraid that statistics show that that is often the case—the child will continue to be cared for by the partner who has adopted him or her. As I said, I suspect that the number of adoptions will not be greatly affected by confining the right to adopt to one person, except in the case of legally married couples for then I think a break-up, if it comes, would be less traumatic for the child, who would remain with the person who had adopted him or her.
Adoption is a form of pretence. It is probably best to keep the pretences to the minimum and not to enter into complicated games of "let's pretend" when they are for the sake of political correctness, not for the sake of the adopted child. The Minister tells us that the interests of the child must be paramount—quite rightly. As the Bill stands, they are not. It is the interests of unmarried couples which are paramount. They are not always the same.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, I want to declare an interest. I am secretary of the All-Party Children's Group and I have also been a local councillor. I have always had an interest in children in care and my experience leads me greatly to welcome the Bill. In particular, I have long-held concerns about the difficulties that prospective adopters face; notably age discrimination and other over-restrictive criteria that many social work theorists have inappropriately applied.
Children being in care is a last resort. When it is not possible for a child to be with his or her natural family, adoption is very much to be encouraged. The Bill presents the biggest overhaul of the adoption law in
78
more than 25 years and aims to improve the futures of hundreds of vulnerable children. The Bill puts the needs of children at the centre of the adoption process and I hope it will speed up the adoption system, of which I have had personal experience at every level, to provide permanent, secure and loving families for children who cannot live with their birth family. As a Christian and practising Catholic, I am appalled at the opposition to the Bill by CARE, the so-called Christian Action, Research and Education charity.
The Bill has a simple aim to ensure that every child in society has the best possible start in life through the opportunities that flow from growing up in a stable and loving family. Today that family unit is very different from those of the post-war years. A family can be a married couple; a heterosexual couple living together; a same-sex couple living together: or grandparents. A number of children have been brought up in this way without bureaucratic involvement.
Adoption can mean a new start in life for many children, in particular children who have been in care. The opportunity to grow up in a stable family environment has not always been available to looked-after children who for one reason or another cannot live with their natural family. I agree with Alan Milburn, the Secretary of State for Health, that adoption has too often been considered as a last resort for those children when it should have been considered the first response.
Not only have those children lost out by the failure of previous governments and councils to be progressive and the mindset of social workers who move on leaving children in care, but records are often lost and no one turns up to parents' evenings and sports days or encourages the child to take part in other school activities such as the play or concert. More than six children out of 10 leave care at 16 without a single qualification. That is not a failure of the child; it is a failure of us as a society for not making adoption less difficult.
Many prospective adopters have been treated badly, being put off by social workers and having to start a number of new relationships when social workers move on, in some cases up to six times. Each social worker has different criteria which drives potential adopters away to try to adopt abroad, paying privately, while at any one time 60,000 children are in care.
The Bill has five key aims: first—as I said at the beginning of my speech—to make children's needs paramount; secondly, to provide support for adoptive families; thirdly, to assist in making the process of adoption fairer; fourthly, to speed up the adoption process; and, fifthly, to strengthen the rigorous safeguards protecting the child, including those for inter-country adoptions. My hopes for children in care and for prospective adopters is that this Bill will provide a new start and a new, loving family lire for a child, and a chance for the thousands more children who are in care to have a better future in our society.
7.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I ask for the understanding of the House if, after I have spoken, I leave in the vain attempt to return to Manchester tonight.
Like other noble Lords, I acknowledge the need to update the Adoption Act 1976, given that much has changed over the past 26 years, not least the age of the majority of children in need of adoption, a point already made. These children need the best possible context in which to live and grow. No child chooses to be born. Those who bring children to birth have a responsibility to do their best for their children, providing a context which is affirming of the child, loving, stable and conducive to growth.
Inevitably there are situations in which, for a variety of reasons, those who give birth to children are unable to provide such a context. That being so, it is important that the community beyond the immediate family stands by ready to do what it can to enable children to blossom and flourish; hence the practice of adoption.
I am pleased that the Bill recognises that adoption and the adoption process will function best if the welfare of the child is paramount; its safety, security, support, assimilation and opportunity to flourish. Too often casual talk has suggested overmuch emphasis in popular minds on the interests of adults, on the alleged "rights" and "freedoms" of adults, rather than on the interests and needs of children. So I very much welcome the recognition that the adoption process will function best if the best interests of children are at the centre of all decisions.
It is with the welfare of children in mind that I wish to express some concerns about the status of prospective adopters. OK, that will be unpopular and I shall wait to be told that I am prejudiced and that I am immoral. I can hear all that. I should confess that I have a vested interest, having been married for 39 years. Tut, tut. I gather that no one else in the House has been married at all or is still married after 39 years. I was married to a girl who has been involved with children in local authority care and voluntary organisation care. Furthermore, I have a son-in-law who daily is involved with teenagers and children with special needs. I could talk about my own work with the English Churches Housing Group, helping girls with special needs, but humility does not allow me to advance my speech.
The best interests of children are served by enabling them to live and grow in a loving and stable environment. We have to spell out what such stability means. It requires a commitment from adopting adults to a child throughout the child's life. Many, if not most, children who are adopted need protection against the possibility of separation from those who adopt them. All too frequently such children are already the casualties of broken relationships between parents and child and have experienced the trauma of family breakdown and separation.
80
Furthermore, is it wise to commit a child for life to adults who have not committed themselves to each other for life? In my judgment, when adults apply to adopt a child, the need for stability for the sake of that child should require that the adults—if they be more than one—are publicly and legally committed to each other for life. It is not in the interests of children to be placed with two adults who are not committed to each other. Many children who are adopted need protection against the worst effects of separation by the adults with whom they live. Why is that? Because so often such children are already the casualties of broken relationships between their mother and father, who have broken up, separated and often divorced.
Like many noble Lords, I would argue that more often than not the best context for any child, including an adopted child, in which to flourish is that provided by a mother and father whose commitment to one another is publicly and legally expressed in marriage. I shall give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I put the same question to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. If there is a shortage of such people, is the right reverend Prelate saying that institutional care is better than that of unmarried couples?
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I do not say that at all. I have not yet finished what I have to say. The noble Lord will hear my point in a few moments, if I may be allowed to proceed.
In speaking, I am conscious that today there is considerable pressure to equalise all relationships—female and female, female and male, male and male— and to regard all relationships as being of equal worth. That is so much so that recently I read a piece written by a Christian minister who asked:
"When did you last hear of a silver wedding celebrated on the media? I guess about once for every hundred or more divorces or splits which are reported with such evident glee. When was the last wedding anniversary enjoyed in a soap?".
But for all the understandable pressure to equalise relationships, I still want to ask: are the different types of relationship not only equal, but of equal worth? Some include no commitment adult to adult, some include a purely private commitment, while some include a public and legal commitment. We have already heard the figures in other contributions, but I am told that relationships of cohabiting couples who have children do not survive for as long as those of married couples who have children. However, I recognise that married couples' relationships also frequently break down.
If that be true, and the figures from the noble Baroness can be taken as read, then there are major differences with regard to the stability of different types of relationship. That is not to suggest that relationships are not be regarded as equally valid, to be treasured and enjoyed, but that there are differences with regard to their stability. If stability is to be one of the key considerations for adoptive children, we need to take that point seriously.

81
Equally, that is not to say that some cohabiting couples, whatever their gender, may not offer better loving care than some married couples. Certain married couples are quite disastrous in the care they offer their children. But rather like some 14 year-olds can drive a car better than some 24 year-olds or 64 year-olds, we have decided for whatever reason that 16 years old is the right way to go about it and that is where wisdom lies. So while not wanting to deny the fact that single people and people of the same gender sometimes can offer better care than those who are heterosexually married, we ought to proceed with some care when thinking about where the best care lies rather than simply going, as it were, for any option that is around.
We have also heard that different types of relationship offer different role models for children. Do we yet know enough about the effects on the development of children growing up within different types of adult relationship? Here again we are caught in a bind, a point made clear earlier. There is a difficulty with regard to balance. We do not have the evidence, so we cannot say yes, and because we do not have the evidence, we cannot say no.
I recognise that different types of relationship can satisfy different adult needs. I have friends who are lesbian and homosexual. Individual adults find a way of relating and not relating to other adults. Such differences are to be understood and welcomed. But I am afraid that I remain convinced-here I shall be called "prejudiced and immoral", a phrase I thought I heard used this afternoon-that if children are to have the best chance of thriving-I stress my use of the word "best" rather than "only"-then they need the security of loving and stable relationships that are publicly and legally recognised by the state, and that offer both female and male role models. That is what I understand by marriage these days.
I argue the case from that point of view. I believe that Her Majesty's Government have a continuing duty to support the notion that, while different kinds of relationships can be of value to the individuals involved in them, offering friendship, support and so forth, we should continue to accord marriage a special status among all the other important and valuable relationships that exist. Normally a married couple should be the first choice of context in which to place a child for adoption. Nothing should be done further to weaken the position of marriage in the community. However, that is not to say that ultimately it would be inappropriate to place people in need of love and care with those who are not married, but who may be single or may be couples of the same gender.
7.19 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, as secretary of the All-Party Group on Adoption, I very much welcome the arrival of this Bill into the House. It aims to replace the Adoption Act 1976 and to modernise adoption laws. As has been said, adoption has changed significantly since 1976. Then there were mostly babies and younger children to adopt; today
82
there tends to be mainly older children who, for a variety of reasons, remain in the care system for most of their childhood.
I sincerely thank the Government for introducing this forward-thinking Bill. I believe that it is one of their most important initiatives, but perhaps that is because I have a personal, direct interest in it. Adoption is not an academic interest for me but has become an important part of my life.
I wish to take your Lordships back in time five years. I witnessed a happily married young couple who very much wanted children. At first they thought it was only bad luck that they did not conceive but, over the years, they realised that perhaps they were not able to have them for medical reasons. Their dreams of birth children began to fade.
Society at the same time did not help. Comments began and there were questions about when the sound of little feet would be heard; suggestions that perhaps selfishness stopped them having children. Insensitive and unthinking remarks all made matters worse because, like any childless couple, their heartache was hidden from view.
As friends of their age began to have families, they turned their thoughts to adoption and sought advice about it. They decided to adopt a child or children and were willing to have a child with special needs. During the process of adoption there were good times and there were bad times. On the good side, there was the obvious, genuine, caring helpfulness of the key social workers involved. The initial adoption information was up-front and thorough. They were able to talk to other adoptive parents and there were thorough follow-ups from those meetings.
On the down side, after these initial helpful steps things began to deteriorate. They faced intensive and intrusive questioning, a point mentioned earlier in the debate. This questioning was weekly until they were eventually placed on the adoption panel. Then there was silence; a void of three months before they were contacted again-no letter, no phone call, no visit. Because they had successfully by this time jumped through the hoops, their specific social worker now had to move on to the next adoptions to be processed.
I use the word "processed" advisedly. On a number of occasions during the adoption procedure they were referred to as an "Essex resource", both to their faces and in correspondence, because they were calculated in that county's budget. They were told that they could not adopt from another county because of this. It is to be hoped that a national register will help in this regard, and I welcome it particularly. But we should not be talking of resources alone; these are human beings at a very vulnerable time of their lives.
They were also warned that, despite being placed on the register, they might never get a chance of adopting at a time when they were anxious and eager to give love and a home so urgently needed for so many children.
This information, when it finally arrived, came in impersonal and bureaucratic circulars, written in cold and, indeed, crass language, which emphasised to them that they were seen by the council as numbers,

83
resources, rather than as prospective parents. By this time many less determined would-be adopters would have been put off forever. Luckily, eventually they were matched with a child-a child who, in his 10 months in care, had had four different social workers.
So began the next stage, during which the notes about this particular child were lost on a number of occasions, even the notes which included the critical assessment report needed for the court to make the county order for the adoption order to be made.
I wish to make it clear that I am not critical here of the individual social workers concerned in this case. They were, by and large, both supportive and very helpful. But I am critical of the system in which they were working, and in particular the bureaucracy surrounding it. I hope that these illustrations of faults in the current system will help to show how urgently new legislation is needed.
It is against such a background that the Government are introducing the Bill, which has been welcomed by a variety of adoption organisations. The Adoption Forum has welcomed the Bill as progressive and timely and, together with Adoption UK and After Adoption, is,
"delighted that the Bill has acknowledged the need for adoption support and that assessments for support will be provided for all parties to adoption".
The British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering state that,
"the Bill contains some excellent provisions"—
and—
"with this new adoptive legislation and proper adoption support thereafter, there will be many more children who could benefit from the lifelong love and security of adoption".
The Law Society states that it,
"welcomes the focus on the welfare of children"—
as do we—and the Overseas Adoption Helpline,
"welcomes the recognition of the importance of adoption support services for adopted parents, birth parents and adopted people, and that intercountry adoption is included in a comprehensive adoption service".
Of course, as with all legislation, organisations which are directly affected by it, or have specialist knowledge about it, have some criticisms of it. So it is with this Bill. Areas specifically highlighted by the Adoption Forum include the extension of appeals mechanisms, lay visitors to help the child particularly, provision of information to all concerned, placement orders and status conferred by adoption. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on these points, which will be raised again as we take the Bill through the House.
As has been mentioned on a number of occasions, some adoption agencies are concerned about post-adoption support, a matter with which I concur absolutely because again this was a cause of great anxiety for the couple I have instanced. In their case they received regular visits from social workers for the first three months after placement. Then, because they were told that they were "coping so well", their support was withdrawn. They felt totally abandoned
84
at a time when they believed that they needed more support and advice. In addition, they did not receive information from their local authority about help and about the nearest post-adoption group until 15 months after the placement took place. Obviously there is a need for improvement in this area.
The end of the story that I have woven throughout my contribution is a happy one. We were very lucky. I have a beautiful young grandson, now aged three, who has brought great joy to our lives. His special need, which is chronic asthma, is improving dramatically. I have watched him change from a shy, solemn little fellow into a warm-hearted, laughing and confident little boy.
The children in adoptions are the most important people in the process, but as we debate the Bill we must remember all those involved. The decisions we take as we debate the Bill will affect many, many lives directly. We must remember that children are not commodities to be bought or sold; neither are they statistics on a piece of paper. They are young human beings whose lives can be improved or marred by us.
With this new legislation many more children should be able to benefit from the love and security which adoption can bring. I was pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Young, back in the House-she is not in her place at the moment-and I agree with her particularly that the regulations which will accompany the Bill will need to be looked at carefully, as so often happens in our legislation. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point.
I, as have others, recognise the great emotion surrounding the parts of the Bill which cover cohabiting and single sex couples. I also recognise the importance of the issue. But we have to get it into perspective. I personally believe that cohabiting and single sex couples should be able to adopt. I hope that this point, which is already dividing us, will not be allowed to hijack the debate. There is so much else in the Bill to debate apart from those clauses. In so doing, we should draw the attention and understanding of the public to all the issues surrounding adoption.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, this is a valuable and important Bill which will profoundly affect the lives of a large number of vulnerable children most of whom have had a very difficult start in life. It is encouraging that page 1 of a 120-page Bill sets out clearly and unequivocally the principle that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration in all decisions relating to adoption. I warmly welcome that. It seems to me fundamental. The Department of Health summarised its aims as being,
"to put the needs of children at the heart of the adoption process and speed up the adoption system",
and,
"to help provide permanent, secure, and loving families for children who cannot live with their birth families".
Those are admirable objectives.

85
Until 1975, adoption used to be handled by voluntary societies on which sat experienced and responsible citizens who often had had children of their own and were sensible and unprejudiced. Now it is in the hands of professionals in the social service departments of local governments who, it seems to me with all respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, have been less successful in handling it. I was impressed by what the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said about the discouraging experience of potential adopters being grilled by social workers.
There is, I believe, a need to encourage the adoption of more children as young as possible. They have then a better chance of forming a close, loving relationship with the adoptive parents. It is clearly easier to find couples willing to adopt infants rather than older children who have had several years' experience of care. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Northbourne raised this point.
I am sure that the whole House will have welcomed the noble Baroness, Lady Young, back in her place today. In her powerful speech, she pointed out that the Government have gone back on their original proposals. Indeed, they have. An official spokesman for the Department of Health told the Special Standing Committee in another place last November that,
"the Government broadly agreed with the findings of the Adoption Law Review that 'married couples, given the publicly recognised commitment that they had given and their legal obligations to each other, were more likely to provide the child with the stability and security that it needed'".
At the same session of that Standing Committee, the Minister, Jacqui Smith, made the additional point that,
"in the event of divorce, a married couple must be prepared to have plans for the future of their children scrutinised by the courts",
whereas there was,
"no provision in law to protect the child's interests when unmarried couples separate".
Despite that, the Government accepted amendments to allow cohabiting and homosexual couples to adopt.
The Bill seeks to make the child's welfare paramount. If that is accepted, it cannot be right to accept those amendments. Cohabiting couples have declined to make a public commitment to stay together and have been shown by the Office for National Statistics to be far more likely than married couples so split up. That would be devastating to children they have been allowed to adopt. As CARE puts it,
"it is not in the interests of vulnerable children to be placed with couples who are not legally committed to each other".
The proposal that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt, included in the Bill, seems to me even more opposed to the principle that the child's welfare should be paramount. In a BBC interview some time ago, the right honourable Jack Straw said:
"I am not in favour of gay couples seeking to adopt children because 1 question whether that is the right start in life".
86
That is about as moderate a way of putting it a s can be thought of. It would involve placing children in a situation where they have either no adoptive father or no adoptive mother. Homosexual relationships, I believe, tend too to be unstable and short-lived.
British Social Attitudes found in 1993 that 74 per cent of the public opposed adoption by lesbians and 84 per cent opposed adoption by male homosexuals. I think that many people away from Westminster will have found it extraordinary that the other place should favour same sex adoption. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it may well increase the disillusion with politicians which appears to be growing in the country. I hope that the House will reject the amendments made to a Bill which is otherwise so valuable.
I have listened carefully to the speeches made in this debate from many different points of view but all made with sincerity and often with real feeling. I respect the views of those who take a different view from my own. I have learned a good deal today. But I hope that in the later stages of the Bill we can arrive at a consensus on how this crucial matter should be handled.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, first, I apologise for my somewhat odd voice and hope that it will last for the few brief minutes that I shall speak. I welcome the second introduction of the Adoption and Children Bill which had its origins in the Conservative Government's review which took place in 1992 and was introduced largely thanks to Caroline Spelman, a Conservative Member in another place. I wish to speak about potential adopters, to seek information from the Minister and perhaps make a point on the subject of age. I have sat through all but two of the speeches and have learnt something from each one of them. Your Lordships' House is a wonderful place for hearing a variety of opinions. The broad sweep of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, gave me much food for thought, for which I thank her, in particular her clarion call for continuing support for adopting couples or single persons. I was also most moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Astor.
The Prime Minister's review stated that form F of the British Association of Adoption and Fostering is universally used as the principal means of assessment. It has the benefit of allowing consistent assessments but it is not always seen as the best way of assessing applicants. It is long, detailed and can be construed as intrusive. I am sure we all hope that it will be improved upon.
We are told that too many children are left in care, and how sad that is. I found most moving some of the stories we have heard today. But there seems little information available about how many applicants never make it to the adoptive panel stage. Nor could I find reliable information on the number of prospective adopters who have been turned down. Only figures relating to children who have been adopted and those who have not been are collected. Perhaps I am wrong.

87
The Government concede that the shortage of potential adopters stems often from the hurdles that they are required to jump. I should like to bring up the subject of age. I expect that we have all known couples who were turned down on the ground of age. I have been unable to find the official cut-off age. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten me. In these times of demographic changes where we have to alter many of our assumptions perhaps it might be time to consider whether the bar is too low for the adoptive age for potential parents. My son is 38, my daughter-in-law is 36 and they are having their first baby in July. I take that simply as a case in point.
On Clauses 44 to 49, a number of amendments were carried in another place outlining new proposals to allow unmarried couples to adopt. During debate on Clause 47 in another place, the Minister indicated that the Cabinet Office was embarking on a review of partnership registration and that it would be premature to commit to any change in the law before that review was complete. She continued that the Adoption Law Review-the noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred to it-concluded when considering joint adoption that the law should remain limited to married couples on the ground that adoption by a married couple was more likely to provide the stability and security that the child needed because married couples have made a joint, publicly recognised legal commitment to each other; that marriage provides for mutual, legal and financial obligation; and, importantly, in the event of divorce, the couple must be prepared to have plans for the future of their children scrutinised by the courts. I quote:
"There is no provision in law to protect the child's interests when unmarried couples separate".
That is the heart of the matter for me. As we heard today, so many of these children are already vulnerable. To think that there would be no provision in law to protect the child's interests when an unmarried couple separate is too much for me to contemplate at this stage. So, until and if partnership registration becomes a reality, I believe that joint adoption must remain limited to legally married couples. Before anyone accuses me of anything else, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, will remember that I spoke most supportively during the debate on the Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, of some of the thoughts then expressed on the formation of new partnerships. I trust that I shall not be put into the box with which we have been threatened this afternoon if we do not immediately support same-sex relationships. I conclude on that note.
7.41 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome this long, overdue Bill. I should like to raise a concern about comments made on the issue of same-race placements, which has been vaguely mentioned during the debate. I shall also make another comment on the Bill as regards Clauses 44 to 49, which I totally support.
Over the years many thousands of looked after children have benefited from the generosity and commitment of adoptive families. I do not doubt their
88
unstinting love and devotion. I recognise the Government's aim to increase the use of adoption as a means of offering permanence to children in care, but there are some downsides to this noble aim that I believe ought to be heard.
In the past decade I have been part of a banner-waving movement that looked into special failures to children who were adopted out of their own racial groups. It was not political correctness: it was a fact, backed by empirical data, that, even with the best care of well-meaning adoptive parents and however loving the environment, the children developed a crisis of identity in later years that prevented them from being contributing members of society.
At this time we must be aware that many children in need of adoptive homes are from black and mixed heritage communities. It is important that we are able to attract families that reflect and maintain the children's heritage and identity, or to give support to those willing to cross the cultural divide. That support must be a duty.
Families come in all shapes and sizes. It is important that social policy adjusts to these changes. It is not our task to moralise or pass comment on changing patterns of family life, but to ensure that we attract and recruit people to offer safe, loving and consistent care to a baby, a child, or a young adult in need.
When seeking to find the right environment for the child, we need to take account of the cultural heritage and identity links. I repeat: it is not political correctness. We need to do this to avoid confusion later on when the child, or young adult, rediscovers his roots. This often leads to the adopted person exploding, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, when he is unsure of who he is.
As well as confusion, there is also the sense of being used as a mascot, which often happens in some families. Such children are treated as mascots. I shall quote just one line from a young child, who claimed that her adopted parents often introduced her by saying, "Meet our curly-headed, chocolate child". That may sound inoffensive to the speaker, but was definitely offensive to the child. When she wrote her book 30 years later, she said that that was the most hurtful thing that had ever happened to her. She said, "I wanted to curl up and die".
A well-rounded understanding of the issues to be faced is required so that it is less of a shock; so that denial is not employed by the children. I should like noble Lords to imagine for a moment the trauma experienced by a child if, for example, we were to lock an English child in a Chinese, an Indian, or a Greek home. There would be love, but there would also be an unawareness of the child's cultural needs. Locking a black child in an English home environment often results in children feeling lost in that society. Locking a Muslim or a Protestant child in a Catholic environment can have the same consequences.
We should not dismiss the latter as examples of political correctness. Children in such circumstances may later try to find their identity-often when they have gone to university or entered into further

89
education. In the case of the black child, I should like to explain to the House that there is a model way of bringing up a black child in a white society. Without any doubt, they will face prejudice and racism at some time. I understand the logic of wanting to provide families instead of local authority care, but I should like to ask the Government to consider and make provision for the human costs in the lives of these children and, later on, as young people. The Government must invest in ways that will lead to positive role models for the children who find themselves adopted outside their race, so that they can be at ease with themselves.
I believe that such an investment needs a very comprehensive strategy to ensure that the young people placed outside their own racial roots will be future good citizens. I have met many families who have adopted children outside their own racial heritage. They are loving and wonderful parents, but there are parts that they cannot reach without help and support. I urge the Government to take note of that and to ensure that those parents are given the support that society can provide. Some children become very good performers, but suffer inwardly. Later on in adult life, they need years of counselling to be at ease with themselves.
I shall not bore your Lordships with the tales of suicides or drop-outs resulting from crises of identity. Instead, I should like the Government to understand that the successful parents did so at great costs to themselves. They, and others like them, will need support in real terms to make a success of what is a genuine need if we are to have well-balanced young citizens-and. subsequently, older citizens-in the future.
My second point relates to the "Suitability of adopters", as outlined in Clause 44. The issue was addressed in the other place on a free vote. I should like to add my support to the decisions taken in that place. The child to be adopted must have the right to a legal relationship with both those persons caring for him, even if those persons are not married. The child's right must be respected. We live in a society where a high percentage of couples-about 15 per cent-choose not to marry. Their choice not to marry should not be allowed to deny the adopted person the chance of a two-parent, caring home provided that all the other component facts are satisfied.
We should also remind ourselves that same-sex couples, whether or not they may wish to marry, are unable to do so given the present state of the law. But that does not mean that they cannot provide the kind of home in which a child can be brought up safely and with love and care. I firmly believe that more people would be encouraged to come forward if they believed that they could make a joint legal commitment to the child they seek to parent. That is why I feel that the Bill deserves the support of the whole House.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I begin by apologising most profusely to the House for my
90
absence during the early part of the debate. I had every intention of being here on time, but it proved impossible.
I particularly wanted to speak in this debate because of my involvement in children's issues and my work with NCH, the large children's organisation. I begin by mentioning two points. First, the Government should be congratulated on bringing forward this excellent Bill, as should colleagues in another place on the work that they have done to improve it. Secondly, I intend to leave to others who are more expert and experienced than I am the consideration of the generality of the Bill's purpose. Having listened to the contributions so far, I believe that that is probably a wise decision.
I intend to address my remarks and attention to Part 2 of the Bill and to amendments to the Children Act 1989, and to the children's safety issues which are addressed by the arrangements for contact between children and abusive parents. In many ways, I intend to pick up the baton of my honourable friend Margaret Moran, who championed this issue with some degree of success when the Bill was in Committee in another place. She has done much of the hard work and has made many of the arguments that will be deployed during the passage of the Bill through this House.
Perhaps I may also place on record my thanks to NCH, the NSPCC, Barnardo's, the Children's Society and the National Children's Bureau which, alongside Women's Aid, have provided briefing and support in relation to this issue.
Like those organizations, I support the principle of children maintaining contact with both parents following separation where this is in the children's best interests-and in the vast majority of cases it most certainly is. However, the existing legal system fails to protect children from abusers who are known to them. It is shocking to learn that in recent years 15 children in England and Wales have been killed as a result of the contact arrangements that were in place.
That means that the Children Act 1989 is not effective in ensuring child protection when the courts consider the granting of contact and residence orders in private proceedings. This has been exacerbated by recent case law that has distorted the welfare principle in the Children Act 1989 and, as a result, has placed many children at risk.
Urgent action is required to address the risk in which children are being placed again and again when courts grant unsupervised contact with parents who are known to have abused their children. The Adoption and Children Bill provides an opportunity to address this vital issue of child protection.
We know that the Government are sympathetic to this issue. Following lobbying from the children's coalition and Women's Aid during the passage of the Bill through the Commons and the championing by Margaret Moran and her colleagues, the Government introduced an amendment to extend the definition of

91
"harm" to include any harm that a child may suffer due to the witnessing of the ill-treatment of another person.
The Government's amendment is very welcome, but the measures still do not require the courts to ensure that contact and residence arrangements will be safe for the child. The Government's amendment covers the trauma to a child as a result of witnessing ill-treatment, but not direct abuse to a child.
Let us examine the implications for these children of unsupervised contact with a parent who has an abusive history. A survey in 1999 of 130 parents who had been ordered by the courts to submit to contact visits found that 76 per cent of their children had been abused during the visits: 10 per cent of the children had been sexually abused; 15 per cent had been physically abused; 62 per cent had suffered emotional harm; 36 per cent had been neglected; and 26 per cent had been abducted or involved in an abduction attempt.
As I have mentioned, recent case law has served to make the situation worse. There are three cases which have made the need for action in this matter even more urgent. In the case of H and R (Child Sexual Abuse)[1995] the House of Lords ruled that a higher standard of proof than the simple balance of probabilities should be required in family law cases involving serious allegations. This ruling has been very damaging in cases where there is reason to believe that a child is too young to give evidence. For example, 45 per cent of children living in refuges are under the age of five. Two of the five Law Lords dissented from the ruling. One of them, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, expressed concern that this case could,
"establish the law in an unworkable form to the detriment of many children at risk",
because child abuse, particularly sexual abuse, is notoriously difficult to prove in a court of law. My understanding is that the Lord Chancellor's Department has recognised the difficulty that the ruling has created.
In the case of O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions)[1995], the Master of the Rolls ruled that contact is,
"almost always in the child's interest",
and he dismissed concerns about domestic violence causing emotional harm, stating that the court should,
"not accord excessive weight to what appear likely to be short-term or transient problems".
This ruling remains highly influential, as contact is very rarely refused.
Finally, in the case of A v N (Committal: Refusal of Contact)[1996] the Court of Appeal ruled that in committal proceedings the welfare of the child is not the paramount consideration. The mother in this case was criticised for making "flimsy objections" and sentenced to six weeks in prison, even though the previous judge,
"accepted that the father had a history of violence, including a very serious assault on his former wife for which he was sent to prison".
92
Over recent years, the media have reported a number of cases where children have been murdered during unsupervised contact. These include the case of Daniel Philpott, aged seven, and his brother Jordan, aged three, who were killed by their father during a contact visit in August 1999. Unsupervised contact had been granted even though he was facing charges of threatening to kill his ex-partner and causing her actual bodily harm. Another such case is that of Imtiaz Begum, who was stabbed to death in a railway station when she was collecting her son after a contact visit in 1996. Her son was found strangled in her husband's car and her three daughters were found dead in their beds with their throats cut.
The irony is that this Government have introduced a range of measures to protect children from sex and violent offenders, including Schedule 1 offenders who have committed offences of neglect, physical injury or sexual harm to a child. These measures include the Sex Offenders Act 1997, which requires sex and violent offenders, including Schedule 1 offenders, to register their name and address with police, and provisions to ensure that unsuitable people, including those with offences against children, are unable to gain unsupervised contact with children through volunteering or employment, including the setting up of the Criminal Records Bureau.
During the course of learning about these problems, I was informed that a recent survey has revealed cases where orders for unsupervised contact had been granted to Schedule 1 offenders and to parents whose behaviour had resulted in children being placed on the child protection register. In five of these cases unsupervised contact was granted and in a further number contact was granted in contact centres where no supervision is available.
The problem is that in the majority of divorce cases both parents agree that there will be no objective scrutiny of the proposed arrangements for the children or any consultation about their wishes in the matter. Children who are being abused are particularly vulnerable in such situations, and the arrangements may mean that they will continue to have contact or residence with the parent who has abused them.
The views of children who do not want contact with a non-resident parent are frequently dismissed. As other speakers have said, the voice of the child needs to be heard in the private proceedings system to ensure that his or her interests are separately represented. The interests of children need to be represented independently in private proceedings to ensure that their welfare is safeguarded.
There have been attempts to improve legal protection for children in contact arrangements, including recent good practice guidelines for judges. Unfortunately, the judicial statistics for England and Wales suggest that there has been little change since the guidelines were introduced. A greater emphasis on child protection as a result of the guidelines might be expected to result in an increase in the number of cases in which courts refuse contact, but the number has decreased. Even according to the Government's own

93
survey, the implementation of the guidelines has been patchy. We must conclude that guidelines are not enough on their own.
As I have already said, the Government have tabled amendments to the Bill to amend the Children Act 1989 by including witnessing domestic violence in the definition of harm and requiring the courts to decide whether allegations of violence are proved before granting contact. That move must be warmly welcomed. However, the amendments do not require the courts to ensure that contact or residence orders are safe for children. That is the heart of the problem.
We could learn from the experience of New Zealand, which was shocked in 1994 by the murder of three children by their violent father. The particularly shocking fact was that the father had been granted residence of the children even though his wife had obtained a protection order against him. A ministerial inquiry was set up and within five months it concluded that this tragedy could not-I repeat, could not-have been prevented under New Zealand's family law as it was then. The New Zealand Guardianship Act 1968 was subsequently amended to provide greater protection for children.
It is worth looking briefly at the key features of the New Zealand legislation. The central feature is a rebuttable presumption that residence and unsupervised contact will not be granted to a parent who is found to be violent. Clearly, the courts cannot be held accountable for the safety of the child in all circumstances, but by limiting the orders that may be granted in cases in which violence is proved, New Zealand has provided a clear direction for its family courts.
The presumption is not absolute. Orders for residence and unsupervised contact may be granted if the court is satisfied that it will be safe for the child. There will always be arguments about what is safe for a child, but by establishing a rebuttable presumption against residence or unsupervised contact being granted to parents who are found to be violent, New Zealand has laid down a practical approach for dealing with cases that are often regarded as intractable.
Another key feature of the New Zealand legislation is a mandatory risk assessment checklist that requires the court to consider the nature and seriousness of the violence, how recently and frequently it occurred, whether further violence is likely to occur, any physical or emotional harm suffered by the child as a result of the violence and whether the other parent considers that the child will be safe if contact or residence is granted. That mandatory checklist requires court professionals to take an objective approach to risk assessment and provides a clear framework for court welfare reports in cases involving allegations of violence.
The Lord Chancellor's Department has said that consultation will be required before any mandatory risk assessment checklist could be introduced here. It is crucial for the protection of children that we mention it now in the hope that a mandatory risk assessment checklist will be included in the regulations.
94
In conclusion, it is essential that the Children Act 1989 should protect children. For that reason, the Government should use the opportunity presented by this Bill to restore the simple balance of probabilities as the appropriate standard of proof in all Children Act cases. I look forward to supporting the Bill and to helping it in its passage through the House.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords. I declare an interest in the Bill on two counts: first, because my husband and I adopted two children-one girl and one boy-who are now in their 30s; and, secondly, because I served on the board of visitors of a borstal and, when it changed its name, a young offender institution for more than 20 years and saw the results of many looked-after, in-care young people moving into the prison system.
Last weekend I telephoned our two adopted children, who are now adults, and asked them for their views on the Bill. Our daughter, now in her mid 30s, has friends who would like to adopt but are finding the process difficult. She told me that the system should be made easier and quicker. That point was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen. I agree with her and with my daughter that the procedure should be made more human and personalised.
Our daughter was much more flexible in her views than was our son, who felt that people who wanted to take on the responsibility of adopting children should get married; otherwise there was not adequate commitment. On same-sex adoptive parents, he felt that the adopted child might have difficulties at school explaining to the other children that he or she had two mothers or two fathers. He said that children can be very cruel.
I give those diverse views as an example of how difficult it can be to get the balance acceptable. Children can be cruel. We know that from the sad number of suicides that have resulted from children having been bullied at school. When our boy was little he had sticking-out ears. I was able to have them corrected by surgery. For six months we had to bandage his head at night to keep his ears in the correct position. It was well worth it, as he grew up to be a very good looking young man, but during school he had the problem of dyslexia and could have been bullied had his ears not been corrected. It can often be the little things in life that cause unnecessary suffering.
I would like to ask the Minister about support services after adoption. Is it correct that as the Bill is presently drafted, the adopted child and his or her adopters will be entitled only to a full assessment of their support needs? It is known that these can be significant for children who have suffered early neglect and abuse and may not have had continuity of care. As has already been stressed, such children can present very challenging and demanding behaviour to their new family. They may have a range of unmet health and education needs. To carry out an assessment and then not give the necessary support is asking for

95
trouble. There should be a clear duty to provide services if they are needed. Otherwise, these children may have to remain in care if the potential adopters do not think that they will get the problems corrected and receive the support to make it happen. That can only lead to frustration for those carrying out the assessments and the potential adopters. If that is the current provision in the Bill, I hope that your Lordships will rectify this potentially damaging weakness.
We do not live in a perfect world. Society has become very commercially minded. Commitments to long-term agreements are not what they used to be. Where I live in North Yorkshire we have just been told by our bishop that there is such a shortage of priests that we will lose our Mass on Sunday and the church will be closed in September, when the present priest retires. People are not committing themselves to holy orders. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why there is a shortage of adoptive parents. With so many challenges in modern society, perhaps many people are wary of committing themselves to the long-term adoption of children and all that it entails.
With so many marriage breakdowns, which is damaging to children, it may be that some non-married couples who really love and want children can give them the loving, caring home that they need. If couples adopt children, both partners should take the responsibility. There are so many accidents and illnesses, such as cancer, that adopted children need all the support they can get. It would be very damaging to have to be returned to care if one partner did not want the child or children in the event of the other partner's serious illness or death.
In my work with the inmates of the young offender institution, I became very aware of the very high percentage of young people coming there from care. Many of them were very institutionalised. They were used to a lack of stability and continuity. They felt rejected and not wanted. This was evident in their attitude and behaviour. Many of them were immature and irresponsible, never having had to take responsibility in a home they could call their own. One could see the damage that had been done. I agree that there is a desperate need for homes that will take an interest and love these children before they take to a life of crime.
Many people across the country were shocked and dismayed at how Victoria Climbié was let down by those with statutory responsibility who had been alerted to her terrible situation. It is both inexplicable and inexcusable that two trained people failed to look into her case-a vulnerable girl a long way from home-because they were frightened of getting scabies. I just hope that people in authority will make the right decisions for children who need adoptive parents. The children's interests should be paramount. There is risk in life, but there can be safeguards. I hope that these will be respected. They were not in Victoria Climbié's case or in the case of many other children in care who have been let down.
96
Clause 85 concerns overseas adoption. I hope that overseas adoption will be made as easy as possible where necessary. I remember meeting the most lovely oriental girl at a horse show in Yorkshire. She was riding wearing a black jacket and looking very smart. An Army officer had been out in a country, I think Vietnam, when he noticed some pigs eating something. He went over to investigate and found to his horror that they were eating baby girls. He snatched up a baby, saving her life, and later adopted her. She was the lovely girl I met, who was a very popular member of the pony club.
Adoption can help some of the most vulnerable children at home and around the world and can give them the chance of a better life. I wish the Bill well as long as it can give children the help, protection and support that many of the vulnerable and disabled ones will need.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, there can be no more important an occasion for this House than when it considers legislation affecting children. This Bill on adoption is just such legislation. It is also not surprising that it is 25 years since we last considered major legislation affecting children. The care of children and the way in which we permit adoption are not matters that should be changed annually. When we make such law, it should deal with the needs of society and reflect society's sentiment in the age in which that law is passed.
I welcome this Bill. It is a very important piece of social legislation with which we must grapple with the greatest of care. I have three points of emphasis to make about it and one point of opposition. The first point of emphasis, echoing many of my noble friends and noble Lords opposite, deals with support for adoptive parents. Can there be any greater act of love and commitment than that parents, or a single parent, should adopt a child, to bring that child up as a member of that family and as a useful member of society? I can think of none. That deserves a commitment back by society, to give support up to adoption and thereafter as a token of our gratitude for that which they have done for that child and the community in which they live. That is my first point of emphasis. The act of adoption is not the end of that child's adoptive life; it is the beginning of it.
The second point of emphasis deals with intercountry adoption. I entirely endorse the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on the value of adoption by parents in this country of children from deprived countries and terrible circumstances. However, such adoption must be legal and voluntary. Those of us connected with children's work in south-east Asia and central America are acutely aware of the trade in adopted children, where an allegedly abandoned baby is in fact the product of straightforward purchase and sometimes even of violent theft in order to feed the adoption market in the US, elsewhere in America and in Europe.

97
Therefore, my second point of emphasis to my noble friend the Minister is, first, that our embassies, when this Bill become law, should be sent information to be passed to the authorities of the relevant countries explaining our law, how we apply it and how it affects intercountry adoption. Secondly, there should be in the Department of Health a permanent secretariat, no matter how modest in numbers, to which any other country can have access when dealing with intercountry adoption problems.
Although the third point of emphasis is a legal one, I think that it is absolutely vital in the proper application of this legislation. The suitability of adopters-in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 and right to the end of the Bill-is the key question. I am concerned that we shall debate this Bill, especially Clause 44, without some knowledge of the principles which the regulations will embrace telling adoption agencies and courts how the suitability of adopters is to be determined. Currently, Clause 44(1) simply makes provision for regulations. Clause 44(2) particularly refers as one of the main points to the need for stability and permanence in the adopters' relationship, but nothing more.
The Children Act gave rise to a flood of litigation about what was meant by the welfare of the child being the paramount concern. There are so many factors to be taken into account. Judges and adoption agencies determining those questions are given discretion. It would he most unfortunate if in our enthusiasm to pass this Bill we did not pay particular attention to the principles upon which adoption agencies and courts will act in deciding when adopters are suitable. I cannot emphasise too much that the cost to the child and to adopters of litigation without clarity is very great. I invite my noble friend the Minister, if he is able, in due course, perhaps in Committee, to give us the highlights, the main points, of regulations and to confirm, as I anticipate will be the intention, that they will be the subject of affirmative resolution.
I come to my point of opposition. I was greatly moved by the speech of my noble friend Lady Gibson. Her acutely felt, emotionally expressed human experience provides eloquent evidence of the importance of this legislation. I know from old that she and my noble friend Lord Alli, who made an equally moving speech, will respect different views. We are allowed a free vote on the Bill by our Whips because it is a matter of conscience. I am a Christian. If I disagree, I hope that that does not make me an intolerant Christian. If I think that it is too soon, if ever, to allow gay couples to adopt, I hope that my carefully considered and honestly held views will be respected in the same measure as I respect a contrary view, even if I disagree with it.
Why do I oppose adoption by couples of the same sex? The Bill tells us at the beginning-thus far I am not sure that it has been mentioned by any speaker, certainly not with any degree of emphasis-in Clause 1(2) that the paramount consideration for adoption,
"must be the child's welfare"—
here I come to the emphasis—
"throughout his life".
98
It is not a case of considering the child's welfare at the moment of escape from a care home or an institution but for the rest of that child's life.
I ask the following questions. What is the evidence, not simply from this country but from any other, that a child brought up by a same sex couple will not be adversely affected or, alternatively, will be beneficially affected? I know of no such evidence. I have carefully read the paper by Dr Golombok. It is only a year or two old. The study cohort was very small and no responsible commentator could regard it as a definitive base for saying that there is no effect. We simply do not know. What are the circumstances in which the adverse effect may be felt? My noble friend Lady Masham reminded us of the cruelty of children to each other. Do we know what the reaction of other children will be when it becomes known that a child has been adopted by a same sex couple? We simply do not know. What will be the effect on them in their adult life? We do not know.
I respect and have voted in this House for the rights of homosexuals, but I refuse to vote for a principle which affects children on the basis of' any sentiment about those rights. A child's needs are paramount. I echo the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and my question is rhetorical-no doubt in Committee we shall return to it in detail-is this a time when we can afford to commit children into adoption by way of experiment-I use that word carefully-in a field of which we know nothing? I simply cannot accept that there is evidence to justify such a major step in social thinking and adoption management by our society. The child who would be the subject of such adoption is a child of whom the authorities have to take into account, in terms of the adoption, cultural, linguistic and racial characteristics. My rhetorical question is: how is that to be determined in relation to same sex parents?
I come to my last question. Let us not forget that the Bill preserves the right of the natural parent to be heard. An adoption order can be made only where that parent consents or-I use the words of' the Bill-a judge in deciding the adoption order is satisfied that the parent's consent can be dispensed with. Upon what principle is that decision to be made if the natural parent says, "Adoption, yes; same sex couple, no"? I do not know what the principle is; a Solomon would find it difficult. It certainly demands widespread public debate longer than the six or 12 months we have had during the currency of this Bill.
I have expressed my concerns and I have now expressed opposition. I fully realise that in the emotion of a debate like this a word such as "hijacking" in relation to the debate can spill off the tongue perhaps too readily. The matter I am discussing forms one part of a major Bill. My opposition is restricted to that one part. It is a matter of great public concern. The Bill must command public support. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, told us a moment ago that the vast majority of people in our society are against adoption by same sex couples. Where is the evidence that this Bill will meet the feelings of the community that we represent? The enthusiasm and the depth of feeling with which we

99
reassure each other about the rightness of our views is not the test; the test is: are we making law that represents the views, the sentiment and the sense of right and wrong which society presently holds? I am against the part of the Bill that I have mentioned, but even if my mind was open, it is too soon and it is inappropriate to introduce it. It should await another time, if ever.
Noble Lords have been most patient, but in dealing with the matters that I favour and that I oppose I have merely emphasised, as we all feel at present, that this is a vitally important Bill. It should leave this House with the confident support of all of us that in future the needs of adopted children should be met.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, it is a privilege to wind up from these Benches not only because of the superb contribution made by my noble friend Lady Barker-it means that I can be briefer in winding up-but also because this is a very important subject. The debate has fully reflected that. Speeches from all sides of the House were based on a wealth of professional and personal experience. There was much commonality of view, particularly with regard to post-adoption support.
I pay tribute to the enormous number of organisations that have, I am sure, briefed all of us. I could spend half of my speech referring to those organisations. They know who they are. They form a remarkable coalition that acts together constructively. That should bear fruit in Grand Committee.
Strangely enough for one on these Benches, I also pay tribute to the Government. We have had the benefit of a Special Standing Committee in another place and Ministers listened carefully to what was said then. I refer in particular to the amendments that were tabled on Report. The Government are grasping the issues. We strongly support the 40 per cent increase in the Government's target for adoption. Looking back, the Children (Leaving Care) Act was a major landmark. The Government have been grappling with the issues for some time.
The fact that the Government have listened and the fact that so many amendments were tabled in another place mean that we have much to digest in Grand Committee. That is ironic because if the Bill were nicely cut and dried and we knew what Ministers' responses would be, we should all have an easy time and take up set positions. I do not believe that that will be the case in Grand Committee.
Noble Lords spoke eloquently of the disadvantages of those in care. Many of those young people escaped from abuse, were adopted but still have major problems. Those who were in care are four times more likely to he unemployed, as several noble Lords have pointed out, including the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. They are 60 times more likely to be homeless and one-quarter of the adult population in prison are "ex-care". What kind of dreadful cycle have we created in our care system? We must recognise that cycle; that
100
is why the Bill and the future of adoption are so important. On average, 58,000 children at any one time are in care, including foster care.
I turn to the mismatch on the register. The fact that there are so many prospective adopters and prospective adoptees demonstrates that the needs of neither side are currently being met.
I turn to two issues outside the strict scope of the wording of the Bill but of crucial importance-several noble Lords have alluded to them. The first involves the question of the culture of adopting agencies, particularly local authorities, and their attitude towards prospective adopting parents. Like the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, I found the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, extremely moving. That shows that at the very least there is a strong feeling that the system is not delivering or welcoming to prospective parents and places barriers before them. However, I recognise the extent of the feeling of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, about the fact that we should not pick on social workers.
The second issue that is strictly outside the terms of the Bill-I daresay that we shall return to it-involves the question of resources. Many noble Lords, including, interestingly, Back-Bench Labour Peers, mentioned resources. That is of great importance. Was the £66 million promised back in 2000 new funding and will it be devoted to this Bill or was it subsumed within the generality of the Quality Protects programme? We need assurances on resources from the Minister, in particular in relation to post-adoption support. We also need assurances on the resources that will be available for CAFCASS. That was raised in another place at Third Reading.
We on these Benches welcome many aspects of the Bill, as my noble friend Lady Barker made plain. I refer in particular to the recognition of the great need for adopting couples to come forward and for priority to be given in that regard. We need clear principles on the child's welfare being paramount. It should override everything else where necessary. In this regard, I also refer to the right to assessment for post-adoption support; the independent review mechanism when prospective adoptees have not been selected for adoption; the issue of a statutory national register for adoption; the closing of inter-country adoption loopholes; the creation of new offences and higher penalties; the new special guardianship status order; and, finally, the provisions relating to step parents. We on these Benches greatly welcome those many new initiatives.
However, as almost every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate made clear, there are many issues that need to be addressed in Grand Committee. I refer to Clause 60 and its retrospectivity. Birth parents should be able to make contact via an intermediary with their children. A limited number of pre-1980 birth parents are involved. That was raised in another place but the Government did not give way. I very much hope that on further consideration they will appreciate that the genetic inheritance of the child is of great importance, not just for emotional reasons in terms of

101
one's own group but also in relation to basic matters such as health. Nowadays, assessments of genetic predisposition in a number of health matters are of great importance. I do not doubt that we shall return to that matter.
Several noble Lords discussed inter-country adoption and whether we have gone far enough in that regard. I believe that the balance of opinion among noble Lords who have spoken in this debate is that we need an agency-whether within the Department of Health, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, suggested, or externally-by which prospective adopters and adoptees can be linked with regard to intecountry adoption.
Probably the most important issue raised by noble Lords involved the question of mandatory post-adoption support. Quite simply, the Government should fulfil the promise that they set out in the White Paper; they have not done so. The debate in another place did not make it clear whether there is an absolute right to post-adoption support, whatever language Ministers may have used to decorate the argument. On any plain reading of the Bill, that is still not the case although it is vital. Although I disagreed with a great deal of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, his description of the exact reasons why post-adoption support is needed was a tour de force.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, described children's background, including early traumatic experience, abuse and neglect. That illustrated the reasons why post-adoption support is so important, as did the personal experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson.
I refer also to history before placement. Such an arrangement should be available before adoption. We shall no doubt come back to that in due course. There is also the issue of independent review. The appeal system is very limited. It covers only the process of determining suitability for adoption and disclosure of protected information by adoption agencies. Yet, at Second Reading in the other place, the Government gave a pledge on that precise subject. Therefore, the Government are still required to fulfil two pledges, whatever else may be wrong with the rest of the Bill. It is absolutely right that there should be a review system of other aspects of adoption, such as the matching of adopters and adoptees, care plans, and excessive movement between foster parents and so on. A whole range of areas would justify that.
I move on to the issue of advocacy, which was raised by a number of noble Lords. Currently only one-third of local authorities have a proper advocacy service. As we heard today, these children need an advocacy service if their voice is to be heard in a proper fashion.
I shall not labour issues such as the question of adoption without consent when parents' wishes are overridden by the paramountcy rule. I have no doubt that we shall wish to explore that area further, together with the issue of advanced consent to placement orders. Without wishing to delay the process of adoption, there is an argument for court overview at each stage.
102
There is also the question of private foster carers and the need for a full registration regime under the Bill. We on these Benches believe that that is absolutely vital, and we shall want to see amendments made to the Bill in that respect.
Finally, I turn to an aspect of the Bill which is perhaps the most contentious but absolutely not the most important. I would not use a censorious term such as "hijacking", which, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, suggested, those with a different view might place into their mouths. But it is certainly important to get into proportion the issue of unmarried and same-sex couples. A provision relating to that subject was inserted into the Bill on Report in the other place.
I have no doubt that we shall debate that matter to some degree in Grand Committee, and we shall certainly do so on Report when a vote will be taken. But I want to assure your Lordships that on these Benches, whether we have a free vote or not, there will be overwhelming support for the existing terms of the Bill. We feel strongly that it is a matter of eligibility. The ability of people to put themselves forward as prospective adopting couples should be the entitlement of same-sex couples, unmarried couples and married couples. That is the approach we shall take.
Of course, there may be unsuitable married couples, unsuitable unmarried couples and unsuitable gay couples. But the process of setting eligibility should be the same. As the noble Lord, Lord Alli, pointed out, it is surely preferable that children are adopted into a stable, loving relationship, if that is assessed to be the case, rather than remain in care with all the consequences that many noble Lords have mentioned today.
The needs of the child must, of course, be paramount, as must his lifelong needs. But I do not see how that conflicts with the ability of same-sex and married couples to be eligible as adopters. I believe that we must recognise realities. Forty per cent of children in the UK are now born out of wedlock. The issue of child maintenance is something of a red herring. I believe that the Child Support Agency would still have a role in relation to unmarried couples and so on. I am sure that we shall return to that matter at far greater length in future when the arguments will be carefully analysed.
I do not believe, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said, that we are going for any old relationship. I believe that that devalues the intent behind Clause 44 and it is absolutely not what was intended. Therefore, I know which of the right reverend Prelates I support in relation to this particular argument.
As has been pointed out, the Bill provides a once-Ina-generation chance to improve our adoption system. Let us ensure that we take the fullest opportunity to do so. Let us also remind ourselves that the Bill is about opportunity. It is about opportunity for children now and in the future, and we want the very best for them.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition it is a pleasure for me to begin by welcoming the arrival of the Bill in your Lordships' House. I thank the Minister for introducing it with his customary clarity and for helpfully setting its main provisions in their broader policy context.
As the Minister indicated, this is a Bill of great importance for the welfare of children. The need for reform of the adoption laws has long been recognised. A draft Bill prepared in 1996 under the previous Conservative government provided the foundation for much of the work done by the current Government. That work has, in turn, been informed by the debates in another place on the earlier Adoption and Children Bill, introduced in the last Parliament. What we have before us is undoubtedly, in relation to its key principles, a good Bill.
That is not to say, of course, that there will not be matters of detail which we shall wish to pursue in Committee. There are a number of those and I shall come to them. Some of them are of considerable significance. But all Members of the House will, I feel sure, wish to give the Bill as a whole a fair wind.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that this has been a debate of remarkable quality. We have heard today from all who have spoken why the Bill is of such importance. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke so well about the need for every child to have a happy and loving family as the foundation for his or her well-being in adulthood. The stability and permanence offered by family life, and the example set by good and loving parents, provide the best possible means for a child to develop and grow as an emotionally balanced individual. By contrast, the lack of family love and the absence of stability lead to consequences that are all too evident in children who are brought up in the care system.
The care system is a necessary expedient. It is there to protect children from suffering unacceptable harm. It is not, and never has been, something to be desired for itself. We all know why that is. The care system, in all too many instances, does not provide love, permanence or stability. There are many examples of very successful fostering but unfortunately far more examples of less happy experiences in care, where children are subject to a succession of foster placements or are kept in residential care for many years.
The results are apparent in the shameful number of children in care who fail to achieve any qualification at school. They are apparent in the statistics for the unemployed, for youth offenders and for rough sleepers. Over many years, adoption has proved itself as a means of averting those ills by giving damaged and vulnerable children a new chance in life. It is absolutely right that we should seek to offer the opportunity of adoption to as many children as need it.
As the Minister said, the adoption system suffers from several serious shortcomings. It is too slow; it is cumbersome; and it is frequently unfair. With some children, the process of adoption can take months and
104
sometimes years. There is a clear disparity between some local authorities and others in terms of their commitment to adoption, as reflected in the number of children being adopted. This is not only a management issue. In some authorities a culture of reluctance seems to be endemic. There is also, as so many noble Lords have pointed out, a culture of political correctness, which, for completely spurious reasons, excludes many people who might otherwise have proved suitable as adopters. That culture needs to be broken. Legislation alone cannot do that, but in conjunction with other measures, such as national standards, it can be a powerful driver for change.
There is of course one overriding principle that the Bill espouses, which is to put the welfare of the child at the centre of all decision-making relating to adoption. In common with all other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome that explicit emphasis, as I do the provision in Clause 1, which creates a presumption against delay. I totally support the creation of the national adoption register. I also unreservedly welcome the provisions in the Bill which provide for support for adoptive families.
Caring for an adopted child can be far from easy, as we have heard graphically today. Children with behavioural difficulties or special needs can test the ability of even the most committed adults to cope properly. The availability of support for those who are struggling can make the difference between success and failure. As has been said by so many noble Lords, it is a serious disappointment that the Bill does not create a duty for local authorities to provide such support where it is needed. All that they are required to do under the Bill is to assess the need and, in a generalised way, to make relevant support arrangements. That seems to me to be unsatisfactory, for unless local authorities have a duty to provide support services and are resourced accordingly, many simply will not provide them. That is certainly one of the areas to which we shall wish to devote time in Grand Committee.
The Bill includes provision for appeals for prospective adopters who are turned down. That, too, is welcome. However, I am unhappy that appeals will not be possible for anything else; for example, for approved adopters who are denied a match with the child that they want to adopt; for prospective intercountry adopters who are made to wait years before a home study or for adoptive families who are turned down in their application for post-adoption support. I shall argue in Committee that the absence of a specialist arbitration system of all areas of adoption and fostering is short-sighted because it opens the way to lengthy disputes and expensive court cases. It is also fundamentally misguided because unless there is respect for those people willing to take on children who are in care, and unless the authorities are seen to listen to those people, we shall not be able to restore public confidence in the care system. Transparency and fairness are necessary pre-requisites for cultural change.

105
A matter of major contention in another place and, indeed, today, was the issue of whether unmarried couples should be able to become adoptive parents. As we have heard, the original terms of the Bill were that only a married couple or a single person could apply for an adoption order. However, on Report, amendments were accepted by the Government that would allow unmarried and same-sex couples to adopt jointly. We shall want to revisit that decision in Committee, not as part of some moral crusade in favour of marriage or against other forms of relationship, but because we believe on the evidence available that couples who are married provide the best chance of permanence and stability for adopted children. If the interests of the child are to be paramount, surely that must be an area which we examine with detachment and without moral bias.
We shall also wish to re-examine the provisions in the Bill which relate to intercountry adoption. There is little in the Bill to encourage prospective intercountry adopters in the belief that the Government are wholly on their side. The UK has still not ratified the Hague convention. People who want to adopt from abroad will have to pay for their own home studies; that is always assuming that they can persuade their local authority to provide one. The fees for such home studies can be exorbitant Like the noble Lords, Lord Brennan and Lord Clement-Jones, my own view is that there should be a specialist intercountry adoption agency which would serve to protect both children and prospective adopters. At present, and as the Bill stands, adopters have to fight their way through the UK system and the system in the country of their choice if they are to stand any chance of being successful. It is time that our own system respected the choice made by intercountry adopters as both valid and valuable, which means removing unnecessary barriers to adopting from abroad.
The Minister spoke of the responsibility which society has to enhance the life chances of vulnerable children. I know that we would all endorse that sentiment. But in doing so there is perhaps one note of caution that I would wish to sound. Ministers have referred to the need to increase the numbers of children being adopted from care and have spoken of achieving a 40 per cent increase in those numbers by 2005 compared to the levels achieved in 1999–2000. The thought that underlies that target is entirely admirable. However, with targets like that there is a danger. What happens when they are not met? In particular, what happens when a local authority realises towards a year end that it has fallen behind on a target that central government says it has to reach? There may well be a temptation to cut corners or to fast-track adoptions that may be less appropriate without implementing all the necessary controls on quality. That, if it happened, would be deeply unfortunate and must be avoided at all costs.
This is a big Bill. It contains a multitude of complex provisions which are of the first importance for parents and children and for the adoption system as a whole. No fewer than 43 clauses and two schedules were left completely undebated in another place. That
106
is nearly one-third of the entire Bill. We shall wish to rectify those omissions and digest those clauses as we take forward our debates through your Lordships' House. The Bill before us—if one excludes the Bill which lapsed before the general election—is the first comprehensive piece of adoption legislation to be presented to Parliament for over a quarter of a century. This is, therefore, a golden opportunity which we must seize constructively, and seize with enthusiasm.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in winding up this debate I begin by acknowledging the significant. wide-ranging in character and high quality contributions which have been made. It is possible to conclude that there is a clear consensus on many of the issues debated today: on the importance of adoption; on the emphasis which needs to be placed on the needs of the child; and on the need to deal with delays and the issues raised by the my noble friend Lady Gould, but not at the expense of thoroughness. I share that point with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and, indeed, with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, when he raised the issue of the impact of targets on the performance of local authorities.
There is consensus on the need to underpin support for adoptive families and on the need for an independent and impartial review mechanism for prospective adopters who feel that they are being turned down unfairly. There is consensus and a recognition that the current legislation has long been outmoded, out of date and unsuitable for the kind of adoption service we need today.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed to a number of clauses which he felt did not receive effective scrutiny in the other place. However, perhaps I may say that the process of pre-legislative scrutiny through the Special Standing Committee enabled the other place to have considered debates on many of the important issues raised in the Bill. I am convinced that the Bill has been significantly improved because of the attention that it has already received.
My noble friend Lady Gould, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and, in particular, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have focused on the core reason why it is so important to get adoption procedures right. That is striking when one looks at the statistics on the outcomes for children who are looked after in our care system. The facts that between 14 per cent and 25 per cent of young women leaving care are either pregnant or have a child, that those who have been looked after are 60 times more likely to be homeless than young people in the general population and that 39 per cent of male prisoners under 21 have been looked after are surely the stark background to the need to ensure that we get these adoption procedures right. That is why the Bill is so critically important.
A number of noble Lords, when discussing the issue of unmarried couples, made the point that we must not be distracted from the core aims of the Bill by exercising ourselves overmuch in relation to that issue.

107
Of course I understand that sentiment. But we must recognise and acknowledge that for many noble Lords the issue of unmarried couples is a matter of strict conscience. I am sure that we shall have a lengthy debate on that.
Noble Lords will know from my introductory remarks that it was a free vote in the other place on Back-Bench amendments to allow unmarried couples that caused the Bill to be in the position that it is. The Government's objective is to increase the number of vulnerable children, through adoption, who have an opportunity to grow up as part of a loving, stable and permanent family.
There is no doubt that enabling unmarried couples to apply to adopt jointly will widen the pool of prospective adoptive parents. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford spoke of the inhibition of many unmarried couples in coming forward to adopt under the current adoption rules and legislation.
I want to make this point very clear: no one has a right to adopt. It is for adoption agencies and the courts to decide who is suitable. The best interests of the child should always come first in reaching such a decision. Any couple in order to become adoptive parents need to prove not only that they can provide a loving and stable family environment for a child but that their relationship is sound and likely to be lasting.
At the moment only married couples may adopt children jointly. Single people may adopt, regardless of sexual orientation. Where an unmarried couple, whether the same or opposite sex, applies to adopt, they are assessed as a couple, but only one may adopt the child. Arguably, that denies the child the permanence and security of having two parents. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, put that issue well.
So far as concerns the issue of adoption by gay and lesbian couples, I re-emphasise that adoption legislation already allows lesbian women and gay men to adopt as single people. If they are living as part of a couple, they will be assessed now as a couple. Where the applicants are a couple, the assessment process includes rigorous scrutiny of the stability of their relationship and their suitability to bring up children. If this legislation goes through as currently drafted, ultimately it will be up to the court to decide whether or not to make the adoption order.
Your Lordships, I am sure, will respect other noble Lords' views when approaching the matter. I have no doubt that we can have a dispassionate debate on the issue. Certainly, from the Government's point of view, there will be a free vote in your Lordships' House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, whom we were all delighted to see in her place earlier this afternoon, suggested that the Government had changed their views on the issue. I reiterate that at the Second Reading of the Bill in the other place the Secretary of State said that he believed that there should be a debate on the issue of adoption by unmarried couples. The Bill was referred to a Special Standing Committee, which allowed the House to hear evidence from a wide range of experts on that and many other issues. The
108
vast majority of organisations and lobby groups in the adoption field support a change to enable unmarried couples to apply to adopt jointly. Major children's organisations, including the NSPCC and Barnardo's, also support the change.
Noble Lords have raised the question of and strength of marriage. They will know that the Government support the concept of marriage, both politically and financially. They recognise that marriage is the surest foundation for raising children and that it remains the choice of the majority of people in the country. But they also recognise that not all children are born to parents who are married. We must face up to the changing nature of this country and make our dispositions accordingly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, spoke about a statistic—and this matter was reiterated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester—concerning cohabiting couples being more likely than married couples to split. But my point is that extending eligibility to adopt jointly to unmarried couples does not automatically enable such couples to adopt because no one has a right to adopt. The rigorous adoption assessment process operated by adoption agencies is there to sift through those couples and individuals who come forward to adopt. Anyone who is unable to make a long-term commitment to a child and to provide a stable and loving home will not be approved to adopt. The child's welfare is always to the fore. I do not accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor.
My noble friend Lord Brennan asked about the evidence in relation to children adopted by gay and lesbian parents. I am happy to share with him the evidence that I have. I understand that there have been several studies of the personal and social development of children with lesbian and gay parents that suggest that there is no evidence that their development is compromised in any significant respect relative to that of children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances. I shall be happy to write to my noble friend to follow up on that answer.
Of course, at the end of the day, the child's interest is paramount. That is the critical importance of the paramountcy test in Clause 1. That is why I also respect the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and my noble friend Lady Massey, who referred to the place of the child and the need to take the child's wishes and feelings fully into account. I contend that the Bill underpins that basic philosophy.
Under Clause 1(4)(a), courts and adoption agencies will be under a positive obligation to ascertain the child's wishes and feelings about all decisions relating to adoption and to take them into account, considering the child's age and understanding. The precise procedures for adoption agencies will be set out in regulations and guidance and, for the courts, in court rules and guidance. During 2003–04, we shall consult on the details of those regulations, guidance and court rules underpinning implementation of the Bill—in 2004, I can tell my noble friend Lady David.

109
Of course I welcome the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on the issue of advocacy, on which I shall not say that he has ploughed a lonely furrow in your Lordships' House, because he has had a great deal of support. I have no doubt that we shall return to discuss the matter. The Government are well aware that children and young people who are being looked after can be especially vulnerable when they want to raise problems or concerns. We want to strengthen the safeguards surrounding looked-after and other vulnerable children when they are making a complaint under Section 26 of the Children Act 1989. We are consulting on the best way to proceed with that. Consultation currently under way is considering the funding of services; the definition of different professionals who provide advocacy; the introduction of national standards; and training of advocates, which are all important issues.
My noble friend Lady Goudie, the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, all raised the question of what I think that they described as political correctness issues or, as my noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids suggested, sensitivity to racial background. That is an important matter on which it is important that we achieve the right balance not only in the Bill but in practice in the field.
Clause 1(5) makes it clear that a child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background must be taken into consideration by the adoption agency in placing a child for adoption. My noble friend Lady Howells made some important arguments as to why that should be so. Standard A9 of the National Adoption Standards states:
"every effort will be made to recruit adopters from a diverse range of backgrounds, so that children can be found a family within the target timescales that best meets needs their needs and in particular which reflects their ethnic origin, cultural background and religious heritage".
But we are trying to get the balance right. The standards make it clear that children cannot be left waiting indefinitely for a "perfect" family. Clause 1(3) backs that up by placing courts and adoption agencies under a duty to hear in mind that delay in coming to any decision is in general likely to prejudice the child's welfare.
I know that several noble Lords have spoken to suggestions that adoption agencies operate blanket bans, such as, "You can't adopt if you are too fat, or you smoke", or that there is an age restriction. I was interested in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, on that. As my youngest child was born when I was 46, I do not have much sympathy with age bans. Of course, there is no statutory cut-off age limit at all. The figures for 1999 show that the average age of adoptive couples was 37 years 8 months and the average age of single adopters was 40 years 4 months. The maxim um age in that sample was 59 years 1 month.
The point is that the PIU report for the Cabinet Office found no evidence of the existence of blanket bans, although there is certainly a perception that they exist. That may be partly due to misunderstanding of agency practice. For example, when placing a very
110
young baby, agencies must consider the age of the applicants, who must be able to cope with the child as it grows up. Equally, there is no question but that children are the losers if arbitrary assessment criteria are used to select adopters. As the Bill makes clear, the welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration, and each case should be judged on its merits. The needs of children must be considered, without the application of any blanket criteria.
Social workers must have the skill and professionalism to be able to make sure that the matter is handled professionally and effectively. My noble friend Lady Goudie and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, focused on the issue of the professionalism and performance of social workers. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, that, whatever the faults of social workers and whatever problems there are with the performance of some social services departments, we must be careful not to make social workers everyone's whipping-boys. They have a difficult job to do, and our emphasis must be on supporting them in doing that job and helping them to improve their performance. I have great faith in the ability of the General Social Care Council to raise standards over the next few years. Also, importantly, it will raise public confidence in what social workers do.
As my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton said, training is important. I cannot tell her how the £41 million will be spent with regard to adoption services, but I believe that it will be an important part of the process of raising professional social work performance in the adoption services.
I know that there is some concern that the Bill places no statutory duty on local authorities to provide services to individuals. The new duty in Clause 3, which ensures that all local social services authorities make and participate in arrangements to provide adoption support services, is an important indication of our intent. Clause 4 gives people affected by adoption a new right to request and receive an assessment of their needs for adoption support services from the local authority. Noble Lords must surely agree that individual local authorities are best placed to decide, on the basis of need and the availability of services locally, whether to provide adoption support and, if so, which services. That is the point of having, local authorities in a broad national framework. That is the principle on which most public services, including other social services, are provided.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I have been provoked by the Minister. Should not the essence of the system be that, having made an assessment, the local authority has a duty to provide the services that it has decided are necessary?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I can never understand Liberal Democrat policy on such matters. Time after time, they accuse me of over-centralising and seeking to dictate to local government, hut, time after time, the noble Lord wishes to dictate to local government exactly what it should do.

111
We have got the balance right. There is a strong framework for ensuring, first, that the local authority has made arrangements to provide adoption support services. It must carry out the assessment, and it is right that it should be given the discretion to decide how and to what extent it will provide services in the light of that assessment. The noble Lord is saying, in effect, that adoption support services should have priority over almost every other service provided by a local authority social services department. I accept that we must get the balance right, and I accept that we must ensure that effective support services are available. We want to give couples and single people who are adopting young people as much support as we can, and we have got the balance right.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, perhaps I could add as a non-Liberal Democrat that, unless the Bill specifies "shall" if there is a need, local authorities—as they do in so many ways—will say that they do not have the money.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I would never accuse the noble Baroness of being a Liberal Democrat. Indeed, I am looking forward to the time when she supports me in the Lobby on a health Bill.
If we were to leave the matter completely at the discretion of local authorities, I would understand the noble Baroness's concern. But the Bill contains the requirement to ensure that services are available. The performance assessment framework for local authorities, the inspections by the social services inspectorate—all those mechanisms—will pick up such issues of concern. Some discretion must be left to local authorities. But I accept that we shall probably have a debate on the matter in Committee and later on in the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Gibson spoke most movingly about the human aspects of potential adoptive parents. It is my hope that, notwithstanding the need for vigorous assessment, we shall look to adoption agencies to relate to potential adopters in a sensitive and professional way. I am confident that in legislation we have the framework to ensure that.
Of course I accept that funding will be important. We are pleased about the funding settlement for personal social services announced for the next period following the spending review. There is no doubt that a substantial amount of the extra £66 million for adoption announced in the White Paper and made available over the past three years is being used by councils to improve their adoption support services. That is being delivered through the Quality Protects grant.
Of course we shall keep funding under review. My noble friend Lady Gould asked about the implications for the tax and benefits system of the review of adoption allowances. We promised in the White Paper to develop a new framework for adoption support services and financial support which is properly
112
integrated with the tax and benefits system. We are developing that framework with support from a small group of stakeholders and we shall shortly be launching a public consultation on adoption support.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and a number of other noble Lords suggested that the current intent on independent review is too narrow. We shall be consulting on how the independent review mechanism will work and on the regulations to underpin it. The powers in the Bill are flexible enough to enable the independent review mechanism to be extended to any determination made by an adoption agency. We shall consult stakeholders when drawing up the regulations. The agencies are also subject to regulation through the National Care Standards Commission and complaints systems. It is not as if the sole external scrutiny comes from the independent review process.
My noble friend Lady Gould raised a number of important points on placement orders. She asked whether orders should be for specific placements rather than general authorisations to place. If a specific placement order broke down, the authority would have to go back to court for another order before the child could be placed again, even if another suitable set of adopters were available. That could lead to undesirable delay. General placement orders were backed strongly in consultation in 1999. A number of important matters on placement will need to be considered in Committee.
My noble friend Lady David spoke of the duty to inform the adopted person of the adoption. Retrospection, which was raised in a number of letters we have all received, was also mentioned by my noble friend. I understand fully the arguments in favour. Noble Lords will know that it was carefully considered by my honourable friend Jacqui Smith. Her concern was wanting to concentrate the focus of the agency on the essential work of finding loving families for children in care and that applying Clause 58 to adoptions made before the Bill was enacted would focus attention and resources away from that primary aim.
It is worth noting that requiring adoption agencies to apply the steps set out in Clause 58 to past adoptions would include adoptions which go back as far as the Adoption of Children Act 1926. Since then 875,000 people have been adopted in this country and there is also a question of raising the hopes and expectations of so many people and the practical difficulties which agencies would have to face in meeting those raised expectations. Therefore, while understanding the issue of retrospection, I believe that a number of difficult practical matters are involved.
I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who said that it was not currently possible for adopted adults and their relatives to seek to make contact through intermediary services. My understanding is that adopted adults and their birth relatives are not barred by existing law or by the Bill from making contact. They may apply for registration on the adoption contact register, if the other party registers, and apply to the relevant adoption agency for

113
identifying information about the other person. The agency may exercise its discretion under existing regulations to disclose information.
As regards the contact issue, I clearly understand that no child should be put at risk or made to see people he or she does not want to see. Equally, in some cases it will be in the child's best interests to maintain contact with his or her birth family. My noble friend Lady Thornton raised a number of important issues in that regard and I believe that the amendment passed in the other place was a significant advance. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is closely examining the findings of the survey of good practice on parental contact in cases where there is domestic violence to see what further lessons should be learnt.
I am also aware of the number of organisations which have stated the details of cases in which it appears that contact has been ordered where there has been a history of violence and a child has subsequently been harmed or even killed. The Government are working with those agencies to identify the cases concerned and investigate whether the allegations are substantiated and, if so, what lessons we need to learn for the future.
Inter-country adoption is another very important matter. I understand the point raised by my noble friend Lord Brennan about the importance of the legal process. We hope to ratify the Hague convention at the beginning of next year. Part of the delay was the need to ensure that England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales were all able to ratify at the same time.
As regards a permanent secretariat, a team of case workers is currently at my department to process the papers of adopters who want to adopt from overseas, provide information about the procedures in other countries and act as a centre point of contact for queries about inter-country adoption. They also provide advice to our embassies in dealing with overseas governments.
There are many other issues to which I have been unable to respond but this has been a good debate. It is clear that in Committee we shall discuss matters of great importance. I agree with noble Lords who suggested that the Bill is complex and that we shall need to unpick it as we proceed through the Committee stage.
Ultimately, the critical issue here is the lasting significance of the Bill. It has been nearly a generation since this House last debated and passed a major Bill on adoption; it could well be another generation before it does so again. Over that time, tens of thousands of children, adoptive parents and birth families will have their lives touched for ever by the measures detailed in the Bill. For their sakes, we must get it right. We owe it to them to pass a Bill that will fulfil and support their aspirations and that will help to provide the chance of a new start and a loving family life for many thousands of children. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he consider copying the letter
114
that he is to write to his noble friend Lord Brennan to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on Second Reading?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall be happy to do that. I shall place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
9.35 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have given notice to the noble Lord that I wish to speak. I do not want to oppose the Motion, but I seek an accommodation. I am totally in the hands of the Government on this matter.
I ask for an assurance that on the two issues of married couples and the total and absolute ban on homosexuals, amendments concerning those matters should not be taken before the Grand Committee, but should be taken on the Floor of the House. The reason is that the process of debate, certainly for noble Lords on the Back Benches, is completely different on the Floor of the House from that in a Grand Committee. There is a greater freedom and these are matters where, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, pointed out, we want the confidence of the people for the Bill.
I will co-operate on the clauses and the amendments. I do not seek to be technical at this time, after the dinner hour. However, I should be very grateful if the Government could take my point.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, discussions held in the normal way by the usual channels on this Bill have resulted in the decision that it should go to a Grand Committee. While I very much recognise the expertise and experience of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on these and many other matters connected with the proceedings of the House, I would put it to him that there is ample protection of the rights of all Members of the House at Report stage in the normal way.
I assume that the noble Lord would prefer the greater freedom of Committee proceedings to reexamine and re-debate certain issues, but in the normal way, an agreement on the way of proceeding with the Bill has been reached. I would not wish even to attempt to give an undertaking about any different method of proceeding, other than to say that clearly it is extremely important that, on controversial issues such as those about which I know the noble Lord feels strongly, the House should debate them on the Floor of the House. The question is whether his view that the proceedings on Report are insufficient is the one that should prevail, or whether in discussion with the usual channels we could find a mechanism for dealing with the matter.

115
However, I simply want to say that the House does have its own methods of protection and I would put it to the noble Lord strongly that the Report stage of a Bill is extremely effective.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like very briefly to respond. No, the Report stage is not the same thing. The Bill comes to us pre-cooked, whereas what we want to do is to cook it. I put it simply because the hour is late: no, the Report stage process is wholly inappropriate for Back Benchers to deal with such issues.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am afraid that when we move into culinary debate then I am completely out of my depth. I can say only that these matters are regularly discussed and debated through the usual channels. We shall simply have to leave it at that.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the Government Chief Whip said, the issue of whether the Bill should go to a Grand Committee was discussed. In order to reassure my noble friend, I should say that any discussions which take place on Grand Committee cannot lead to any decision. Neither the Government Chief Whip, myself nor anybody else can undertake that no amendments will be moved in Grand Committee—that is up to individual Peers—and no doubt discussions will take place on these controversial issues, but the very process of Grand Committee means that if an issue remains controversial it is bound to come back to the Floor of the House. I am sure that we shall all do our best to ensure that it is properly discussed when it comes back to the Floor of the House in order that the House can make good and proper decisions on the controversial issues. The Bill can then proceed on that basis.
I accept that that explanation is not 100 per cent satisfactory to my noble friend, but most of the Bill is not of a controversial character. Only the aspects to which my noble friend draws attention are matters of high controversy and we shall do our best to handle those issues as sensitively as we can when the Bill comes back to the Floor of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002
9.36 p.m.
Lord Whittyrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th March be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be helpful in my opening remarks if I outline what the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations do, what their effect will be and how they fit within the framework set out in the Government's national waste strategy.
116
I note the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the opportunity that it offers to discuss the proposal for a directive on waste electronic and electrical equipment. However, I am moving these regulations at this point. I shall focus my opening comments on this subject and come back to his remarks on the WEEE directive, as we must call it, at a later stage, save to say that the delay his amendment seeks would cause us problems. The amendment explicitly calls for a delay which would in practice put us at odds with the EU, with possible infraction proceedings. We are already behind in transposing this directive. We should have done so by July 2001, but in substantive terms that is not at present a problem as the requirements of the directive come into force only in July of this year. However, we need to ensure that we have transposed the directive by then.
The regulations implement the technical and regulatory requirements of the EC landfill directive in England and Wales. Many of the landfill directive's requirements are already reflected in controls on landfill sites which are currently regulated under the waste management licensing regime. However, these regulations will introduce some key changes to current UK landfill practice. These include the classification of landfills as sites for either hazardous, non-hazardous or inert waste; an end to the current UK practice of co-disposing of hazardous and non-hazardous waste with effect from July 2004; the introduction of waste acceptance criteria setting out the types of waste that can be accepted at each of these three types of landfill; the requirement to treat most wastes before landfill: and bans on landfilling certain wastes, including liquid wastes, certain hazardous wastes and used tyres.
The regulations require operators to submit site conditioning plans to the Environment Agency setting out how the landfill site will meet all the requirements of the regulations.
The regulations will also, over a transitional period to 2007, bring all landfill sites under the pollution prevention and control regime, the PPC regime. This will provide for a single, consistent and coherent regulatory regime for all landfill sites regardless of size and classification. It will thus avoid the difficulties of running two separate regimes for landfill—waste management licensing and pollution prevention and control—in parallel. This has been welcomed by the waste management industry.
The regulations we are considering today do not cover the targets in the directive for the diversion of biodegradeable municipal waste from landfill. We have consulted on a system of tradable landfill permits to enforce these targets and we shall be bring forward separate legislation covering those requirements in due course.
We have consulted widely on our implementation plans. A consultation paper on our proposal for implementation was issued in October 2000. This was followed by a second paper in August 2001 including a draft copy of these regulations. The Environment Agency has also consulted on the wide range of guidance it has produced to assist operators in preparing for the requirements of the directive.

117
The landfill directive was a key, perhaps the key, driver behind the UK waste strategy. If we implement the directive successfully we shall go a long way to meet the aims and objectives of the strategy.
The regulations will in particular help us to meet the target in the strategy to reduce the amount of industrial and commercial waste landfill to 85 per cent of 1998 levels. We must focus on recovering value from such wastes and reduce the environmental impacts of disposal. These regulations will assist that process by banning certain wastes from landfill altogether and by requiring wastes to be treated before landfilling.
Government policy is to minimise waste and to recycle and compost as much as possible of what is produced. There will always be a place for properly managed and regulated landfill, and these regulations will ensure that that is the case. But increasingly this must he as part of a much more balanced and sustainable range of measures for getting the greatest use of our resources in the first place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th March be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
9.42 p.m.
Lord Glentoranrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "but this House calls on Her Majesty's Government not to bring these regulations into force until the implications of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (COM (2000)347) on central and local government have been explored fully".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was not my intention to have this debate in the middle of the night. I had hoped that we might have had a more liberal but short and punchy dinner hour debate on the directive and waste management. I have to declare a rather ancient interest. I have no remuneration now but I was part of Redland plc which at one time owned and controlled such waste. I was personally responsible for running waste disposal operations in Northern Ireland.
The directive is yet another from Europe for which I believe that the Government are not prepared. The directive will make a very significant change to waste disposal operations in this country. As the Minister said, it will enforce within two years the separation of all waste which is disposed of in landfill sites into hazardous and non-hazardous. It will require and gives commercial opportunities for pre-treatment of hazardous waste.
The waste disposal industry is a significant industry in this country. It is linked with and, with dotted lines, controlled by the British Government and the directives which come from Europe. Without a clear strategy from government both in reaction to directives such as this from Europe and in our own self-interest, the tremendous skills and technology available within the waste disposal industry are not being fully utilised, commercial interests are being held back and at some stage opportunities are lost.
118
I shall not continue for too long because it is late. However, there are a few issues that are worth mentioning. We believe that continued improvements in regulatory standards are essential: they are essential drivers to the delivery of greater environmental sustainability. We welcome the landfill directives and the landfill directive regulations that are needed to fulfil our commitments to Europe.
There is a need for consistent and co-ordinated regulation across the United Kingdom. We have a problem—or perhaps I should say the Government have a problem: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are under separate legislatures. Stormont and Edinburgh will take their own routes and their own time, which, unless government action is taken, can—and will—cause an embarrassment in the disposal of some of the more difficult waste that needs to be removed. In my opinion, it is important that the kingdom should come together; and that the Government, along with the other legislatures, should find a means of meeting the requirements of the European directives.
I have already mentioned the need to treat waste before it is disposed of, and this is certainly a significant opportunity for improvement. However, it is also a significant problem that will need to be controlled. When one has waste that is legally difficult to dispose of—I have been in that situation commercially as regards printing inks and cyanides, leaking barrels of various nasty substances—the temptation is huge for the smaller businessman to make a quick buck and tip it illegally into a small empty quarry or some similar place. The need for tighter controls than we have today on this sort of issue is vital.
There is also the problem of incineration. This should not be a problem. Again, the incineration industry has huge opportunities for business, for profit and for commercial exploitation of the best and right way to go forward, but the industry also needs a lead from a government-coherent strategy. The bottom line is that it is seriously important for us to meet these directives for the future, especially in a country the size of ours that produces such massive volumes of waste.
It is inevitable, and I suspect expected, that there will be a significant cost burden to be borne. As I understand the situation, it has not yet been decided where that cost burden will lie. However, it will surely lie somewhere between local authorities, the private individual and government subsidies. It is most important for the Government quickly to provide and produce a strategy, along with accompanying plans, which will cover those problems. I do not want to repeat this, but we do not need another fridge mountain issue as a result of the WEEE directive. This time I believe that we are just about on the ball. We have perhaps lost 15 months, but there is time for the Government to catch up before the directive becomes law. Let us ensure that the proper strategies are in place; that the technologies are available; and that everyone understands what he has to do to meet this requirement and is aware of the directive.

119
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a few questions. I wonder how many sites will, in the Government's reckoning, need to have their licences changed. I wonder whether we have enough sites to dispose of our hazardous waste. They are few and far between—or they were in my day—particularly when we look at compliance as regards liquids. Where is the Government's strategy? When will Her Majesty's Government catch up with the Euro-game? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to assess the future cost to the country and how the funding will be found to get ahead of the game in terms of waste management? I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but this House calls on Her Majesty's Government not to bring these regulations into force until the implications of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (COM(2000)347) on central and local government have been explored fully".—(Lord Glentoran.)
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I shall speak to the original Motion and to the amendment. I declare an interest as a Somerset county councillor with responsibility for the disposal of waste, although not for its collection—that is still a district responsibility. I was interested to hear of the long experience of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in waste disposal issues.
Overall, we welcome this move. Europe is the only driver for a great deal of what is happening in the area of waste. Successive governments and local authorities have been slow and reactive. We need this prod from Europe to get on with things.
It was interesting, looking through the information that is available on the various websites, to see what other European countries are doing, when they started to implement their strategies and in what ways they have reacted to the WEEE directive. I was slightly surprised by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in that respect. There seems to have been a very long time for the directive to have been enacted. While I have the same concern as the noble Lord over the fridge debacle, the fact is that there never will be a good time, and we had better get on with it.
On the plus side, the WEEE directive may well be in the best interests of consumers. If one goes into any electrical store now, one sees that the move is towards bigger and bigger goods to be sold more and more frequently and, it seems, with a shorter and shorter obsolescence period—although I may be feeling slightly sensitive about this matter, having just had to return two electric kettles in a month because neither worked. It is a serious point: when huge American-style fridges are being introduced, someone needs to think about the end disposal of them. The cost of that disposal needs to be brought in front of all of us, and this is one way to do it.
120
The division of the waste stream at this stage is extremely valuable. That is the other prompt that the directive will give us. One has only to look at the example of batteries to see how this country has dragged its feet. So far as I am aware, there has been no incentive for people to buy rechargeable batteries and there has been no recycling scheme for old batteries—yet for years and years they have been known to be hazardous.
I echo the question of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about sites which cannot comply and which must be closed. Have the Government made an estimate of the number of such sites? It is certain that, if new sites are needed, they will be harder to find than hen's teeth. There is nothing like a landfill site application to create the greatest number of objections from residents across a large geographical area.
At the same time, the Government should consider, in minimising the waste the goes to landfill, that their policy of not tackling waste that goes to incinerators no longer bears scrutiny. The maxim should be: reduce, reduce, reduce. Every possible incentive is needed to make people do that.
The Minister mentioned the recycling of things that can be composted. I thoroughly agree that we should encourage that, but it seems that ever more reasons are appearing why things cannot be turned into compost. It would be very interesting to look at that. For example, disposable plates made from potato waste as opposed to plastic are now available, but they cannot be recycled into compost because they may have been in contact with animal products. On a recent visit to an abattoir, I was amazed by the mounds of things, including chicken feathers, that are apparently equally unsuitable. Surely all organic material, if treated properly in one way or another, should he compostable.
Finally, as an example of the sort of targeting that the Government are undertaking, what targets in the WEEE directive is the Minister setting for residents in the UK? I gather that Denmark has a target of 20 kilos per inhabitant per year, whereas Portugal's target is as low as 2 kilos per year. That may seem a detailed question, but it is very important that we know the sorts of figures that the Government believe may need to be applied so that local authorities and others are aware of the scale of the issue with which they will be dealing.
Overall, we welcome this as a move forward. We hope that the Government will make further moves on what seems on paper to be a good waste strategy, very little of which seems to have been implemented since 2000.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the two Front Bench spokespeople for their comments and their broad welcome. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, we already have a well established waste strategy in this country. The waste strategy 2000 is the pattern to which we are working. We are substantially ahead of the game at this point, which we clearly were not on fridges. No read-over from the saga on fridges

121
is appropriate to the landfill directive or to the WEEE directive. I n both we have been aware of the problems. The technology is there and we have consulted and involved the producer and waste management sides of the industry.
I fully agree with the noble Lord that we must have an overall strategy. I also agree that we shall have to have tighter controls on the way in which we landfill and against illegal dumping and other issues. I also agree that we very much need to engage the industry. That is what we have been doing.
The WEEE directive is currently a proposal from the Commission and the Council which has still to be discussed by the European Parliament, so its final form is not yet clear. However, we have strongly supported the broad direction of the WEEE directive through its production. In particular, we support the concept of producer responsibility, which avoids some of the problems that have arisen with fridges.
At the moment the waste stream in this area is growing, so we need to divert waste from electronic and electrical goods away from landfill and develop cost-effective ways of increasing the collection and recovery of such waste and of treating, disposing of and recycling it. We have been in close contact with the industry about the implementation of the WEEE directive in the UK. We have also very much involved local authorities. We are having a number of planned meetings to discuss with local authorities the role that they will play in the WEEE directive. They have also been very much involved in the discussions on the landfill regulations. We have also discussed the WEEE directive with the Small Business Service to organise visits in its 20 UK areas to raise awareness of the requirement of the directive and discuss implementation methods. So I think that we have planned reasonably well on this occasion both for these regulations and for the WEEE directive itself.
At the beginning of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, rightly referred to the issue of commercial opportunities. Clearly there is substantial opportunity here, and we are engaging with the waste management industry and with producers to try to develop the pre-treatment, disposal and recycling requirements. We are therefore ahead of the technology, whereas no such technology was available to deal with the problem of implementing the refrigerator requirements.
All sites will have to be re-permitted in one form or another under these arrangements. Although we do not expect there to be many hazardous waste sites, there will have to be a minimum number. Moreover, as co-disposal must end after 2004, there will be a limited number of such sites. We will not know the exact figures until we have all the conditioning plans from the site operators. It is therefore not really possible to answer the question asked by both the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about the number of sites. The matter is subject partly to commercial decisions. We do not, however, expect to encounter the type of problem mentioned by the noble Baroness—the need to identify large numbers of
122
additional sites in order to meet the requirements of the regulations. In the medium-term, the aim is to reduce the proportion of total waste going to landfill. I therefore believe that the problem will not be acute as the noble Baroness suggests.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords. I am grateful to the Minister. Before he leaves the point, can he say how the minimum number will be determined? Will it be by geographical area, head of population or the amount of waste assessed as requiring disposal? If he cannot answer now, will he perhaps write to me?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not think that it will work that way round. The site operators themselves will identify the type of waste they wish to handle, whether they wish to be identified as hazardous waste sites and the nature of their permit. We shall have to identify gaps in the arrangements, which we shall discuss with the industry, and then identify existing sites or potential new sites. All I am saying is that I cannot reasonably be expected to give the numbers now. I expect that the number of new sites will be relatively small and that we shall not face the type of planning problems to which the noble Baroness referred.
One consequence, however, is that a number of sites will have to upgrade their operations. Although there will be a commercial return, they will clearly have to engage in upgrading the sites. We shall also have to upgrade and extend the amount of free treatment for both general waste and the waste eventually covered by the WEEE directive itself.
As to whether we should tax incineration in the same way as we tax landfill operations, the Chancellor announced in the Budget his intention to examine incineration tax within the context of the overall review of landfill tax. So it is a "watch this space" response on that point.
I think that that deals with the main points other than devolution. There is clearly a need for us to remain in very close contact with the Scottish and Northern Ireland authorities on the matter, as we are doing. We expect that, under existing powers, they will meet as far as possible the requirements of the directive, as we have been doing since July 2001 in terms of new sites. We expect implementation in Northern Ireland to be in 2003 because it will require new enabling legislation.
As regards Scotland, the Scottish Executive will shortly issue draft consultation documents. Broadly speaking, it will follow approximately the same approach as ourselves. We are in close touch and I do not think that there will be serious inconsistencies as regards our approach and that of the devolved administrations. Naturally, as a consequence of devolution, there will be minor differences, but I think that we are all committed to the same broad strategy.

123
As regards the noble Baroness's question on the WEEE directive and the amount of household waste that we shall target, we do not at this point have a target in the sense that she mentioned. Of course, we do not know how the WEEE directive will finally designate the relevant target. At the moment there is mention of four kilograms per head per year. That figure is already exceeded in the UK. Therefore, we would not expect to encounter problems as regards meeting the WEEE directive. It would be a matter for the UK Government whether, as part of the development of the waste strategy, we set a separate
124
target. We are not at present setting such a target. However, we are confident that we shall be able to meet the requirement in the directive.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that extensive and detailed response. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for taking part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes past ten o'clock.

  Life Peers
  Life Peers
  Appellate Committee of the House of Lords
  Appellate Committee of the House of Lords
  Northern Ireland Customs Staff
  Northern Ireland Customs Staff
  Procurement Policy
  Procurement Policy
  G8 Summit, Kananaskis
  G8 Summit, Kananaskis
  Privy Council Silver
  Privy Council Silver
  Treasury Silver
  Treasury Silver
  Newly Released £5 Notes
  Newly Released £5 Notes
  Exchange Rates
  Exchange Rates
  Banknotes
  Banknotes
  Deaths from Suicide: Young People
  Deaths from Suicide: Young People
  Detention Centres and Prisons: Insurance
  Detention Centres and Prisons: Insurance
  Ministry of Defence Procurement
  Ministry of Defence Procurement
  Public Telephones: Theft of Cash
  Public Telephones: Theft of Cash
  DTI: Question for Written Answer
  DTI: Question for Written Answer
  Director-General of Fisheries Policy
  Director-General of Fisheries Policy
  TSE Regulations
  TSE Regulations
  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Kitchen Waste
  Kitchen Waste
  Defra: Scientific Advisory Committees
  Defra: Scientific Advisory Committees
  Foreign Veterinary Surgeon Questionnaire
  Foreign Veterinary Surgeon Questionnaire
  BSE
  BSE
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Agri-environment Schemes
  Agri-environment Schemes
  China: British Tourist Authority
  China: British Tourist Authority
  British Tourist Authority: Grants
  British Tourist Authority: Grants
  English Tourism Council: Grants
  English Tourism Council: Grants
  British Resorts Association: Grants
  British Resorts Association: Grants
  World Conference on Women in Sport
  World Conference on Women in Sport
  Cabinet Office: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Cabinet Office: Assets of Cultural Significance