Sitting of 12 June 2002

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

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To he read a Second time on Wednesday 19 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Community Violence
    Rev. Martin Smyth: What his assessment is of the levels of community violence throughout Belfast in the last two months. [57730]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): The recent violence committed by both sides of the community throughout Belfast is inexcusable. It serves no purpose other than to keep local communities in a never-ending cycle of sectarian hostility. It is time, quite simply, to stop. Violence will breed further violence, and bitterness will lead to further bitterness. Only dialogue will solve our problems.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We thought that dialogue was solving the problems. Does the Secretary of State agree that the violence has been planned for some time and is spreading through north, south, east and west Belfast? Is it not time to stop talking about the instigating and orchestrating, and to deal instead with the reality? Those who have benefited from the agreement are in government, but they have not fulfilled the terms of that agreement. Is it not about time that sanctions were applied against them?
    Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman says, there is little use in talking about who instigated the violence, because it is common currency in Northern Ireland for one side continually to blame the other. What is true is that intelligence, evidence and information exists to show that all paramilitaries have been involved in orchestrating or organising such violence at various stages.
    As I have said, violence from both communities is to be utterly condemned. I am keeping all ceasefires under close review, but let us be clear: ceasefires, however effectively they are maintained, will not themselves be
    850
    sufficient to maintain confidence in the political process. The shadow of paramilitaries and paramilitarism must be fully and finally lifted. There is no halfway house. The destination must be clear, the commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means must be assured, and the progress towards that end must be continual.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the Secretary of State agree that the upsurge in sectarian violence on the streets of Belfast in particular is being initiated by, or manipulated by, paramilitaries both loyalist and republican? He says, as he has said many times, that there is no halfway house between the bullet and the ballot box, but such a halfway house has existed in Northern Ireland for some considerable time. When will circumstances dictate that paramilitaries will be fingered and announced as perpetrators of orchestrated and organised paramilitary violence who manipulate the political process?
    Dr. Reid: First, to put this in context, without being complacent we should not forget that there has been movement away from the violence that we experienced previously. Some 50 people have been killed in the past three and a half years, and although each one of those deaths is tragic, we should remember that in the three and a half years before the ceasefire, seven times as many people were killed. Although much remains to be done, we should not take the view that no progress has been made. Nevertheless, continuing activity and violence is unacceptable and will be opposed by all means within the power of the state, not least through the Police Service itself.
    The aspect of such violence that I find particularly detestable and distasteful is the misuse and abuse of children. Not only are they the victims of personal attacks or attacks on schools; they are also being permitted, or encouraged, to go on to the streets of Northern Ireland, putting themselves and others at risk. This is supposed to be the generation of hope. I appeal to every parent in Northern Ireland to make sure that their children are not involved, because they will simply inflict on the next generation the same misery that was inflicted on the previous one.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: I concur with the Secretary of State's condemnation of the recent terrorism and violence in Belfast, and with the thrust of the question from the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). However, will the Secretary of State try to understand the difficulty that many people in Northern Ireland have in understanding his criterion in judging whether a ceasefire has been breached? They remember the level of toleration that he showed for the Ulster Defence Association, and they note that since the Provisional IRA declared its so-called ceasefire, it has murdered more than a dozen people and shot more than 160, been involved in paramilitary beatings of more than 250 people, been found guilty of running guns from Florida, been involved in training terrorists in Colombia, and has shot five of my constituents in the past fortnight. Despite that, the Secretary of State is still reviewing the Provisional IRA's ceasefire.
    Dr. Reid: If I were to base my judgments on every assertion made by the hon. Gentleman, they might be

    851
    open to more question than basing them on the judgment of the security forces and advisers who advise me on those matters. As the acting Chief Constable has made plain recently, in his view there is no imminent threat to the ceasefire. However, that is not the point. The point is that the ceasefire is not in itself sufficient even if, in the round, it is in place. If it is alleged that some of the pararnilitaries are involved not only in localised violence but in preparations for a terrorist war after a ceasefire, the political confidence in the process cannot be sustained. Therefore, it is incumbent on everyone who is committed to the process to ensure that no such allegations can be shown to be founded.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: The Secretary of State's powerful words in response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) will be supported by all people of good will, but I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether those who criticise the Good Friday agreement have presented to him any viable and sustainable alternative to the peace process.
    Dr. Reid: I can answer my hon. Friend simply and straightly—no, they have not. That is not only of little use to me, or anyone who wants to see the problems in Northern Ireland resolved, but it perpetrates the illusion on the people of Northern Ireland that some alternative or third way—if I may use that expression—exists to the course on which we have embarked and the terrible and tragic course that was followed for decades. It certainly has not been brought to my attention by anyone in general, or in particular by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), that a viable and realistic alternative exists.
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: In view of the attack on another Alliance councillor's home last night after he had sought the removal of paramilitary murals in his area, when will the police make arrests for painting such murals and what action is being taken to curb the underlying causes of the violence we see daily in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Reid: Those are matters for the police in terms of operational activity. Nevertheless, I utterly condemn and deplore any attacks on people, especially elected representatives, on the basis that others disagree with their views. That is what gave us the tragedy of Northern Ireland. The people who use such violence use fear to try to shut others up, but they themselves are in the grip of a fear of the power of politics and democracy. They see their own power to impose their will on the people of Northern Ireland slipping away as the peace process progresses.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: At the last Northern Ireland questions, I put to the Secretary of State a catalogue of evidenced cases of breaches of the ceasefire and the agreement by Sinn Fein-IRA and asked him what he proposed to do about it. The answer was that he proposed to do nothing at all. Apart from the usual ponderous phrases and evasiveness, the answer was zero. Now the situation is much more serious. We see vicious rioting from both communities, the shooting of civilians and policemen, and the attempted murder by the IRA of a Catholic policeman, from which the chairman of Sinn Fein pointedly refuses to dissociate himself. Is it still the Secretary of State's policy to do absolutely nothing?
    Dr. Reid: I repeat the words of the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, who said that when there are hotheads on the streets, it is helpful to have cool heads in Chambers such as this. It is not the case that intelligence has informed me that there was an attempted murder of a young policeman by the IRA. I have been informed that it was dissident republicans. [Interruption.] It may make no difference to Democratic Unionist Members who commits a crime, as their consistent position is to blame everything that happens on one section of the community. That is precisely part of the problem in Northern Ireland.
    It is not the case either that evidence or information has been given to me as to who was firing the shots. Nevertheless, the point is that paramilitary involvement in civil disorder or in preparation for a terrorist campaign or the resumption of a war can do nothing but undermine confidence in the peace process. I have therefore made it absolutely plain that ceasefires are not sufficient, even if they are maintained in the round. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me on that at least.
    Mr. Davies: The Secretary of State can always argue about who was responsible for the attempted murder of the Catholic policeman in Ballymena, but he cannot get away from the fact that the chairman of Sinn Fein, when pressed many times by John Humphrys on Sunday, pointedly declined to dissociate himself from it. So Sinn Fein is endorsing this kind of activity: is not that absolutely clear? Is not it an inescapable fact? Is not it something that the right hon. Gentleman should respond to?
    Given that the Secretary of State seems completely at a loss, may I make one or two suggestions? Might not he put into suspense the additional concessions, going beyond Belfast, that he has promised to Sinn Fein-IRA? Might not he consider also withdrawing Sinn Fein's special status in this House? That would at least demonstrate that the Government have the backbone to withdraw concessions when that is called for, as well as making them.
    Dr. Reid: If the problems of Northern Ireland could be solved by shouting, they would have been solved a long time ago.
    I must correct the hon. Gentleman: according to my reading of the transcript of the interview, the chairman of Sinn Fein did not fail to dissociate himself from the attempted murder. He failed to condemn it. [Interruption.] It is important to get our facts straight in connection with such important matters of life and death. I am not only disappointed, but I deplore the failure of anyone to condemn the cowardly and murderous attempt on the life of a young Catholic recruit to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. First, because it is an act of murder, and secondly because people like that young recruit are attempting to bring about a new cross-community support for policing in Northern Ireland, which is an integral part of the peace process.
    I say again to members of every political party in Northern Ireland that it is their duty and responsibility, as we bring in a new police service, to give full support to

    853
    that and to condemn those who are attempting to murder people acting in the best interests of the public of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. John Hume: Leaving aside the two areas in which there has been serious sectarian activity, does the Secretary of State agree that in the rest of Northern Ireland there is massive support on the streets for the peace process? Does he agree that the atmosphere in those streets has been transformed, and that the peace process has the substantial support of both sections of our community?
    Secondly, is he aware that there is an opinion abroad that the people behind the stirring up of sectarianism want to ensure that law and order is not restored because they are engaged in the mafia drugs trade? Is there any intelligence information to support that opinion?
    Dr. Reid: First, we must all recognise that paramilitaries of all persuasions are involved in this. Secondly, we must recognise that at least one group of those paramilitaries is in government, through the political representatives of the republican movement. That means that there is a higher obligation on them to exhibit that they are committed to exclusively democratic means.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is right to suggest that there may be an attempt to defy the imposition of any law and order for criminal purposes, but there may well be other motives. However, we must also remember that in certain areas, although such things may be contributory factors, there have been riots going on in successive years for almost two centuries. It is very difficult to pin down one particular reason.
    However, whatever the reasons, violence will only breed more violence and bitterness will only breed more bitterness. All sides should think very carefully and withdraw themselves from a situation of continual confrontation. It can only bring more misery.
    Mr. Michael Mates: I certainly would not accuse the Secretary of State of complacency, but does he not realise that responding to the points of the four Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, who are from all points of the political compass, by simply saying that we need more dialogue is taking us round in circles? The right hon. Gentleman—perhaps wrongly, perhaps rightly—rejected the allegations of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), but he also said that he had hard intelligence that paramilitary violence was being carefully organised by the paramilitary groups. At what stage will he do more than seek further dialogue?
    Dr. Reid: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am well aware of the strength of opinion on this matter, not least because of the representations of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, who has made his views known to me in no uncertain terms. However, it is wrong to think that we are saying only that we need more dialogue. We are, of course, doing everything possible in terms of security, argument and politics to make it plain that a ceasefire is not enough if activity is going on that would still leave a ceasefire in place but give a distinct impression that preparations were being made for a breach of that ceasefire and that it was purely tactical. We are doing
    854
    everything possible and, more than anything, we do not underestimate the seriousness of this or of the views of Northern Ireland Members.

    Devolved Institutions
    Andy King: If he will make a statement on the operation over the past 12 months of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. [57732]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): The past 12 months have seen an increase in the stability of the devolved institutions, all of which are now operating fully. We will continue to work closely with those involved to ensure that devolution delivers the best results possible for the people of Northern Ireland.
    Andy King: Will my hon. Friend cast his mind back just a few short years to when there was stalemate in the political process in Northern Ireland and no dialogue between parties and communities? Does he, unlike Opposition Members, agree with me that we have come a long way in two short years and that it is vital that the political devolved institutions in Northern Ireland succeed in order 10 give the people of Northern Ireland a future in which they can live in peace and be free from terror?
    Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend does well to remind us of the progress that has been made. I need remind nobody in the House of my personal commitment to devolution, and the Government's record in this area stands for itself. We will do everything in our power to sustain devolution because it is what the parties and people of Northern Ireland want and it is delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. [t is delivering, in particular, significant reform and additional investment in jobs and services and in public administration. [Interruption.] Although it is not easy, in devolved terms, to do that in Scotland or Wales, it is a sign of the maturity of the politics of Northern Ireland that these questions are being faced up to by local politicians. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call on the House to come to order.
    Mr. David Trimble: We will, of course, do what we can in the devolved Administration to make progress. We acknowledge in particular the assistance from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to our reinvestment and reform initiative. None the less, does the Minister not realise that it will not be possible to sustain the institutions without popular confidence, and that that popular confidence is at a low ebb? The main reason for that is the popular belief, reinforced by action after action by the Government, that no matter how badly republicans behave, the Government will do nothing to constrain them and that they have, literally, allowed them to get away with murder.
    Mr. Browne: The right hon. Gentleman properly reminds the House of the special support that has been given to devolution in Northern Ireland by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in the form of the economic package and I do not propose to go through the details. He also makes the very good point that devolution

    855
    anywhere in the United Kingdom can be sustained only as long as it maintains the confidence of the people. Local politics and devolution are under strain in Northern Ireland for the very reasons that he identified. That is exactly why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has addressed the problems in the way that he has. We recognise that if organisations continue to give that impression to the people of Northern Ireland, it will undermine confidence in politics, which is unacceptable. As my right hon. Friend said, we all need to do everything in our power to see the shadow of paramilitarism lifted from the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: Does the Minister agree that it would be a fundamental error to judge the success of the institutions in terms of either sectarian violence or the paramilitary stirring up of violence? Does he further agree that all the institutions that were created under the Good Friday agreement are working well and that for people in Northern Ireland—be it in the Short Strand, north Belfast, south Armagh or anywhere else—the choice is between those institutions and the sectarianism and violence that the thugs are bringing to us on our streets? I believe that the Secretary of State, the Minister and everyone here shoulc support those institutions so that they can provide the only alternative to the men behind the masks.
    Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the only way forward for the people of Northern Ireland is in the context of the agreement and the institutions that flow from it—not only the institutions of devolution, but the Equality Commission, the Human Rights Commission and the Policing Board, all of which have shown local people that working together can solve local problems. The only test that I apply to the institutions of devolution is whether local people are taking decisions about improving lives locally. In Northern Ireland, they are doing so. The system may not be working perfectly, but it would have seemed astonishing five years ago that it should work as it has—or at all. Northern Ireland people can be proud of the progress that they have made. They are an example to the world of civilised conflict resolution.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: In the Government's view, is it acceptable that the Executive in Northern Ireland should contain members of a party that is not only hostile to the police but directly responsible for creating a climate in the republican community that has directly led to the attempted murder of a Catholic recruit to the police—an attempted murder that the chairman of Sinn Fein has singularly failed to condemn?
    Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that has already been made today. While it may be clear to him who was responsible for, or started, individual incidents, to those of us who have ministerial responsibility in Northern Ireland it is far from clear who is responsible, from the information that we get. What is clear—I admit this to the hon. Gentleman as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did—is that once they started, paramilitaries, on both sides were involved. I unequivocally deplore and condemn that behaviour, as does my right hon. Friend, and I call on all community leaders, including the people who lead those organisations, to work for its cessation.

    Parade Season
    Helen Jackson: If he will make a statement on the maintenance of order during the parade season. [57733]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): Approximately 3,300 parades were held in 2001 and the vast majority passed off peacefully with only minor incidents occurring at a small number. We hope that that trend continues throughout the marching season. In the event of public disorder, this year as every year, the security forces have appropriate contingency measures in place to ensure that the determinations of the Parades Commission are upheld.
    Helen Jackson: Is it not the case that in the past few weeks in this country there have been not thousands or hundreds but millions of people on the streets parading and celebrating the Queen's golden jubilee and the World Cup football results in Dublin and England? Is it not the case, therefore, that there is no need for a parade or street celebration to disintegrate into sectarianism or violence? Does the Minister agree that the essential components are good planning and organisation and consultation?
    Jane Kennedy: I could just say yes, but my hon. Friend mentioned football, so may I take this opportunity to say how delighted I am that two football teams from the British Isles are doing well in the World cup? As for the rest of her question, my answer is yes.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    David Taylor: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning—I suspect, in common with millions of others—I watched the England match, and I am sure that the whole House will wish to send our congratulations to the English team on reaching the next stage of the finals. Indeed, my next meeting was with the Prime Minister of Denmark—to discuss the next match, of course. This evening, I shall meet the President of Nigeria—of course, to discuss the last match. In addition, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
    David Taylor: Given that German jobless figures are soaring to 4 million and French voters are veering sharply to the right, should not my right hon. Friend be discouraging some of his Ministers from their overzealous promotion of the euro, which is partly responsible? Are not the Chancellor, as ever, and Mr. Rupert Murdoch, for once, absolutely right to urge great British caution towards that fundamentally flawed folly?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that opening question after the recess. No, I believe that we

    857
    should stick to the economic tests. If they are passed, we should put the issue to the British people in a referendum. I have to say that I believe that the European economy—after all, its interest rate is 1 per cent. lower than ours—has created 5 million jobs in the past few years, and many countries in Europe are now joined in a single currency area. I do not accept what my hon. Friend says about the European Union; I believe that it is in this country's interests to be a member of the EU, to make our weight felt in the EU and, should the economic tests be met, to be part of the single currency.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I join the Prime Minister in congratulating the England team? Like him and many others, I watched the match, but I did not watch it with him, which is probably a blessing for my side. May I suggest, however, that of all the people whom he is planning to advise and discuss in the next 20 minutes, given his record, he does not give advice to Sven-Goran Eriksson on who to pick for the next game?
    Will the Prime Minister give a personal apology to Pam Warren and other survivors of the Paddington rail crash for his attempt to discredit them?
    The Prime Minister: I endorse entirely what the Department for Transport said last week about that. I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says because there was never any attempt to discredit Pam Warren or anyone else. However, I stand entirely by the apology given by the Department for Transport at the time.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister is very careful with his words, but what he has said is very clear. [Interruption.] Oh no, he is very careful with his words because, when referring to the same set of words used before, Pam Warren said that they were totally inadequate. She went on to say that the actions of his Government were
    "very nasty and spiteful, and if anyone is going to apologise it has to be Tony Blair."
    So, I repeat, will he now give Mrs. Warren and the other survivors the apology that they deserve?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely understand why Pam Warren said that, because she had been told that there had been an attempt to find out or dig up dirt, as it was said, on her. That is simply not the case. Indeed, no inquiry was ever made about Pam Warren, but the Department of Transport said at the time—I endorse this and concur with it entirely—that it apologised for any distress caused to Pam Warren by a story about her that was actually false.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Weasel words. This is the same man who promised to bring in a new politics of honesty and trust, yet when any member of the public—Rose Addis, Pam Warren or anyone else—criticises the Prime Minister, his Government throw the weight of their machine at investigating their private lives and crushing them. I give him one last chance. He has the opportunity to get up and apologise now, without equivocation and without qualification, to Pam Warren for trying to discredit her.
    The Prime Minister: First, in respect of Rose Addis, let us be clear. The hospital concerned asked the right
    858
    hon. Gentleman to apologise for saying that the treatment given to her was wrong. There was never an attempt to discredit her; that is quite wrong. We are entitled, in circumstances in which the hospital disputed the complaint, to make that dispute clear. Secondly, in respect of Pam Warren, the truth is—if we want the truth—that there was never an e-mail attempting to dig dirt on her. If the right hon. Gentleman has such an e-mail, he can now produce it.
    Kate Hoey: Is the Prime Minister aware that since the introduction of the softly, softly approach to cannabis in my constituency and the borough of Lambeth, there are more drug dealers on the streets than ever, many young children are going to school in the morning zonked out on a very hard kind of cannabis, and more and more residents are being harassed and almost attacked by drug dealers on their way home from work? That approach has released 1.8 extra police officers. Will the Prime Minister do something about cleaning up these gangs of criminals and stick up for decent law-abiding citizens and residents who are fed up with being experimented on?
    The Prime Minister: I would point out to my hon. Friend that serious crime has fallen in Lambeth. It is important, however, to give careful consideration to the results of the experiment that was carried out. If we do not do so, and if we had refused to carry out such an experiment, even though the police and others locally were saying that it was sensible to do so, we would have been criticised the other way. We need to consider carefully the results of the experiment.
    In relation to street crime in London, however, I know that my hon. Friend will support the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which will allow us to get at the assets of drug dealers—I am afraid that that legislation is opposed by the Conservative party—and the measures on street crime, particularly restrictions on bail for persistent offenders, which we believe will have a serious impact on cutting street crime. She will know from the latest figures produced by the Metropolitan police that that measure is having that effect.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: When the Prime Minister became aware that a special adviser to the Secretary of State for Defence had recently taken up a private sector post with a commercial lobbying company with defence clients on its books, was he satisfied that the spirit and the substance of the rules governing such transfers had been met?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I was. The Ministry of Defence has carried out the relevant processes which apply to the whole of Government. The permanent secretary certified the arrangement, and it was made in consultation with the Cabinet Office in the normal way.
    Mr. Kennedy: In terms of public perception, does the Prime Minister not think that special advisers should be subject to exactly the same rules as senior civil servants? For many people, this case, and the Government explanations attached to it, stretch credulity. When will the Prime Minister take further action to clean up this state of affairs?
    The Prime Minister: I disagree, I am afraid, that action is necessary to clean it up. The permanent secretary in the Ministry of Defence applied the rules in the normal way, and the Cabinet Office was consulted in the normal way. That is the right and proper way to do it, and that is precisely the system that has been used for many years. Rather than dealing with perception—the right hon. Gentleman's question and that of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) were about the perception that they want to create—is it not about time that we dealt with the reality? The reality is that special advisers, whether for Labour or Conservative Governments, do a perfectly good job. I fully support the special adviser system and it would be deeply unfortunate if we got rid of it.
    Mr. Mark Todd: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that one insurance company has chosen to withdraw cover from areas that are judged a flood risk? People in much of my constituency in the Trent, Derwent and Dove valleys rely heavily on the insurance industry and on flood protection to ensure that they can live a normal life. Will my right hon. Friend emphasise the need for additional spending on this matter in the spending review?
    The Prime Minister: We are spending substantial additional sums of money—running into many millions of pounds—on flood defences. Of course, I shall look into the particular point that my hon. Friend raises. It is a problem that we need to tackle with the insurance companies to try to ensure that everybody who can possibly get insurance gets it. I am afraid that one of the things that we know from the work that has been carried out and from the analysis of the changing nature of the climate is that these problems may well recur.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: If the Prime Minister recommends to the British people that they should abandon the pound sterling in a referendum and they reject his advice, will he resign?
    The Prime Minister: I think that we should wait until we get to the referendum and then 'wait for the result.
    Ross Cranston: My right hon. Friend will recall that three years ago, the health White Paper. "Saving Lives"—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Ross Cranston: That White Paper announced a plan for an alcohol strategy. Since that time, the charity Alcohol Concern has estimated that there have been about 2 million serious incidents of violence around pubs, 130,000 deaths from excessive alcohol consumption and numerous incidents of domestic violence. Will my right hon. Friend crank the machinery so that we have an alcohol strategy in place?
    The Prime Minister: We will be investing somewhere in the region of £30 million in action against under-age drinking in particular, which is a serious problem. I point out too—it is important that the public understand this—that the police and local authorities now have two very specific powers to deal with this issue. First, they can
    860
    seize alcohol from those who cause a nuisance in public places and, secondly—this is particularly important—the police will now be given the power to close licensed premises when there is a likelihood of trouble and they can arrest those who do not allow the alcohol to be seized when asked to do so. Those powers will give us considerable leverage on a problem that I know causes disturbances in many city centres in many parts of the country.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: In view of the close friendship between the United States and the United Kingdom, is the Prime Minister aware that the talks aimed at liberalising transatlantic services from Heathrow have stalled twice? Intense pressure has been put on No. 10 officials by British Airways and Virgin Atlantic because they do not want more competition. Bearing in mind the fact that he believes in open skies, will he put his seal of approval to an open skies policy across the Atlantic from Heathrow? Will he kick-start the talks?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we are keen to liberalise the US-UK air services agreement. That is important, but it must be done on terms that are fair. The competition must be fair, otherwise we will put the jobs of thousands of British employees at risk. I am, in principle, very anxious to restart this process, but it must be on the right terms. At present, those terms are not right, but we are in intensive discussions with the American Administration to try to get the process going again.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: It is said that we are all Thatcherites now. May I, as a Bevanite who aspires to be a Blairite, tell my right hon. Friend that there are those of us who would rather undergo root canal surgery without anaesthetic, be cast away on a desert island with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)—with no ear plugs—or even be entertained to a full and frank discussion in the Whips Office, than accept such a description? May I ask the Prime Minister for his view?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I am delighted that we have moved this country away from Thatcherism. The problem with Thatcherism is that it took no account of social division; it grossly underinvested in our public services; it did not care about unemployment; and it isolated this country in Europe. That is precisely why I am delighted that we have a new Labour Government today to put the situation right.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: The Prime Minister of the Irish Republic recently stated that the decommissioning of all illegally held weapons and explosives must take place within a year and that the IRA must be disbanded. When will the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have the courage to set and achieve the same objectives?
    The Prime Minister: First, we have to make sure that no level of paramilitary activity is considered acceptable, because no level of paramilitary activity is acceptable. I can go further and say specifically that by that I mean not the procurement of weapons, not the targeting of people and not the so-called punishment beatings that are actually

    861
    acts of criminal violence. The absence of attacks on security personnel or bombing campaigns is not enough. A temporary or tactical ceasefire is not enough. If people want the process to survive, they have to make the democratic choice in absolute and not partial terms. The existence of any paramilitary activity is inconsistent with that.
    I also believe, however, that the peace process offers us the best chance of achieving that aim. Even though I know that it is under strain, for the reasons implicit in the hon. Gentleman's question, it is precisely because people have got to make that democratic choice that there cannot be a halfway house. If we look over the past few years and at Northern Ireland as a whole, the vast majority of people have benefited from the peace process, the economy has benefited and security has benefited. We now have to work together to ensure that the aim that both the Taoiseach and I want to see is achieved.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to eradicate pensioner poverty, pensions should be linked to earnings?
    The Prime Minister: I do not, for the reasons that we have given many times. The best way to eradicate pensioner poverty is to do what we are trying to do. In particular, the minimum income guarantee is increasing pensioners' incomes far and above the rises that would result from a link to earnings. Universal elements, such as the winter fuel allowance, the free television licence for the over-75s and the new pension credit when it comes into effect, will help people on lower incomes far more than if we simply linked their pensions to earnings.
    The trouble is that if we link the basic state pension to earnings, we will never get enough resources from Government to give such a lift to the basic state pension as it attempts to cure pensioner poverty. We have therefore to distinguish between different groups of pensioners. Some are relatively well off, some are very poor. It is the right duty for this Government, with our principles, to help the poorest most.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Last year, the Government said they would take away the driving licences from absent parents who failed to pay child support. They announced that three times and the idea received big headlines. Can the Prime Minister tell us how many people have lost their driving licences?
    The Prime Minister: No, I cannot, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that as a result of the measures that we have taken to make parents face up to their responsibilities, the Child Support Agency is now working far better than the hopeless mess that everyone remembers, which we inherited from the previous Government.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: After such big headlines and so many announcements, the answer is that one person has lost their licence out of nearly 200,000 parents who failed to pay child support. Two years ago, the Prime Minister announced that benefits would be withdrawn from people who failed to do community service. It was spun, and I quote him, as a
    "fundamental to our reform of welfare".
    862
    To date, that policy has saved less than £5,000. Can he tell us now how much that scheme cost to implement?
    The Prime Minister: No, but what I can do—[Interruption.] I will send the right hon. Gentleman the figures on how much the scheme has cost. Let me deal with the Child Support Agency. The test, after all, is whether or not more parents are facing up to their responsibilities. If we look at the figures—I will send the right hon. Gentleman the precise figures and perhaps we can discuss them next week—more people are facing up to their responsibilities now than they were a few years ago. In relation to community service orders, more people are fulfilling their obligations, and that is what we want to see.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The one group who are not facing up to their responsibilities are the Government. The answer to the question is that to make a small saving of £5,000, the Prime Minister spent £300,000. On Monday, he was back to his old tricks, when he re-announced plans to get more sick and disabled people back to work. I remind him that he spun exactly the same set of stories three years ago, but the number of people on incapacity benefit is rising. By next year, he will have increased the welfare budget by more than the health or education budgets. Surely the reality for the Prime Minister is that the unspun headline is simply, "He talks a good game, but when will he deliver?"
    The Prime Minister: Let us deal with the welfare budget. If we leave aside the tax credits and the pensioners' help that we want to spend money on, and take the social security budget that is based on social and economic failure, we are saving £4 billion a year over and above the levels of spending that were in place when we came to power. Indeed, leaving aside the areas in which we want to spend money, social security bills are falling in real terms for the first time in years.
    As for what we are doing in the welfare state, we are managing to get those bills down because we have an extra 1.5 million people in work. Although when we came to power hundreds of thousands of young people were on the dole. I can tell the House that as a result of the new deal, the number of young people who are on the dole today is 4,500. That is the difference that we can make by ensuring that we save money on failure and can then spend it on pensioners and working families, which is where we want to spend it.
    Hon. Members: More, more.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Ms Bridget Prentice: I doubt that my right hon. Friend is aware that Lewisham is the safest inner-London borough in which to live. However, there is still a problem in the Downham area of my constituency of young tearaways terrorising people with their behaviour. Will my right hon. Friend give me reassurances that I can share with my constituents about what the Government will do about that problem?
    The Prime Minister: We must do a combination of two things. First, we must take measures on street crime, as we are doing with the Metropolitan police, the Crown

    863
    Prosecution Service and magistrates in London. Those are significantly successful and are beginning to reduce the figures for street crime. Secondly, we must invest in facilities for young people, and that is why the investment in my hon. Friend's constituency—in sports facilities, in youth services and in the new deal—is important. We will not deal with the issue of what she calls young tearaways unless we make sure that they know that if they commit offences they will be punished, and try to provide alternatives so that they can engage in lawful conduct and proper behaviour, enjoying themselves without disrupting the lives of others.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: I know that the Prime Minister feels much put upon by the press at the moment, and I am sure that we all share his pain in that regard. If it is true that Mr. Mick Jagger has some good news coming, no one would begrudge Sir Michael such an honour, but the Prime Minister's stated policy is that honours should go to ordinary people who do extraordinary things and provide inspiration for others at times of great personal suffering and trauma, so would not Mrs. Pam Warren be a suitable candidate for such recognition?
    The Prime Minister: We should give honours to a range of different people. While honours are given to people who are famous and celebrated, this Government introduced honours, and in particular knighthoods, for head teachers who have done an excellent job with their school. We will always have a mix of people in the honours system, and so we should have.
    David Cairns: In my constituency the police hold many outstanding arrest warrants against individuals for whom they have no current address, while the local jobcentre and Benefits Agency hold those addresses but are fortudden to co-operate with the police by the Data Protection Act 1998. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Act is there to protect the innocent, not the guilty, and it should not be used in this instance as an obstacle to the fight against crime?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why we want to make sure that requests for information are now considered in respect of all crimes, not only the most serious. There have to be proper safeguards for the civil liberties and privacy of the individual, but the information is vital to the police in their work and I am sure that it should be made available to them.
    Sir Paul Beresford: I presume that the Prime Minister is aware of the BBC 2 programme that followed the Metropolitan police paedophile unit for the past two years. It is clear from that and other evidence that paedophile activity is much greater than many of us had realised, and might have been accentuated by the internet. There are three police paedophile units—I hope that the Prime Minister is listening.
    The Prime Minister: I am.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Good. There are three police paedophile units in the country, the largest being the
    864
    Metropolitan police unit. In the mid 90s, that unit had approximately 17 policemen; in 2000, staffing dropped to 15; it is now down to 13, of whom only eight are operational. I assume that the Prime Minister is concerned about child abuse by paedophiles. That being so, will he tell us what the Government are going to do and when they are going to do it, and will he accept a small deputation on the matter?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider any request the hon. Gentleman makes, but the position within the Metropolitan police is obviously an operational decision for the police. I do not know what other measures the force is taking, but I know that the Metropolitan police treat the issue very seriously. As for the Government, we have made it clear that we want to tighten the law in that area, and we will do so as soon as possible.
    Valerie Davey: The traffic commissioner responsible for bus services in Bristol said recently,
    "I don't want to penalise the public by penalising the bus company."
    Given the commissioner's ineffective powers, what more can the Government do to involve and protect the largest group of users of public transport, bus passengers?
    The Prime Minister: The best thing we can do is make sure that we invest in bus services, especially rural bus services. Some £200 million is to go into rural bus services, and there are many more services available. Furthermore, under the Transport Act 2000 local authorities have the opportunity to produce transport plans and strategies. However, I think that such decisions are better taken locally.
    Mr. Archie Norman: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a reception in the House today for victims of cystic fibrosis? It is a debilitating disease from which victims suffer all their life and die prematurely. Does he remember pledging in 1997 to withdraw prescription charges for victims of that disease and reiterating that pledge in the House in March 1999? Does he realise that victims were entitled to take that pledge at face value and that it meant a great deal to them? Is this not a good occasion on which to demonstrate that it was not merely a politician's promise, but that he meant it sincerely and is now going to deliver?
    The Prime Minister: First, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about cystic fibrosis and the suffering it causes. Only the other day I met a cystic fibrosis sufferer who made exactly the same points. True, we have to consider the matter within the context of the overall sums that the Government are putting into the health service; on the other hand we are aware of the things that were said previously and we intend to honour them.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: This week is national carers week. Six million people—including my constituent Mr. Norman Hosker, who is in his 50s and cares full-time for his 80-year-old mother, who has osteoporosis—save this country about £57 billion a year. Knowing that, and in view of a recent

    865
    survey showing that only a fifth of local authorities currently have additional fund ng to implement the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, will my right hon. Friend look favourably on further measures to assist carers in the comprehensive spending review?
    The Prime Minister: We have put some £500 million into extra support for carers, which has meant that some
    866
    300,000 carers nationally have benefited financially. I agree—the reports that are being published today by the Department of Health are an attempt to do this—that we need to get greater co-ordination into the work that is done at a local level. That is precisely what those reports address today. Of course, the issue will be discussed in the next comprehensive spending review.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. David Willetts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible to invite the Prime Minister to correct the parliamentary record, given the answer that he just gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) about youth employment? The Prime Minister said that 4,500 young people were unemployed, but may I invite him to correct the record, as the correct figure is 244,000, of whom 44,000 have been unemployed for more than six months?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any request from the Prime Minister to come to the House to correct his comment during Prime Minister's Question Time that the Conservative Opposition opposed the Proceeds of Crime Bill? I do not recollect that happening at all; rather, the reverse was the case.
Mr. Speaker: That is an extension of Prime Minister's Question Time.
Mr. George Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that this point of order is not about any answer that the Prime Minister has given, as that is nothing to do with me.
Mr. Osborne: It is not, Mr. Speaker. The Downing street website does not include the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) in its list of Ministers, but yesterday, I saw the hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Downing street website has nothing to do with the Speaker.

BILL PRESENTED
  CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY
  Linda Perham, supported by Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Martin O'Neill, Mr. Tony Banks, Sue Doughty, Mr. Simon Thomas, Glenda Jackson, Mrs. Jackie Lawrence, Sir Teddy Taylor and Mr. John Horam, presented a Bill to make provision for certain companies to produce and publish reports on environmental, social and economic and financial matters; to require those companies to consult on certain proposed operations; to specify certain duties and liabilities of directors; to establish and provide for the functions of the Corporate Responsibility Board; to provide for remedies for aggrieved persons; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 145].

Data Protection (Amendment)
3.32 pm
Mr. Mark Francois: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Data Protection Act 1998 to provide exemptions in respect of Members of Parliament seeking information on behalf of their constituents; and for related purposes.
I believe that this Bill touches on an issue that is of current interest to hon. Members in all parts of the House; indeed, it was touched on during Prime Minister's questions only a few minutes ago. The background to the Bill is the gradual coming into force of the Data Protection Act 1998. As a result of that legislation, some organisations and companies, and public bodies such as local authorities and NHS trusts, are beginning to respond negatively to individual casework inquiries by Members of Parliament on the grounds of access to confidential personal data under the Data Protection Act. Moreover, some organisations are developing a general policy of writing to hon. Members asking them to obtain written consent from constituents before they will discuss any aspect of a constituent's case.
However, even obtaining subsequent written consent is not as straightforward as it might appear, as it entails deciding from whom the consent should be sought, such as in cases affecting children. For example, one colleague wrote to me recently about a mother who is the legal appointee of her disabled son. That is recognised by the social security commissioners and the ombudsman, but her county council still refuses to recognise her under the Data Protection Act.
Simple common sense dictates that our constituents have already given us their consent to seek such information by personally requesting us to take up their case in the first instance. People very often approach their Member of Parliament because they have experienced some frustration or perceived injustice from the system, which they request that we help to resolve on their behalf. In such circumstances, the last thing that our constituents need is another letter, this time from us, asking them to fill in yet another form so that we can even begin to look into something about which they specifically asked us to inquire in the first place.
Some organisations with which we deal also appreciate the problem, but feel bound to operate within the Act as it is currently drafted, as that is the legal advice that they have received. For example, I have a letter on the subject from Mr. Stewart Ashurst, chief executive of Essex county council—and before anyone asks me, I do have his personal consent to cite it in this context. On 21 March, he wrote to me:
"Many thanks for your letter … letting me know of your intention to introduce a Ten Minute Rule Bill to amend the Data Protection Act. Although the Data Protection Act has many advantages, in particular giving people the opportunity to see information recorded upon themselves, it has also created many barriers to sharing information which can be unnecessary and unhelpful. An MP representing a constituent's interests is an obvious example but there are many others. I am pleased that this issue will be aired on the floor of the House of Commons as a result of the steps which you are taking."
At best, this new impediment is a bureaucratic waste of time; at worst, it could provide an opportunity for some organisations to try to hide behind the Data Protection Act and withhold information on the treatment or

869
maltreatment of individuals, which could place the organisation in a bad light if it were revealed to Members of Parliament.
The issue has been raised in the House several times in recent months, including, on a number of occasions, during business questions. In fairness, the Government have intimated that they would like to take some action on the matter, but to date, despite various discussions, no specific proposals have been forthcoming. That is why I proposed this brief Bill in early May and am seeking to advance it today. It would remedy the situation by amending the Data Protection Act to make allowance for Members of Parliament who are pursuing casework inquiries. Specifically, it would amend part IV of the Act, which deals with exemptions—of which there are already quite a number—to provide a new general exemption for Members of Parliament who are seeking information in pursuit of a casework inquiry on behalf of a named constituent or constituents. Such an exemption would then be promulgated so that organisations would be aware that in future they could not continue to hide behind the Data Protection Act when in receipt of an inquiry from a Member.
In summary, the problem affects hon. Members on both sides of the House and represents an unnecessary bureaucratic impediment to our ability to do our job on behalf of the people who send us here. The Bill seeks to remove that impediment in order to allow Members to continue to assist their constituents as they always have done. For that reason, I believe that the Bill is worth while, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Francois, Mr. Paul Goodman, Chris Grayling, Mr. Mark Hoban, Mr. George Osborne, Mr. Mark Prisk, Andrew Selous, Sir Michael Spicer, Mr. John Whittingdale, Mr. Bill Wiggin and David Wright.

Data Protection (Amendment)
  DATA PROTECTION (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Mark Francois accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Data Protection Act 1998 to provide exemptions in respect of Members of Parliament seeking information on behalf of their constituents; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed [Bill 146].
Orders of the Day

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
    New Clause 9

      CONTROL OF ENTRY TO UNITED KINGDOM, &C.: USE OF FORCE
      In paragraph 17(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c.77) (control of entry, &c.: person liable to detention: use of force) for "if need be by force" there shall be substituted "if need be by reasonable force"'.—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.39 pm
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 139, in clause 49, page 27, line 31, after 'detained', insert 'for a reasonable period'.
      Government amendment No. 103.
      Amendment No. 262, in page 27, line 37, at end insert—
      'unless that person is a child'.
      Government amendments Nos. 104 and 59.
      Amendment No. 60, page 29, line 37, leave out Clause 52.
      Amendment No. 141, in clause 52, in page 30, line 4, after 'persons', insert—
      'whom the Secretary of State is lawfully entitled to remove'.
      Amendment No. 169, in page 30, line 4, after 'persons', insert—
      'over the age of eighteen'.
      Ms Winterton: Many hon. Members who served in Committee will recall that, in response to points from the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Woking (Mr. Malins), we agreed to consider whether it was necessary to specify in the Bill that the force that could be used by an escort had to be "reasonable". Although we remain of the view that the only force that may lawfully be used is reasonable force, we are content to make that explicit. We have tabled the necessary amendments to effect that.
      The power in clause 50 is linked to paragraph 17(2) of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, which provides for police or immigration officers to enter premises to execute a warrant. That provision uses the same wording as the original clause 50. In the interests of consistency, we have tabled new clause 9, which will add the qualification "reasonable" to the use of force that is authorised in paragraph 17 of schedule 2.

      871
      Clause 58(1) creates a new power to allow removal directions to be given for the family of the person who is being removed as an illegal entrant, or following refusal of leave to enter. The immigration Acts contain no power to detain such people. Without such a power, it may not be possible to enforce removal in accordance with the directions. The new power that clause 58(1) creates would therefore be empty. Amendment No. 103 plugs the gap and will enable directions to be enforced if necessary.
      Amendment No. 104 is a consequential amendment to section 24 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. It ensures that the bail provisions that apply to suspected international terrorists who are detained under the Immigration Act 1971 would apply to such people who might be detained under clause 49. Section 24 of the 2001 Act currently refers to a suspected international terrorist who is detained under the powers in the 1971 Act. Amendment No. 104 would acid detention under the Bill. It places those who are detained under clause 49 on the same footing as those who are detained under the powers of detention in the 1971 Act.
      Jeremy Corbyn: How does the amendment apply to foreign nationals who are detained under the new terrorism legislation, which does not require any rules of evidence to give information to defendants about the reason for their detention?
      Ms Winterton: The changes that we are introducing will enable those who are suspected of international terrorism to apply for bail. I believe that they will be welcomed because they bring that group of people into line with others.
      I hope that hon. Members will support the Government amendments. I shall, of course, respond to points about the other amendments later.
      Mr. Humfrey Malins: We welcome new clause 9. I recall vividly a long discussion in Committee on the use of force. Anxiety was expressed that, increasingly, a wider variety of people in society can use force, including police, immigration officials and security officers. The debate was important and many Opposition Members wanted to include "reasonable" before "force". I am therefore pleased that the Government have introduced the new clause, for which I thank them.
      I want to consider the amendments that we have tabled: Nos. 139 and 141. Amendment No. 139 applies to clause 49, and would include the words, "for a reasonable period".
      3.45 pm
      The Bill, as framed, appears not to set a limit on the period of detention. The purpose of our amendment is to make it clear that the period of detention must be reasonable, and that the likely period for which a person is to be detained is a consideration that the person making the decision must take into account when making that decision and at any subsequent review of someone's continued detention.
      The amendment places the concept of reasonableness in the statute itself. I refer the Minister to the House of Lords judgment in the case of Saadi, which I think is
      872
      about to come out. The case was heard in May. In the administrative court in September 2001, Mr. Justice Collins ruled that the detention of persons for only seven days at Oakington was unlawful, as it contravened article 5 of the European convention on human rights. His judgment was reversed in the Court of Appeal, but Lord Justice Phillips, obiter, indicated that detention could become unlawful under article 5 if a person was detained for longer than was reasonable to effect the purpose for which he was detained.
      I apologise to the House for quoting from Lord Justice Phillips's judgment at some length, but this is an important point of principle. He said:
      "It seems to us that the Court is considering as lawful detention pending the consideration of an application for leave to enter or the making of arrangements for deportation and not applying a test of whether the detention is necessary in order to carry out those processes. The inroad that we believe the European Court has made into the right of immigration authorities to detain aliens pending consideration of the applications for leave to enter, or their deportation, is that these processes must not be unduly prolonged. It is in relation to the duration of detention that the question of proportionality arises. Although Collins J. held that detention at Oakington did not fall within Article 5(1)(f) at all, he went on to consider proportionality. In so doing the test that he applied was whether detention was proportionate to the need to process applicants speedily. He decided that it was not because he was not satisfied that it was necessary to achieve that object. We consider that the test of proportionality required by Article 5(1)(f) requires the Court simply to consider whether the process of considering an asylum application, or arranging a deportation, has gone on too long to justify the detention of the person concerned having regard to the conditions in which the person is detained and any special circumstances affecting him or her. Applying that test no disproportionality is demonstrated in this case. The Secretary of State has determined that, in the absence of special circumstances, it is not reasonable to detain an asylum seeker for longer than about a week, but that a short period of detention can be justified where this will enable speedy determination of his or her application for leave to enter. In restricting detention to such circumstances he may well have gone beyond what the European Court would require. We are content that he should have done so. The vast majority of those seeking asylum are aliens who are not in a position to make good their entitlement to be treated as refugees. We believe, nonetheless, that most right thinking people would find it objectionable that such persons should be detained for a period of any significant length of time while their applications are considered, unless there is a risk of their absconding or committing other misbehaviour."
      It is clear that there is considerable judicial interest in this matter. That is why we have tabled this amendment on Report—which the Government should accept—qualifying the right to detain by saying that such detention should be "for a reasonable period". It would be most helpful to have that provision in the Bill.
      Our amendment No. 141 applies to clause 52, which defines a "removal centre" as
      "a place which is used solely for the detention of detained persons but which is not a short-term holding facility, a prison or part of a prison".
      Under our amendment, the clause would read,
      "'removal centre' means a place which is used solely for the detention of detained persons whom the Secretary of State is lawfully entitled to remove".
      The emphasis is on the phrase "lawfully entitled to remove".
      We had many discussions in Committee about the names of the various centres, and the change from "detention centre" to "removal centre". We may return to that issue in our debate today. Detaining asylum seekers

      873
      is a sensitive issue, and detention should be used with the greatest sensitivity. Detaining persons whom the Secretary of State is not entitled to remove is an unhappy concept for many Opposition Members.
      It is not many months since the fire at Yarl's Wood. Unless I am mistaken, a Home Office website note said that Yarl's Wood was used for the detention of people whose asylum applications had failed and who were about to be removed. However, Yarl's Wood contained a mixture of people. It could take about 900, but at the time of the fire it held only about 400 or slightly fewer. The key point is that they were not all being detained prior to removal. We would have a greater understanding of the situation if that were the case. We know that the Government want to develop the detention estate to about 4,000. We understand the reasoning behind that, but it is important to focus on exactly who will be detained. At Yarl's Wood, dozens of people were being detained whose asylum appeals were under way rather than exhausted. If current asylum seekers are detained, rather than persons whom the Secretary of State is lawfully entitled to remove, that creates a problem.
      If a person is not lawfully removable, it is strongly arguable that he should not be placed in a removal centre. It is wrong to put other people, such as those awaiting the initial consideration of their asylum applications, into a centre that is now to be designated as a removal centre, as that sends a message that their application will not be considered in an open-minded and fair manner.
      Imagine the scene: a lawful applicant whose process is under way is, without good cause—the Government will probably dwell on the question of what is and what is not good cause—placed in somewhere called a removal centre. What message does that send about the Government's attitude? Some people argue that that could be in breach of article 5 of the European convention on human rights. I am not sufficiently expert to pronounce on that, but I wonder whether the Minister has taken expert advice and whether she can reassure the House. Furthermore, placing people who are at considerably different stages of the determination process in the same detention environment creates irreconcilable problems for the managers of the detention facilities over the type of regime that should be in place. It may also mean that very vulnerable asylum seekers who, when their cases come to be considered, are found to be refugees will have to spend a lot of time among, not separate from, other types of immigration detainee, and will have to experience an inappropriately high level of security.
      This makes sense, does it not? As we all know, even those remanded in custody in criminal cases before being tried are kept in different circumstances from those serving a sentence following conviction, with very different privileges, entitlements and so forth.
      A person whose claim for asylum has not been fully determined, or whose appeal is outstanding, cannot lawfully be removed. I understand, incidentally, that in a fairly recent case handled by a very senior and established non-governmental organisation, a client was removed while his appeal was pending, and the Home Office had to bring him back to the United Kingdom.
      I feel, therefore, that amendment No. 141 is as important as amendment No. 139.
      Jeremy Corbyn: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the mixture of people in
      874
      detention centres at present. Does he feel, as many of us do, that, in general, asylum seekers should not be detained, or does he believe that there should be different sorts of detention centre for different categories of asylum seekers, failed applicants and people whose removal is pending?
      Mr. Matins: It is not practically possible to detain all asylum seekers. Many years ago, when the numbers were different, we might have been able to discuss that as a practical possibility, although there would have been merits to argue; but it is impossible to detain all the asylum seekers who are now arriving each year.
      What is the proper approach? We support the Government's policy on accommodation centres, but how can I argue that an asylum seeker should be detained unless the authorities have a real fear that that person will abscond, and there is substantial evidence suggesting that detention is necessary? It may be thought that an asylum seeker poses a severe risk in terms of criminal activity; it may be thought that that person has committed a criminal offence. Fine. Subject to judicial oversight, there must be categories of asylum seekers, just as there are categories of ordinary people such as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and me. Certain categories do have to be detained, for various reasons. In today's climate, however, the suggestion that all asylum seekers should be detained is both wrong in principle and impossible, in practical terms, to implement. The whole issue is very delicate.
      The hon. Member for Islington, North has been in the House for a long time and knows more about this subject than most of us, probably including me. He has a fine reputation. Nevertheless, he and I both understand that the theme running through many of our debates is the balance between involvement of the state in custodial issues, and the judiciary. We know how important it is to get that balance right—not to let it tilt too far to one side but always, as I said yesterday, to ensure that the judiciary are involved.
      If I were ever locked up, I should want to be locked up on the order of a judge. I should feel much happier then, especially if I had the right of appeal to another judge. Then I would have to take my medicine. I am now rapidly wondering whether I have done anything to deserve it! Anyway, the hon. Gentleman understands the thrust of what I am saying. I do not think we are very far apart.
      4 pm
      I conclude by repeating my unhappiness at the fact that we are moving towards the use of new titles such as "removal centres". As far as I can tell, such centres will not be used to house people who are to be removed. The title "detention centres" is much more acceptable if such centres are to be used for those detained for lawful reasons, subject to the proper right to apply for bail, and so on. It is not surprising that we have tabled an amendment to clause 52 that would define a "removal centre" as a place used solely for the detention of persons
      "whom the Secretary of State is lawfully entitled to remove".
      Mr. Mike Hancock: The hon. Gentleman's reply to the intervention from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) contained the assumption that, in some circumstances, detention is

      875
      the right course of action. The hon. Gentleman talks about the judicial review process, but at what stage should that process start? Should it kick in when a person is detained at the point of entry? Should it run alongside consideration of the asylum application?
      Mr. Matins: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question, but I am anxious not to stray too far from the narrow terms of my amendment. When someone makes an application for asylum on entry, it may or may not be perfectly proper for the Government to decide that they should be detained straight away. However, the point is that the process must be subject to judicial scrutiny, and quickly. If the Government are found to be right, that is fine; if not, that is equally fine. Let us be frank: the judiciary is independent, end of story.
      It is not so much the principle of detention that troubles me. By and large, any Government—including the current Government and the previous Conservative Government—would do their best to act reasonably. What does trouble me is the prospect of a lack of proper judicial oversight. That brings to mind part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and issues such as automatic bail rights, but that is a subject for another day.
      Today's proceedings have got off to a slightly less stroppy start than yesterday's. I hope that the Minister thinks that my general approach has merit, and that, if she is not prepared to accept the amendment, she will consider using the other place to insert something similar in the Bill.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: I begin by apologising for tabling amendment No. 262 at this late stage in the Bill's passage. I doubt whether it is the most adequate amendment that has been discussed so far, but it is an important one that is based on an important principle to which I am absolutely committed: that children should not be detained in any form of custody. The only Government policy that I have deep antipathy towards is their willingness to lock up children.
      My constituency has one of the largest child prisons in the country, Lancaster Farms, in which 360 children are shortly to be detained. Under the street crime initiative, we in Lancashire may be introducing custody for 12-year-olds. That is wrong, and we should not do it. We should use amendment No. 262 to promote the non-custodial treatment of all children who are caught up in the deeply distressing circumstances of asylum applications.
      My proposals are entirely in line with the UN convention on the rights of the child, to which the Government are a signatory. The Government cannot continue to maintain an opt-out on the immigration and asylum provisions of the convention in defiance of a legal opinion obtained by Save the Children that the opt-out is unsustainable. I suspect that when the Government report to the UN committee on the rights of the child in Geneva in September they will—unfortunately and very sadly—be in great difficulty. Maintaining that opt-out in order to retain the ability to detain children goes against the spirit of the UN convention, which has been signed by every country in the world except two. Few of the signatories maintain any opt-out.
      876
      I shall not press the amendment to a vote. It is similar to an amendment that I tabled previously and I seek the Minister's assurance that she is not happy with detaining children in such circumstances, and that all measures possible will be taken to safeguard the welfare of any children who are detained. I ask again how the provisions of the Children Act 1989 can possibly apply to children in that situation. The broader principle about the rights and wrongs of holding children under 18 in any form of custodial institution are matters to which I shall continue to return in discussion of asylum and criminal justice legislation, until the Government do what is right and fall in line with some of their best principles. The Government have tried to be a good Government for children, and they now need to decide that such treatment of children is utterly wrong.
      Simon Hughes: Like the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Matins), I welcome Government new clause 9 and we will not seek to divide the House on this group. I hope that that is helpful to hon. Members planning their afternoon. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has spoken to amendment No. 262, and we support it because we support the principle that he enunciated of not detaining children. We were similarly motivated when we tabled amendment No. 169.
      I shall speak to amendment No. 60, in my name and my hon. Friends' names, and amendments Nos. 141 and 139, which were tabled with both Conservative and Liberal Democrat support. This is the beginning of a debate on detention and removal that we have not yet addressed on the Floor of the House, although we debated it in Committee. It raises some important principles. The first is the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn)—the question of who should be detained. Like him, I believe that detention should not be the presumption. The presumption should he that a person seeking asylum is as lawful a world citizen as is a citizen of this country who was born here and who does not want to go anywhere else. On that basis, detention is necessary only if the person is a risk to society in some way, or has a criminal record that means that he or she should not be let out.
      I accept too that detention may also be used at the very end of the process, when a person has put a case, and lost it after a proper appeal. The Minister knows that I believe that that process should happen in this country, and that people should be here when they appeal. At the end of the process it is acceptable—not desirable, but acceptable—that for a period it may be necessary to detain people immediately prior to their departure from the country. That is necessary to make sure that the link between the final decision that people cannot stay and their removal is not broken, and that people do not disappear from the system at that stage when they know that they cannot succeed with their cases.
      Mr. Matins: The hon. Gentleman will know from his experience that an interesting parallel can be drawn here with what happens in the criminal justice system when a person who has pleaded not guilty to a crime and who has been on bail throughout a lengthy jury trial is finally

      877
      convicted. If a custodial sentence is coming, it is appropriate for the judge to remand the person in custody for the final fortnight.
      Simon Hughes: People who read these debates may not be aware that the hon. Gentleman sits as a recorder in our courts. He is absolutely right: the courts use the procedure that he has described because it is a way to make sure that the interests of the state are protected when there is a danger that they might not otherwise be enforced. That is the principle.
      The second very strong principle that I want to enunciate is that we must not put people in things that are called removal centres if they are not at that stage destined for removal. In that, I share exactly the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Woking.
      I have not begun to understand the Government case to the contrary, but there are all sorts of arguments for saying that it is absolutely wrong to put people in something that used to be called a detention centre—which is suddenly now known as a removal centre—when their cases have not been finally considered. I hope that Ministers will seriously consider the widespread objection to the redesignation. Names are important, and if the Government are going to change the name of those centres they should use an honest one, not a dishonest one. More importantly, there are likely to be adverse consequences.
      The first adverse consequence is that people put in places called removal centres, when no decision has been taken about their case, will not be certain that they will be treated fairly. If they are placed in something called a removal centre, they will presume—I would, and other people would too—that, regardless of the value of their case or of the way they have expressed it, and regardless too of the so-called independent process involved, they will be removed.
      Mr. Matins: It is like being on death row halfway through one's trial.
      Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes art apposite point. People will be being told what the outcome of the process will be before they have had a chance to put their case. That must be wrong. I cannot understand how the Government could even think that the idea was justifiable. I shall he interested to hear whether the Minister can provide a justification, but she will have to find an argument that none of us have heard from a Minister before.
      I am certain that the House of Lords will change the provision, because it is oppressive and harmful nonsense. People in that position will be adversely psychologically affected. They are likely to be more disruptive and less settled. There are all sorts of arguments why we should not go down that road. I sincerely hope that we can change the name, and that clause 52 will be deleted from the Bill, as my colleagues and I propose. Like the Conservative party, we have proposed amending part of the clause, if we cannot remove it, to achieve that effect
      4.15 pm
      The improvement that the Government have made is to put the reasonableness test into this part of the Bill. If people are to be detained by force, they have to be
      878
      detained by reasonable force. That is clearly welcome. The Government have also accepted the arguments that we made in Committee that there should be a reasonableness test. That is also welcome.
      One reason why we need controls is that, as I understand it, detainee custody officers, who will not necessarily be public employees arid are not therefore directly accountable to any public service disciplinary process or public complaints process, will be able to intervene, take possession of property, and so on. That is why my colleagues and I tabled amendment No. 59, to which the Home Secretary added his name. We are concerned that those who go into premises without a warrant to detain people who are then held should be subject to disciplinary processes and proper scrutiny. The least that we can do, therefore, is limit or control the force with which they enter premises. However, I hope that Ministers will go beyond that and let us see the rules that will govern searches of detainees. We have seen no such draft rules yet.
      I hope that the Government will back off from the idea of giving unaccountable employees of private contractors powers that are greater than those of immigration and police officers, who are accountable public servants. It is quite wrong to go down that road, and as the Minister will know from our debates in Committee, my colleagues and I strongly believe that everyone involved in the accommodation and detention of asylum seekers and others should be in the public service and the public sector.
      A bizarre twist is that in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and I pressed to a Division a proposal on keeping asylum and accommodation centres in the public realm—the public estate or public provision—the Conservatives abstained, which seemed a perfectly reasonable view to take, and Labour Members opposed it. So the party that used to be the party of public service is opposing keeping things in the public sector. It would appear, according to the way people voted in Committee, that the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are much more concerned about these matters than are the Government.
      If people go to a removal centre, it is highly likely to have an adverse effect on them, even if they are eventually allowed into the country. If they are asked where they spent the past six months of their life, Campsfield removal centre is hardly the best thing to put on their resume or curriculum vitae when going for their first job, having been accepted as an asylum seeker in this country.
      The way in which the Government are moving suggests that they want to give the impression that they will have ever greater powers to remove people, irrespective of the rights that they may establish. It is not as if it is justified on the basis of the figures. I know that the Government are keen to remove people: they say that they want to remove 30,000 people a year. I understand that it has been put in alternative terms at 2,500 people a month, most recently by the Home Secretary. Removals figures are much lower than that.
      Is the redesignation a way to enable the Government to say that they have removed a certain number of people but that they also have more in removal centres? That would create a wholly false impression: it would make it look good to the uninitiated, as if those people were all

      879
      destined for removal, but of course many of them will be likely to win their cases. The figures are clear: many of the people who go into detention centres will be successful with their cases.
      I will end where I began—following on from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. I do not understand how it is possible for this Government to preach human rights around the world but not to endorse in full the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and to hold such reservations. I do not understand how that can be other than hypocritical, or how it can be consistent.
      Many of us have had experience of dealing with asylum seekers in our constituency work as Members of Parliament, and before that in our other lives. The hon. Gentleman did so as a social worker, the hon. Member for Woking and I were in the legal profession, and some colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), worked for local authorities.
      The reality is that: the state has an obligation to treat young people as young people first, not as asylum seekers. It has a duty to treat children as children and to give them all the things that they need. Many come here unaccompanied, as you know well from your part of the world, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and many come with their families. The way we treat them will be reflected in the way they behave when they grow up. If young people are treated as prisoners and locked up, not only will it be bad for them—prisons will make them much more likely to become offenders, to have dysfunctional behaviour and the rest—but it will create the wrong impression about what we think is important about them.
      I therefore endorse the request of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre and I press the Minister, as he did, to say why the Government persist in keeping so many people under the age of 18 in prison in general and why they insist on the right to keep asylum-seeking youngsters in prison. If we are short of general and specialist social services accommodation, social services ought to have more money so that they can provide it, if that is the issue.
      As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, secure local authority accommodation can be provided. Southwark council is a part manager of a place called Orchard lodge in south-east London on behalf of several local authorities; it is entirely secure. The alternative is not to put people in Rochester prison, Lancaster Farms, or anywhere else. Doing so is incompatible with our international obligations. It is bad practice and a bad example.
      I hope that we will change this part of the Bill fundamentally. I also hope that the Minister will give as encouraging a response to these questions as the Home Secretary did on two of the issues highlighted in the first group of amendments that we debated yesterday. Then, the Government accepted Opposition arguments. I hope that they understand the force of the case. We do not want people who are not going to be removed put in places called removal centres. We do not want children to be imprisoned when they should not be. We want everyone to have the right to be outside such centres and to enjoy freedom unless there is a good case for them to be detained and to have their liberty taken away.
      Jeremy Corbyn: I will he brief as there is much to debate today. The timetable motion has not done the House any favours. It has prevented debate on a large number of extremely serious matters.
      A dispassionate outsider—indeed anyone—looking at this group of amendments would find it strange that in 2002 we are debating the use of force to remove people from this country, the detention of children, the renaming of centres as "removal centres", and the concept of accommodation centres that are in reality detention centres. They would also find strange the lack of support for many people who are so detained. I find that extremely depressing.
      I have been involved in immigration and asylum law as long as I have been in the House and I have dealt with hundreds if not thousands of constituency cases. I have visited a number of the centres. I find it deeply depressing that the number of people detained rises inexorably over he years while the British increasingly proselytise around the world about being in favour of human rights. About 4,000 people are detained under immigration law, and that number is likely to rise as the years go by. We should be thinking about double standards here.
      I find the principle of detention offensive. A person should be detained only by court order, not by Executive order, and should always have access to the courts, whatever the process behind the detention. The Bill does not allow for that. Indeed, immigration law in effect allows for arbitrary detention—dependent largely on the number of detention spaces available at any time, rather than on the merits, justice of injustice of the case. Surely we should be a bit more grown up than that.
      I strongly endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and support amendment No. 262. which he tabled. I should be grateful to the Minister if she could tell us in her reply where compatibility of the detention of children with the Children Act 1989 comes into play. I have always understood—I may be wrong—that the Children Act supersedes all other legislation in relation to the treatment of children and that the priority is their welfare, education, health and support, not their likelihood or otherwise of absconding. We should think quite seriously about that.
      Yesterday, the House failed to debate the serious issues of education. I would argue that the Children Act 1989 provides the opportunity for education to any child who happens to be resident in this country at any time, but the Bill contains the idea of arbitrary detention.
      I have met many unaccompanied children who have arrived in this country to seek asylum. Without exception, they are deeply traumatised by what they have been through, to the extent that they are often unable to talk about it for several years. Even with very valuable psychiatric help, they find their experience very hard to confront. The horrors that they have experienced come out in their art, writing and conversation. Thankfully, children in this country never see the war scenes that those children have seen—I hope that they never do—yet we seek to detain those children.
      I strongly support the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre. If we are keen to support UN conventions and resolutions—as we should be—why on earth can we not endorse the

      881
      convention on the rights of the child, ratify it to its fullest extent and put an end to what I believe is a very serious abuse indeed?
      Simon Hughes: About 6,000 asylum-seeking children a year arrive unaccompanied in this country. I want to reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. We are talking not about a handful of youngsters but about a significant number of young people who, for whatever reason, arrive in this country with no adult and no one to look after them.
      Jeremy Corbyn: That is a fair point. The figure that the hon. Gentleman gives is about right.
      Obviously, a significant number of children are involved, all of whom have a story to tell and deserve support. Unless they are treated properly and given the necessary support when they arrive here, what will be the effect on them in later life? They have gone through a terrible trauma, but they are, in effect, kept in prison. What kind of adults will they become? What kind of people are we developing as a result?
      I hope that we can have a little more compassion and a bit more understanding and support. Let us remember that all those kids also have hopes, ambitions and ideas. They have a contribution to make to our society, and indeed many of them make that contribution.
      My final point is that we saw the news, the demonstrations and the recent fire at Yarl's Wood. Obviously, what happened there was terrible. Obviously, any injuries sustained are terrible and those events are deeply regrettable. However, we should think for a moment about what would be our view of another country where a fire was caused at a detention centre and many inmates were put in danger as a result, when it was not very clear who was there, why they were there or whether they fell into the category of asylum seekers who had recently arrived but whose cases were dubious, of those who were due to be removed or of those whose cases had gone on for years without being determined.
      There were also riots and disorder at Campsfield. I recall a visit to Campsfield and I could see on people's faces the frustration boiling up there. Having left what they believed to be a dangerous situation in their own countries, where arbitrary detention was the norm, they found themselves arbitrarily detained on arrival in this country. I would hope that the Bill, with its many faults, would at least not make worse the situation of arbitrary detention, unfair detention and lack of justice that is implicit in it.
      I look forward to the Minister's reply. In particular, in terms of signing up to the UN convention on the child, we should ratify it, operate it, and, above all, give priority to the welfare, education, social and health needs of children, and not detain them.
      4.30 pm
      Annabelle Ewing: I support all the comment s made so far by Opposition Members and Labour Back Benchers. At the outset, I want to say that we are talking about the clause dealing with the redesignation of detention centres, which will be known in due course as removal centres. I have before me a copy of a written question that was answered by the Home Office on Thursday 18 April, and a copy of a reply that I received
      882
      from the Home Office to correspondence, dated 16 May 2002. Both those documents refer to Dungavel detention centre as Dungavel removal centre. That is curious on the basis that the legislation has not yet been passed, far less brought into force. Perhaps the Minister could clarify why Dungavel detention centre is being referred to in that way in advance of the legislation coming into force.
      On the important substantive issues raised by the amendments, I agree totally that detention is not, in principle, acceptable when one is detaining people who have committed no crime. That is a key tenet of Scots law, and we have a very strict rule in Scotland that one must bring a person to trial within 110 days. The Government's approach to detention policy completely goes against basic principles of Scots law and of natural justice. So we cannot support the Government's detention policy.
      On the specific matters raised, the amendments deal with various important issues concerning the length of time for which somebody could be detained, the grounds on which a person will be detained and the important issue of detaining children in what are effectively prisons. I use the word "prison" carefully. Dungavel detention centre in Scotland was, until very recently, a prison. I visited Dungavel recently, and it shares with a prison the key characteristic that those inside are not at liberty to leave the premises. I shall come back to the issue of children shortly, but, in a civilised state, placing children in what is effectively a prison is shameful.
      On the issue of the grounds on which people are held, which is dealt with in amendment No. 141, it may interest the House to know that, further to a visit to Dungavel detention centre in April, the cross-party group on refugees and asylum seekers in the Scottish Parliament submitted a report, dated 22 April 2002, to the Home Office. I am not clear whether the Home Office has yet responded to the Scots Parliament, and perhaps the Minister will clarify that when she replies. The report raised various concerns about the operation of the Dungavel detention centre, including the grounds on which people were apparently held. That caused a furore in Scotland and led to the then Minister of State, Scotland Office, the hon. Member for Carrick. Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), saying on a BBC Scotland programme on 28 April that the only people detained in Dungavel were those who
      "have reached the end of the line … have committed an offence, or … are regular absconders."
      Those comments have been disputed by individuals inside Dungavel, who said that they had been living happily in the local community and reporting to the local police. After several years, they suddenly found themselves being taken off to Dungavel with no warning whatever. Perhaps the Minister will clarify exactly who is being held in detention centres and confirm whether anyone outwith the three categories outlined by the former Minister of State has been or is being held in a detention centre.
      The length of time for which people are held in detention centres is unacceptable. As I have said, those people have been not been convicted of any crime but, in many cases, they are held for a very long time. That is unacceptable in a civilised country.
      The detention of children is another issue raised by the amendments. I totally concur with what has been said so far. It is a disgrace that the United Kingdom Government

      883
      are proposing to pursue such a policy. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. There are alternatives that they could properly have considered, one of which was suggested by the cross-party group in the Scots Parliament—a requirement on people to report locally in the community. I see no problem with that suggestion. In any event, the possible damage that could be caused to a child who is detained in what is, in effect, a prison should outweigh any other consideration.
      I am happy to support the amendments, and I hope that the Government will reflect further on their policy for detention centres. The accountability and transparency of the operation of the centres is another important issue. The Dungavel detention centre is operated by a private company, Premier Detention Services, and I asked the Home Office whether the contract with the company could be placed in the public domain. On Friday 10 May I received an answer advising that the service aspect of the contract would be published in due course and that copies would be placed in the Library. One month later, that has not occurred. That sums up the problems surrounding the contracting out of such services to private sector companies.
      My final point deals with a matter that is not raised specifically by the amendments but relates to the operation of detention centres. Perhaps the Minister will clarify how the costs of running them are funded. I imagine that the costs are fairly high. For example, the cost of converting Dungavel into a fully fledged removal centre is expected to be about £3.5 million, and that information has been provided by the Home Office itself. Perhaps the cost of this misguided Government policy will be clarified. Who will pay the £3.5 million for Dungavel? Will it come from the Scottish Executive or the Home Office budget?
      Mr. Hancock: I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. When the Minister replies I hope that she will answer many of the points raised, especially those relating to children.
      I draw the Minister's attention to the reply that her colleague gave in another place. In a written answer to Lord Alton, Lord Rooker said:
      "Unaccompanied asylum seeking children are not detained other than in the most exceptional circumstances and then only overnight with appropriate care.
      Detention of children as part of a family unit is not a step to be taken lightly. In each case careful assessment of the need for detention is undertaken.
      When children and families are detained they are accommodated in special family units within dedicated family wings of the removal centre." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 April 2002; Vol. 634, c. WA65.]
      That suggests that asylum seekers are taken to removal centres on arrival. However, the answer also contains two important statements: first, that that would happen only in exceptional circumstances, and secondly, that it would happen only after appropriate care and assessment. The Minister needs to assure us that nothing has changed since that answer was given.
      We also need to consider the statistics on detention. As of 29 December 2001, 38 per cent. of asylum seekers had been detained for less than a month; 28 per cent. for longer than four months; and 65 people-5 per cent. of
      884
      those detained during that year—for more than a year. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) asked about the timing of detention and judicial oversight. When visiting the Campsfield detention centre, the previous chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, stressed that it is an important point of principle that when it is deemed necessary to deprive someone of his or her liberty, that should be overseen by judicial process. He also noted that the process should start quickly.
      We need to be told about the Government's plans for allowing that to happen. Will judicial oversight of detention take place within days, a week or a month of an order being made and a person being detained? We know that some people are detained for a year. Is it right for them to have wait a year before they have redress to judicial oversight? That would surely be contemptible. I hope that the Minister will clarify those matters because people have a right to know. It would also help those outside this country to know what is happening here.
      I also support what the lion. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) said about children. My experience of leading the largest local authority in Great Britain for nearly five years was that the Children Act 1989 was paramount and took precedence over all other obligations that a local authority or, for that matter, the state had when it came to the rights of the child. To house children in such detention centres is a dramatic and draconian step by the Government.
      As one of our representatives at the Council of Europe, I am party to writing a report on a common asylum policy for the 43 countries in the Council's family. It is an almighty task and I wonder how easy it will be to get Governments to agree once we have settled on a policy. Nevertheless, one of the fundamentals of the policy will he the rights of the child. Many of us have visited refugee camps in Macedonia, Bosnia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Those places offer little or no hope to the refugees and sometimes are not even places of safety.
      I recently dealt with a family from Kosovo who were refugees in Macedonia. The mother was killed in a road accident in Kosovo. Her death was not connected with any action there. The father and his family were split up in Macedonia and he was put in a camp with his 13-year-old daughter, where she was raped. The father and the daughter got out of the camp, made their way across Europe and inevitably arrived in the United Kingdom. The father was detained on arrival and released fairly soon afterwards, but the daughter was put into the care of a local authority.
      We are hearing now, however, that if those people were to arrive here in a few months, in the same circumstances, in all likelihood they would both be detained. The girl had already been through the most harrowing experiences that any child could contemplate, but under this measure she could have been faced with the possibility of being detained, even if only overnight. That is not a pretty picture.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Speaker and I were lucky enough yesterday to meet a dozen people from the Basque country. They came to the House of Commons to present to Mr. Speaker a plaque commemorating the efforts of our predecessors in 1937 to evacuate Basque children from the war against fascism to

      885
      the safe haven of the United Kingdom. Those children came here in their hundreds, unaccompanied, and last night several of them, now elderly people, told Mt. Speaker and myself of their experiences.
      One woman had seen her father hanged in the street and her mother raped and killed. Others talked about families being bombed and their homes being burnt out. Each of them had stories to tell, and each had an emotional and truly thankful respect for this country and for the fact that in 1937 we welcomed unaccompanied children, who were brought to this country through the efforts of a Member of this House and by the Royal Navy. Two of them ended up staying here because they had nothing to go back to; their families were killed in that civil war.
      As a nation, we have a proud record of recognising that children have a special place in all our lives. We know that there are 6,000 unaccompanied children in this country, many of whom have come from the most harrowing circumstances in Africa, central and eastern Europe and the Balkans. They represent 6,000 individual tragedies. Many more children arrive here accompanied by one parent. Surely the Government are not suggesting that any of those children, even those who are unaccompanied, should be subjected to the trauma of possible detainment, even for a short period. That cannot be right.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made a point about the people who will be responsible for running the centres. It cannot be right that agency staff working for an as yet unknown operation will be able to recruit people, possibly without even training them properly, and then give them powers stronger than those currently available to the police and immigration officers. Surely the Government are not seriously suggesting that they will put such powers into the hands of an organisation over which Parliament will have little or no control and for which Ministers will probably deny liability if anything goes wrong.
      Everyone agrees, I am sure, that the Government are right to try to tackle this issue. We must have policies that are clearly understood, and they must be firm but they must also be fair. They have to give people the chance to test the Government's case against them at the earliest possible opportunity. As hon. Members have said, we must ensure that we sign up to conventions on children's rights. We must then adhere to those conventions in responding to children's needs, and their rights must not be watered down. Those conventions must not be subsumed into legislation as though we can bypass obligations to which we have signed up and of which, as a nation, we should be proud.
      We are obliged to ensure that we deal firmly and fairly, but also quickly, with asylum seekers. If people are to be detained for three months, surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government to come up with a system that allows people to have access to judicial comfort, either through a review of their case or through legal advice, and deals with asylum applications and the appeals process in a concentrated period. If people are to be detained because the Government believe that there are good reasons why they should not be on our streets, we have to have in place a system that can deal with their cases pretty quickly.
      Mike Gapes: I am sure that everyone agrees with what the hon. Gentleman just said. Would he
      886
      like to take this opportunity to condemn the words of Liberal Democrat councillor Frank Roderick, who said in a newsletter circulated a few weeks ago that the Government were proposing a "Prison Camp for Speke/Garston", adding:
      "These are not genuine asylum seekers or legitimate immigrants which Labour are considering foisting on our area…illegal immigrants and asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected, instead of being immediately deported, are being herded into prison camps such as the one Labour is proposing for us."
      Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is absolutely outrageous that that Liberal Democrat councillor is calling for people's immediate deportation, presumably without allowing them any legal rights whatever?
      Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that those comments are news to me. This is the first time I have heard of them, but I certainly would not want to be a party to those suggestions. However, they have already been brought to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey by the Minister, and my hon. Friend has undertaken to investigate the circumstances. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) made an intervention that was far from helpful to the debate, and he has been equally unhelpful to today's debate by repeating something that is already in the public domain. He has brought a distasteful air to the debate by trying to score a silly political point rather than deal with the crux of the issue.
      Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hancock: No, I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman. He has only just come into the Chamber.
      Annabelle Ewing: I echo the point that the debate was being conducted in a civilised manner and that the intervention by hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) lowered the tone considerably. If anyone should express regret about language used, we should start with the Home Secretary and his extremely unfortunate use of the word "swamping".
      Mr. Hancock: That is a helpful contribution, because it reminds the House of that unhelpful and rather sad event.
      We have an obligation to children. I want the Minister to assure me that there are commitments on which the Government are not going to renege. I want an assurance that the comments made by Lord Rooker when he had responsibility for these matters in the other place will be adhered to. Furthermore, we must be assured that the arguments made about early access to judicial procedures have been heeded and that such access will be available. Anything short of those assurances will seriously undermine the nation's credibility not only inside the country, but outside.
      Ms Rosie Winterton: We have had a wide-ranging debate and many hon. Members have made powerful speeches about points of concern. It underlines the fact that we are all interested in ensuring that we have a system that deals with vulnerable people not only fairly and quickly but firmly. I hope to be able to give

      887
      assurances on many of the points made and to explain in more detail some of the background to the decisions that the Government have made and to our proposals.
      I thank hon. Members for their support for new clause 9, which shows that we listened in Committee and that we have come back with appropriate changes. The changes in the Bill do not alter the types of people who are in removal or detention centres. It is the person who makes the decision about detention who is changed. Decisions are already made about families who are referred to detention centres. There has to be a choice in this matter. Whatever the reasons are for referring the principal member of a family to a detention centre, such decisions are not taken lightly, in terms of detention in the first instance, and also in terms of removal, which is a different matter. Separation of children from their families is not a road that we would want to take.
      Annabelle Ewing: As I mentioned, it has already been suggested by the Scots Parliament cross-party group on refugees that community reporting is an alternative way of proceeding—a point that I am sure has been made by many others. The family would not be split up, but live in the community arid report to the police with whatever frequency was deemed appropriate.
      Ms Winterton: Of course, there are different options. I reiterate that there is always a presumption of granting temporary admission or release with reporting conditions. It is only in terms of detention from the outset, when there are strong grounds for believing that individuals would not comply or problems in identifying somebody, that such a course of action is taken.
      All cases are usually reviewed within 24 hours by a more senior officer than the one who took the original decision. They are also reviewed administratively at monthly intervals, and progressively more senior levels in the immigration and nationality directorate or Immigration Advisory Service consider the decisions. Such decisions can change. For example, that may happen if it is felt that because an appeal is imminent, the likelihood of abscondence has lessened. During that period, there is always scope for the decision to be reviewed and the ability to apply for bail.
      Simon Hughes: First, does the Minister accept that, as has been mentioned in other contexts, there is all the difference in the world between a decision being reviewed by another member of Government staff and its being reviewed by an independent member of the judiciary—a magistrate or judge? Secondly, she said that the Bill did not change whom we put in the centres, only who puts them there. In that case, there is no reason to change the name of detention centres. At the moment, it is accurate as they are used for detention, but the future name of "removal centre" is inaccurate, as some of the people who are held may not be removed.
      Ms Winterton: I reiterate that the ability to apply for bail is included in the scenario. For people who are staying in removal centres because they are going to be removed, a very short period is involved, by and large, because removal directions will have been set. If somebody asks for judicial review of their removal
      888
      directions, their stay will be prolonged. When such directions have been set, however, the time is relatively short, as some of the figures given by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) demonstrated.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre Mr. Dawson) made a very important point about children in removal centres, or what are currently called detention centres. He said that his amendment might be deficient and that it was tabled at a late stage, but he made a powerful speech, and I hope that I will be able to give him some assurances.
      5 pm
      Removal centres are subject to inspection by Her Majesty's inspector of prisons, and where educational facilities are present Ofsted will be involved in the inspection. As regards the Children Act 1989, the inspector of prisons has to ensure during inspections that the facilities offered are in line with the care that would be given under that Act. Obviously, we as a Government cannot instruct the inspector of prisons to make inspections, but thematic inspections, among others, will start in the near future. We are confident that no child in the centres would be denied human rights as guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 1998 and that they would receive adequate protection and a guarantee of their welfare.
      Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister says that there would be an inspection by Her Majesty's inspector of prisons. Would there be a facility for a visit and inspection by the local social services authority, which seems to be a far more appropriate body to consider the rights and needs of children than the prison inspector?
      Ms Winterton: Local authorities have no right to inspect centres in such circumstances.
      Jeremy Corbyn: My understanding is that social services departments are given a specific responsibility under the Children Act to examine the children's welfare, and the prisons inspectorate does not fall within the ambit of the Act. Surely that issue must be resolved.
      Ms Winterton: The provisions do not apply in that respect, but perhaps I can reassure my hon. Friend by saying that removal centre contractors work closely with local social services, and we expect them to continue to do so.
      On the way in which centres are organised as regards family accommodation, such accommodation is entirely separate, secure and away from the remainder of the centre. There are education, care and play facilities, and professionals are involved in the care of the children. We envisage that that will continue in any new facilities.
      The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) deals with the length of time for which people could be detained in removal centres. It would create an explicit requirement to detain a person for no more than a "reasonable period". Although there is no express requirement in legislation to detain persons for no more than the "reasonable period" necessary in the circumstances of each case, domestic and European convention on human rights jurisprudence is clear and well established on that point, as the hon. Gentleman said.

      889
      The power to detain may be exercised only for the specific purpose authorised by the statute. Detention is permitted only for as long as is reasonably necessary for that specific authorised purpose and the detaining authority must act with due diligence to pursue it. The principle is well understood and we therefore do not believe that it needs to be stated in the Bill.
      I want to consider the issue of renaming detention centres "removal centres". Renaming the centres will reinforce the key role that detention plays in removing those who have no lawful basis for staying here. It does not signal a change of function for centres. Hon. Members have argued for a separation of those who are detained from those who are detained pending removal. However, we do not believe that it is feasible to make that sort of distinction in the centres. Removal centres will always need to be used in other circumstances and at other points in the process when we have power to detain.
      Mr. Malins: Does the Minister believe that removal centres will always contain some people who are not subject to removal?
      Ms Winterton: Yes. It may be necessary for removal centres to contain such people. That currently happens, and we are changing not the purpose of the centres but the name, to reflect the process more clearly. As hon. Members know, that fits an overall plan of ensuring that we have a clearer idea of people's position throughout the process. Hon. Members must consider the changes in the context of the other changes, such as trialling accommodation centres, and trying to establish a system whereby we can keep in touch throughout the process with people who seek asylum. The process must be firm and fair from beginning to end. If we believe that there is a danger of people absconding or if facilities are necessary for identifying people when there are problems, it is important that we have the ability to deal with that. Separation is not feasible.
      Mr. Hancock: I appreciate the Minister's clarification that she expects removal centres to contain a mix of people. What will happen if a removal centre is full of people awaiting determination of their asylum application or appeals, and others who are about to be removed cannot get in to the centres? Many people fear that everyone will end up in a removal centre, based on the premise that the result of their application is removal.
      Ms Winterton: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is right. When removal directions are made, removal will often be quick. Sometimes it will be almost immediate. There will, however, be a fairly fast turnaround of those who have had their removal directions set, as the hon. Gentleman's figures showed. We are seeking to expand the present system. The whole idea of these plans is to make the process speedier, so that people and appeals can be dealt with more quickly. We need, therefore, to ensure that the estate—removal centres, accommodation centres and so on—is adequate to provide the places that are needed.
      Simon Hughes: I have two factual questions. First, will the Minister tell us the projected numbers of those who will have finished all their processes and who are being detained, but with their removal planned, compared with
      890
      the percentage of people who will not have reached that stage, and who will therefore not be guaranteed removal because that may not be the outcome of their appeal? What will be the balance between the two? Secondly, on the name question, are not the Minister and her colleagues giving the game away? This is all about image, about looking tougher, and about sending messages—it does not matter if they are wrong or misleading. This is simply about trying to make the Government sound more and more right wing, hard-line and unsympathetic. That must be what it is about; otherwise the change would not be necessary.
      Ms Winterton: No, it is not about that. This is about establishing a better system, which the hon. Gentleman knows we have to do. He is only too aware that these measures need to be taken to make the system more efficient. Refugees who have been waiting a long time for their status to be confirmed come to my surgeries. They have been through very difficult circumstances, and it is incumbent on us to ensure that we have a system that allows those with genuine claims to get through it quickly. I do not accept that this is simply about window dressing. It is about establishing a proper system and ensuring that we can speed up the process.
      Mr. Hancock: Unfortunately, I am losing the Minister. I would like to know why the change of name from "detention centre" to "removal centre" will speed the process up. She has said nothing to convince me that simply changing the name will make the process any quicker.
      Ms Winterton: Obviously the hon. Gentleman and the Government will have to differ on this matter.
      I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance in some of my answers, particularly those on children in these situations. The provisions in this part of the Bill do not change the situation for the people in removal centres; they change the people who make the decisions in these circumstances. That is the extent of the provisions. I believe that there are adequate safeguards to address the concerns that hon. Members have raised, and I hope, therefore, that they will consider not pressing their amendments to a vote.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 10

      WITHHOLDING AND WITHDRAWAL OF SUPPORT
      'Schedule (Withholding and withdrawal of support) (which makes provision for support to be withheld or withdrawn in certain circumstances) shall have effect.'.—[Beverley Hughes.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.15 pm
      The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4—Accommodation: adequacy—
      '(1) After section 97(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (Supplemental) there is added:
      "(1A) Accommodation provided under section 95 will only be regarded as adequate provided:

      (a) it is fit for human habitation as defined by section 604 of the Housing Act 1985 (as amended);

      (b) occupation of the accommodation by the asylum seekers and their dependants (if any) will not constitute overcrowding as defined by sections 324, 325 and 326 of the Housing Act 1985;

      (c) it does not constitute a statutory nuisance as defined by section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

      (d) the Secretary of State is satisfied that, if occupied by them, the asylum seekers and their dependants (if any) would be reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to their property caused by a relevant defect, as defined by section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972.".

      (2) After section 100(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (local authority and other assistance for Secretary of State) there is added—
      "(1A) The Secretary of State may ask a local housing authority to take such steps as they are allowed by law to ensure accommodation provided under section 95 is adequate as defined by section 97(1A).".'.
      New clause 17—Accommodation of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—

      '(1) All unaccompanied asylum-seeking children shall be offered the opportunity to be accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989.

      (2) Such children may be accommodated by any local authority.'.

      Government new schedule 1— 'Withholding and Withdrawal of Support—

      WITHHOLDING AND WITHDRAWAL OF SUPPORT

        Ineligibility for support
        1 (1) A person to whom this paragraph applies shall not be eligible for support or assistance under—

        (a) section 21 or 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29) (local authority: accommodation and welfare),

        (b) section 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (c. 46) (local authority: welfare of elderly),

        (c) section 12 or 13A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c. 49) (social welfare services),

        (d) Article 15 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order (S.I. 1972/1265 (N.I. 14)) (general social welfare),

        (e) section 21 of and Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49) (social services),

        (f) section 17, 23C, 24A or 24B of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (welfare and other powers which can be exercised in relation to adults),

        (g) section 29 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 36) (after-care),

        (h) section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (promotion of well-being),

        (i) a provision of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33), or

        (j) a provision of this Act.

        (2) A power or duty under a provision referred to in sub-paragraph (1) may not be exercised or performed in respect of a person to whom this paragraph applies (whether or not the person has previously been in receipt of support or assistance under the provision).
        (3) An approval or directions given under or in relation to a provision referred to in sub-paragraph (1) shall be taken to be subject to sub-paragraph (2).

        Exceptions
        2 (1) Paragraph 1 does not prevent the provision of support or assistance—

        (a) to a child, or

        (b) under or by virtue of regulations made under paragraph 8, 9 or 10 below, or

        (c) in a case in respect of which, and to the extent to which, regulations made by the Secretary of State disapply paragraph 1.

        (2) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(c) may confer a discretion on the Secretary of State.
        (3) A reference in this Schedule to a person to whom paragraph 1 applies includes a reference to a person in respect of whom that paragraph is disapplied to a limited extent by regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(c), except in a case for which the regulations provide otherwise.
        3 Paragraph 1 does not prevent the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty if, and to the extent that, its exercise or performance is necessary for the purpose of avoiding a breach of—

        (a) a person's Convention rights, or

        (b) a person's rights under the Community Treaties.

        First class of ineligible person: refugee status abroad
        4 (1) Paragraph 1 applies to a person if he—

        (a) has refugee status abroad, or

        (b) is the dependant of a person who is in the United Kingdom and who has refugee status abroad.

        (2) For the purposes of this paragraph a person has refugee status abroad if—

        (a) he does not have the nationality of an EEA State, and

        (b) the government of an EEA State other than the United Kingdom has determined that he is entitled to protection as a refugee under the Refugee Convention.

        Second class of ineligible person: citizen of other EEA State
        5 Paragraph I applies to a person who has the nationality of an EEA State other than the United Kingdom if—

        (a) his presence in the United Kingdom is not in reliance on a right under or by virtue of the Community Treaties, or

        (b) his presence in the United Kingdom is in reliance on a right under or by virtue of the Community Treaties which permits residence in a member State subject to conditions designed to avoid burdens on social assistance systems or social security systems.

        Third class of ineligible person: failed asylum-seeker
        6 Paragraph I applies to a person if—

        (a) he was (but is no longer) an asylum-seeker, and

        (b) he fails to cooperate with removal directions issued in respect of him.

        Fourth class of ineligible person: person unlawfully in United Kingdom
        7 Paragraph 1 applies to a person if—

        (a) he is in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws within the meaning of section 11, and

        (b) he is not an asylum-seeker.

        Travel assistance
        8 The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for arrangements to be made enabling a person to whom paragraph 1 applies by virtue of paragraph 4 or 5 to leave the United Kingdom.

        Temporary accommodation
        9 (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for arrangements to be made for the accommodation of a person to whom paragraph 1 applies pending the implementation of arrangements made by virtue of paragraph 8.
        (2) Arrangements for a person by virtue of this paragraph—

        (a) may be made only if the person has with him a dependent child, and

        (b) may include arrangements for a dependent child.

        10 (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for arrangements to be made for the accommodation of a person if—

        (a) paragraph 1 applies to him by virtue of paragraph 7, and

        (b) he has not failed to cooperate with removal directions issued in respect of him.

        (2) Arrangements for a person by virtue of this paragraph—

        (a) may be made only if the person has with him a dependent child, and

        (b) may include arrangements for a dependent child.

        Assistance and accommodation: general
        11 Regulations under paragraph 8, 9 or 10 may—

        (a) provide for the making of arrangements under a provision referred to in paragraph 1(1) or otherwise;

        (b) confer a function (which may include the exercise of a discretion) on the Secretary of State, a local authority or another person;

        (c) provide that arrangements must be made in a specified manner or in accordance with specified principles;

        (d) provide that arrangements may not be made in a specified manner;

        (e) require a local authority or another person to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in making arrangements;

        (f) require a local authority or another person to comply with a direction of the Secretary of State in making arrangements.

        12 (1) Regulations may, in particular, provide that if a person refuses an offer of arrangements under paragraph 8 or fails to implement or cooperate with arrangements made for him under that paragraph—

        (a) new arrangements may be made for him under paragraph 8, but

        (b) new arrangements may not be made for him under paragraph 9.

        (2) Regulations by virtue of this paragraph may include exceptions in the case of a person who—

        (a) has a reason of a kind specified in the regulations for failing to implement or cooperate with arrangements made under paragraph 8, and

        (b) satisfies any requirements of the regulations for proof of the excuse.

        Offences
        13 (1) A person who leaves the United Kingdom in accordance with arrangements made under paragraph 8 commits an offence if he—

        (a) returns to the United Kingdom, and

        (b) requests that arrangements be made for him by virtue of paragraph 8, 9 or 10.

        (2) A person commits an offence if he—

        (a) requests that arrangements be made for him by virtue of paragraph 8, 9 or 10, and

        (b) fails to mention a previous request by him for the making of arrangements under any of those paragraphs.

        (3) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

        Information
        14 If it appears to a local authority that paragraph 1 applies or may apply to a person in the authority's area by virtue of paragraph 6 or 7, the authority must inform the Secretary of State.

        Power to amend Schedule
        15 The Secretary of State may by order amend this Schedule so as—

        (a) to provide for paragraph 1 to apply or not to apply to a class of person;

        (b) to add or remove a provision to or from the list in paragraph 1(1);

        (c) to add, amend or remove a limitation of or exception to paragraph 1.

        Orders and regulations
        16 (1) An order or regulations under this Schedule must be made by statutory instrument.
        (2) An order or regulations under this Schedule may—

        (a) make provision which applies generally or only in specified cases or circumstances;

        (b) make different provision for different cases or circumstances;

        (c) make transitional provision;

        (d) make consequential provision (which may include provision amending a provision made by or under this or another Act).

        (3) An order under this Schedule, or regulations which include consequential provision amending an enactment, shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
        (4) Regulations under this Schedule to which sub-paragraph (3) does not apply shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

        Interpretation
        17 In this Schedule—
        "asylum-seeker" means a person—

        (a) who is at least 18 years old,

        (b) who has made a claim for asylum (within the meaning of section 16(3)), and

        (c) whose claim has been recorded, but not determined, by the Secretary of State,

        "Convention rights" has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42),
        "child" means a person under the age of eighteen,
        "dependant" and "dependent" shall have such meanings as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State,
        "EEA State" means a State which is a contracting party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area signed at Oporto on 2nd May 1992 (as it has effect from time to time),
        "local authority"—

        (a) in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in section 105(3),

        (b) in relation to Scotland, has the same meaning as in section 105(4), and

        (c) in relation to Northern Ireland, means a health service body within the meaning of section 109(4)(c),

        "the Refugee Convention" means the Convention relating to the status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and its Protocol, and

        895
        "removal directions" means directions under Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (control of entry, &c.), under Schedule 3 to that Act (deportation) or under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (removal of person unlawfully in United Kingdom).'.
        Amendment (a) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 4(1)(a), after "abroad", insert—
        'and is not otherwise seeking to claim support under a provision of European Union law, the European Convention on Human Rights, or any other international obligation and is not seeking to transfer his refugee status to the United Kingdom'.
        Amendment (b) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 4(1)(b), at end insert—
        'and is not otherwise seeking to claim support under a provision of European Union law, the European Convention on Human Rights, or any other international obligation and is not seeking to transfer his refugee status to the United Kingdom'.
        Amendment (c) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 5(a), after "Treaties", insert—
        'and is not otherwise seeking to claim support under a provision of European Union law, the European Convention on Human Rights, or any other international obligation'.
        Amendment (d) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 5(b), at end insert—
        'and is not otherwise seeking to claim support under a provision of European Union law, the European Convention on Human Rights, or any other international obligation'.
        Amendment (e) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 6(a), leave out "and".
        Amendment (f) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 6(b), at end insert—
        'and—
        (c) he does not allege that his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights would be breached if he were removed and there are no outstanding appeals or judicial review proceedings in connection with that claim or his asylum application'.
        Amendment (g) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 7(b), at end insert—
        ', or—
        (c) he has no other outstanding application for leave to enter or remain either before the Secretary of State or appeal before a Court, Adjudicator or the Tribunal'.
        Amendment (h) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 9, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
        Amendment (i) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 10, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
        Amendment (j) to the proposed schedule, leave out paragraph 12.
        Amendment (k) to the proposed schedule, in paragraph 13, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
        Amendment No. 49, in clause 37, page 19, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).
        Amendment No. 84, in page 19, line 18, leave out from "shall" to "House" in line 19 and insert—
        'not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each'.
        Government amendments Nos. 217. 216 and 254.
        Amendment No. 50, in clause 38, page 20, line 13, leave out "and" and insert "or".
        Amendment No. 51, in page 20, line 14, at end insert—
        'or both.'.
        Government amendment No. 255.
        Amendment No. 52, in page 20, line 17, leave out "and" and insert "or".
        Amendment No. 53, in page 20, line 18, at end insert—
        'or both.'.
        Amendment No. 261, in clause 39, page 23, line 4, leave out subsections (3), (4). (5) and (6).
        Amendment No. 54, in clause 43, page 24, line 35, leave out "may" and insert "must".
        Amendment No. 55, in page 24, line 35, at end insert—
        '(aa) give priority to meeting the person's particular needs'.
        Amendment No. 56, in page 24, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).
        Government amendment No. 218.
        Amendment No. 143, in clause 45, page 26, line 3, after "appellant", insert "and any witnesses".
        Amendment No. 144, in page 26, line 4, after "appeal", insert "or seeking legal advice".
        Amendment No. 57, in page 26, line 4, at end add—
        '103C Advice and assistance

        (1) The Secretary of State may make a grant to a voluntary organisation which provides—

        (i) advice or assistance to persons who have a right of appeal under this Part;

        (ii) other services for the welfare of those persons.

        (2) A grant under this section may be subject to terms or conditions (which may include conditions as to repayment).'.

        Amendment No. 194, in clause 133, page 74, line 26, leave out paragraph (f).
        Beverley Hughes: Many Members will be aware of the situation faced by many of our local authorities, which are increasingly being presented with individuals and families claiming support who are at various stages of the immigration and asylum process and have a different status. I recognise that this issue may present some hon. Members with an acute challenge. None of us faced with such people in our constituencies likes to say no. Most MPs want to help other people, wherever they come from, and it rightly does not come easy to us to contemplate withdrawing support or sending people out of the country. However, we must recognise our responsibilities to other constituents and to people who are legitimately settled in this country. The provisions in the new clause deal with some sharp questions.
        Should local authority funds appropriately be used to support people who have established refugee status elsewhere, and should they continue to support those whose claim in this country has failed? Should that support continue in the face of decisions by those people not to leave even when the means of leaving is provided to them? We have concluded that the answer to those questions is no. In balancing the interests of people claiming support with those of local taxpayers, local people settled here and local authorities, the balance ought to lie with the latter. Perverse incentives in the current arrangements enable people to claim one source of public support from local authorities when their status excludes them from other such sources. We believe that we must grasp that nettle.
        I know that hon. Members will want to raise issues on this new clause, but I should be grateful if they would allow me to set out the ground a little. I am introducing this amendment to assist local authorities by providing

        897
        legal clarity when dealing with applications for support from certain categories of new arrivals in the United Kingdom.
        At the moment, different local authorities adopt different approaches to claims for support from European Union and European Economic Area nationals and from refugees from EU and EEA states. Local authorities are being approached for social services support, usually under the National Assistance Act 1948, or in the case of people with children, under, the Children Act 1989, as individuals try to claim and fail what is known as the habitual residence test. Many hon. Members will be aware that the habitual residence test is applied to those seeking access to income-related benefits such as jobseeker's allowance and income support. It seeks to ensure that those eligible for benefits have sufficiently close ties to the United Kingdom. It was introduced to restrict benefits for people with little or no connection with the UK, and no commitment to settling here. The underlying principle is that UK taxpayers should not subsidise people with very tenuous links to the UK.
        An increasing number of people are now arriving in the UK and seeking assistance from social services. The extra demand is placing great pressure on local authorities' social services budgets, and creating significant problems for them. We do not know the precise numbers with which we are faced, which is an indication of the problems experienced by some of the statutory authorities that are trying to cope with what has been a significant influx in some areas.
        We have received reports from local authorities and, indeed, from some of our Government offices. The evidence suggests that in Leicester alone between 2,001) and 10,000 people of Somali origin—probably a number in excess of the smaller figure—have migrated over the past 18 months or so. Although the problem is highlighted by the arrival of Dutch nationals of Somali origin, there are reports of growing communities from other areas such as Portugal and Montserrat.
        Currently, when local authorities decide whether support in the form of accommodation or otherwise will be provided, they do not take account of the applicant's immigration status. That means that not just those with citizenship or refugee status in another EU or EEA state, but people who are unlawfully present in the UK, can receive support. Our proposals are intended to ease the pressure on local authorities, to clarify their legal position and to create a level playing field between one authority and another, while also giving individuals and their families the means to return to their home country or the country in which they acquired refugee status.
        Two recent court cases have helped us. A very recent case, that of G v. Barnet in 2001, involved a Dutch national of Somali origin who asked for local authority accommodation for her and her child. Given the circumstances, the local authority offered her a voluntary place of care for her child, and the means for both to return home to Holland where support was available. The Court of Appeal decided that that was a reasonable offer, and that the authority was not obliged to house the family if they rejected the offer—although it would be obliged to house the child, and indeed was willing to do so. This year the cases of Ali and Mohammed v. Birmingham involved similar circumstances, and again the court found that the authority's approach was lawful.
        898
        As for those with citizenship or refugee status in another EU or EEA state, under the new proposals short-term accommodation may be provided for families with children, as well as a one-way journey to their home country. If the family do not take up the offer of travel, or fail to travel, all support will be withdrawn apart from an offer of support for the children under section 20 of the Children Act. For asylum seekers whose claim has not succeeded, who can go but who fail to comply with removal directions, all support will end. Local authorities will be able to offer support only to children, again under section 20 of the Children Act.
        Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister says that the local authority will provide support for children only, and not for their parents. In such cases would the children be taken into care, or would the traditional social services approach of supporting the whole family in order to support the children apply?
        Beverley Hughes: No, the children would be received into care under section 20 of the 1989 Act and given accommodation, but support for the adults would be withdrawn. That is the point of the measure. If, having been offered travel, the family refused to go or failed to comply, the arrangements would be offered to the children but not the adults.
        Local authorities will be required to inform the Home Office about those resident in the UK unlawfully who are not asylum seekers, and who apply for local authority support, so that removal can be arranged. Again, local authorities may provide short-term accommodation to families with children until the date of removal. Should such a family fail to travel, all support will be withdrawn, other than the offer of support for children under section 20 of the 1989 Act.
        We will ensure that children and other vulnerable persons continue to receive appropriate care, while allowing families to stay together by enabling them to accept the offer of travel home. In particular, those with special care needs will continue to have them met until the date of travel. If they do not travel, unless they have an acceptable reason for not doing so—for example, they are too ill, and a medical certificate supports that view—care will be provided at the minimum level, in compliance with the European convention on human rights.
        Simon Hughes: These are difficult issues and no one should pretend otherwise. I shall give the Minister two examples that I am advised illustrate the unfair consequence of such a proposal. The first is that of an Irish citizen with a disability who has lived here for 30 years, who clearly has the nationality of another EEA state, and who is not seeking to use their Community treaty rights. As I understand it, under the proposal they would have to be sent back to Ireland, because they would be ineligible for benefits here.
        The second and perhaps more acute example is that of a citizen of another country—say, Ireland—who is the dependant of a person with refugee status in another European country, such as the daughter of someone who settled in Germany 20 or 30 years ago. Does not the proposal imply that many people will be required to move from a place in which they have lived perfectly lawfully

        899
        for decades, and go to a country where they may have no relatives and, in effect, no home? That surely cannot be right.
        Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman rightly leads us into some technical areas. In cases where citizens of EU or EEA countries have rights under Community treaties of one kind or another, it is not intended that the policy will take away those rights. On the examples that he mentions, even the most draconian interpretation of the habitual residence test would regard someone who has lived here for 30 years as an habitual resident. Such a person would therefore meet the test and be entitled in the normal way.
        In addition to the measures that I have outlined, we must accept the need to guard against those who may seek to abuse the support and facilities offered to them. For that reason, we are also introducing two new offences as part of the measures. First, it will be an offence for a person who has accepted the offer of short-term accommodation and/or a journey home to return to the UK to try to claim benefits again. Secondly, to help to ensure that local authorities have the best information before them when considering a request for support under these provisions, it will be an offence for a person to fail to mention—to fail to declare—any previous request for support under these measures. That is necessary to prevent people from going from one local authority to another and making claims.
        5.30 pm
        I am also placing an obligation on local authorities, as I have mentioned, to report to the Secretary of State any person in their area whom they reasonably suspect to be unlawfully present in the UK or any failed asylum seekers who are refusing to co-operate with attempts to remove them. That will help the Home Office in instigating removal action against appropriate individuals.
        Mr. Iain Coleman: These are technical and complex matters. What discussions and consultations have been held with the Local Government Association, the Association of London Government and other local authority associations? Can my hon. Friend the Minister advise me of the detail of any such discussions and whether those organisations support the measures that she is outlining today?
        Beverley Hughes: It is fair to say that the concern has arisen because of the situation that many local authorities have faced, the details of which they have brought to our attention. Some local authorities, including Barnet and Birmingham, have tested the case in law, as I mentioned earlier, but other local authorities—whose social security budgets are also very stretched—are unclear about the extent to which they can lawfully follow the example of those that have tested cases. The measures are in the spirit of requests from many local authorities to clarify the law and to make their position clear in legal terms.
        When local authorities come to implement the provisions, we will need to provide guidance to them on some of the technical detail, and we will certainly do so. I am also satisfied that these measures comply with the requirements of the European convention on human rights and our other international obligations.
        900
        It has been established that those with refugee status in an EEA state or nationals of that state have entitlement to support elsewhere. Therefore, we have to come to the conclusion that for such people to claim support here is not an acceptable use of our resources and presents a considerable burden for local authorities and their social services budgets. We have to make it clear that local authorities will not be empowered to provide such support in future. That clarification will be helpful to local authorities, many of which have been uncertain whether, to what extent and in what circumstances they should provide support.
        The Opposition have tabled several amendments to the new clause and the schedule. I shall reply on those amendments later, but I can tell the House in advance that I will not accept them. Many of them would undermine the whole principle behind the new clause. I shall be interested to hear what hon. Members have to say in their favour.
        Government amendments Nos. 254 and 255 make it clear that a person is destitute if he or she does not have adequate accommodation and food, or other essential items. My hon. Friends listened carefully to the discussions in Committee and to the concerns that the original draft clause indicated a change in policy. While I am satisfied that the original draft achieved the policy aim and that we explained that point in detail to the Committee, we have taken the opportunity to amend the clause to take on board the points made.
        Government amendments Nos. 216 to 218 are technical amendments that clarify the fact that support will not be provided to those outside the United Kingdom. Government amendment No. 216 amends the definition of an asylum seeker for support purposes and says that people must be in the United Kingdom if they are to fall within the definition. Government amendment No. 218 clarifies the fact that an appeal made under clause 45 against a decision to stop providing support, or against a decision that a person does not qualify for support, may not be brought by someone outside the United Kingdom.
        Finally, Government amendment No. 217 is a small technical amendment related to clause 38. It has no effect other than to simplify the way in which the clause is presented. It does not alter the substantive arrangements.
        Simon Hughes: As the Minister rightly said, Government new clause 10 is the method by which the proposals in Government new schedule 1 will be introduced. It is an enabling measure to which we cannot have objections in principle. However, we are concerned about the new schedule.
        As I said earlier, this is complex territory. It is difficult for the House to do justice to such a proposal, given that it did not appear in the Standing Committee. It appeared only after the Committee ended. There is nothing new about that, but it is exactly the sort of proposal that should go before a Special Standing Committee, so that people can give evidence about it. It should at least be brought before the Standing Committee for detailed consideration.
        The House deals with new schedules, new clauses and amendments in a certain way, however. Liberal Democrat Members have tabled a set of amendments to new schedule 1, but the way in which Government business is taken means that they cannot be voted on. At the end of the debate, therefore, we will seek to divide the House on

        901
        new clause 10 to register our disapproval of some of the matters in the package. They include the complex issue in new schedule 1 of what, in shorthand, is called the problem of benefit shopping.
        Amendment No. 49 embodies our strong objection to the Government's intention to change the financial support system to prevent people who have the chance of gaining accommodation with friends or relatives around the country from getting the financial support that would allow them to do so. That option saves a huge amount of money at present, as the accommodation is provided free of cost to the Government.
        When we debated the matter in Standing Committee with the Minister's predecessor, we talked about the National Asylum Support Service support system and registered our strong disapproval and the fact that we did not believe that the proposals in the Bill would be in the Government's interest. It must be cheaper if people who are willing and able to look after themselves do not ask the Government to pay for their accommodation but only for their necessary living costs over and above the cost of accommodation. That must be cheaper for the Government than if they have to meet the costs of accommodating people and of paying them benefits as well.
        We therefore object to some of the details that emerged only last week, and to the idea that the chance of benefits will be taken away from people who, as asylum seekers, might otherwise be given accommodation.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and I accept that there needs to be a regime across the EU that prevents people from gaining a set of entitlements in one country and then transferring them, without any authority, to another country. There need to be rules about that. However, that is a much wider area than could properly be covered in this debate.
        The Minister probably knows from her constituency surgery, as I do from mine, of people who are lawfully in this country because they have been given refugee status but who have no automatic right to travel to other countries. They are lawfully here but cannot visit their relatives in Paris, for example, because there is no European Union-wide recognition of the rights of people who have less than full rights in EU member states. I am aware that the European Parliament has debated this, and colleagues there have talked to me about it. It strikes me that the way to deal with such issues is to seek EU-wide agreement on the rights of people who have been accepted in one place but may need, for a short or long period, to go somewhere else.
        I do not argue that people who, to take the Minister's example, might originally have come from Somalia and then settled in the Netherlands should have the right to come to the United Kingdom and claim benefits in addition to those they receive in the Netherlands. Of course that would not be right—European Union member states should pay only once. However, it may be perfect] y proper to transfer such rights, on application, from one country to another.
        This is the largest group of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be debated today. Some have been tabled by the Government, some by the Conservative party, some by the Liberal Democrats, and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has also tabled a new clause. I shall deal with these as speedily as
        902
        I can and at least put the argument before the Minister. Inevitably, if the Government hold their supporters behind their policy, they will win the day today, but these matters will have to be revisited in much greater detail when they go to the House of Lords, because there has been no opportunity for parliamentarians to look at them in detail here.
        I will take the proposals in order. New clause 4, tabled by the Conservatives and supported by the Liberal Democrats, would provide for tests of adequacy of accommodation. It is relatively self-explanatory; I support it and hope that the Minister will accept it. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady indicated in her reply whether a proposal along these lines is acceptable. It would ensure that those in the dispersal system have adequate accommodation and that they are not excluded from protection when it comes to the sort of decent accommodation that we would expect other people in poor circumstances to have if they were born in this country or were British citizens.
        In new schedule 1, the Government propose that for those who have been given refugee status abroad, who are citizens of another EU state, who are failed asylum seekers, or who are unlawfully in the United Kingdom—each category may merit different treatment—a raft of potentially available benefits will disappear. We normally think of such benefits as coming under the National Assistance Act 1948 and being distributed through the social services.
        Like the Minister, I represent an urban consistency and understand the pressure on all local authorities, particularly with regard to the social services budget. We know how councillors and officers have to juggle the budget and the huge pressure that they are under, to which the Government have, in part, responded. Our general concern—I am trying to be general as well as succinct—is that by taking away all such benefits, groups of people could, for periods of time, be without any recourse to benefit and have no practical alternative.
        Our amendments to the new schedule would allow a continuing right to benefit for people with an outstanding human rights claim or appeal, those who might have another claim to support or social and medical assistance under the European convention on human rights, or those who seek to transfer their refugee status. To take the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), if people had fled from a country in which there was civil war, such as Ethiopia, and come to Europe only to discover that their wife, child or parent was in another European country, they would seek to be reunited. That is the sort of argument behind the amendments to Government new schedule 1.
        On our amendment No. 49, clearly the option of cash-only support should be kept open. The Minister did not deal with that. I have not heard any arguments from her or her predecessors to suggest that what the Government are proposing will be any cheaper. They are saying that support only is being used to avoid dispersal. When the National Asylum Support Service system started" 100 per cent. of support-only applications were in Greater London. The figure is now only about 70 per cent. If that is the case, support only does not stand in the way of dispersal. Indeed, if it were withdrawn, many people who are staying with relatives and friends in London and other parts of the country would be disadvantaged.

        903
        5.45 pm
        I understand that at the end of 2001, 25,000 asylum seekers were receiving voucher-only support and were not asking the Government to house them, whereas just over 40,000 were supported in NASS accommodation—a ratio of nearly a third to two thirds. I do not understand how it would be cheaper to get rid of that option. It would not, therefore, be in the Government's or our interests to do so.
        Jeremy Corbyn: On the figures for NASS and non-NASS supported cases, am I right in thinking that it is the longer-term asylum seekers, who have come back to London after being dispersed elsewhere and suffering harassment or whatever, who are non-NASS supported? They are often living in terrible poverty, supported by other asylum-seeking families who are themselves trying to survive on 70 per cent. of income support.
        Simon Hughes: That is certainly my experience. Many of the asylum seekers in my constituency are not asking the state for a great amount of support. Often, they rely on their church or faith community and on a network of provision that would normally be sent to support family in the home country, and which is therefore not sent.
        The hon. Gentleman is right: many of these people were sent out of London. They found it better to come back here to people who speak the same language than to live on their own in an estate in, say, the east end of Newcastle—that is one example that I know for a fact—with no one else from their national group anywhere nearby, and no one to converse with.
        The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): It would be better in an accommodation centre.
        Simon Hughes: Indeed, it might be. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is why we have supported such centres as an option. In many cases, however, dispersal was not satisfactory. He has made the case that it is working better, but it does not work better for everyone. Some people say that they are willing to take responsibility for themselves and stay with friends—albeit in dire, overcrowded accommodation—because it is more comfortable to be with people who come from the same place and understand their needs than to be miles from anywhere and from anyone who understands what they need.
        On amendment No. 84, like the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), we believe that there should be affirmative resolutions before we go down the road proposed in clause 37. It is important that social security matters automatically receive proper scrutiny from the House.
        We do not object to Government amendment No. 217, as it tries to tidy up the legislation, which is what I suggested to the Home Secretary that we should do to the entire Bill at the end of this exercise. Asylum issues should be in one part of the Bill, separate from non-asylum issues.
        We do not object to Government amendment No. 216. Clearly, the provision should relate to people who are in the United Kingdom, not those who are outside it. Nor do we object to Government amendment No. 254, which is for clarification.
        904
        In Committee we questioned what the wording meant, and we have tabled amendments Nos. 50 to 53, which would have had the same effect as Government amendments Nos. 254 and 255. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre has proposals that are along the same lines and has tabled amendment No. 261, which we support. I hope that he will have an opportunity to persuade Ministers that that amendment would be appropriate.
        We are troubled by the Government proposals in clause 43, which would allow the Secretary of State to choose the provision by which the asylum seeker is offered support and, in effect, would not allow asylum seekers to suggest an alternative. Having taken advice, that is our interpretation of what the clause would mean. Under clause 43, people may have to take the support that they are told to take or they may have no support. For example, people may say that they are willing to stay with family and friends and that they would prefer cash support, but that is no longer an option. That is why my hon. Friends and I tabled amendment No. 54.
        I accept that amendments Nos. 55 and 56 contain drafting errors. The Minister's advisers will have spotted those errors, and I apologise for them. Those amendments should have included requirements for certain things and not others, but they came out wrong, so I shall not pursue them at this stage. However, we want to make it clear that priority individual needs should be met.
        I am coming to the end of the list. I apologise for its length, although the grouping of amendments was out of my control, but at least we can get rid of a lot of issues in one go.
        We do not dissent from Government amendment No. 218. With such issues, it is proper that people cannot seek to appeal decisions involving benefits when they have left the country. That is entirely different from yesterday's debate on appeals to remain in the country. People should make those appeals when they are in this country; they should not be required to leave.
        Under amendments Nos. 143 and 144, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats jointly propose that people should be able to receive expenses for the travel involved in putting their cases, that their witnesses—if they are needed—should be able to receive financial support, and that legal advice should be available.
        Under amendment No. 57, we propose that the Home Office should be able to give grants to those voluntary organisations that help people with social security, benefits and welfare appeals. That proposal is strongly supported by the Immigration Advisory Service, which is based in my constituency and whose chief executive is highly regarded throughout the House. I hope that hon. Members support that amendment and that the Government will be sympathetic to it.
        Under amendment No. 194—the last in this group—we suggest that the cash-only support removal proposal should be subject to a separate debate in the House under the affirmative procedure before we agree to it.
        I apologise for going through all the amendments in this group individually, but I thought that proper as they cover many issues. Unless the Government give us considerable comfort, we will not feel able to support their proposals at the end of the debate, because they have not been argued fully, because Parliament has not had a chance to debate them fully, and because they will produce some apparently wrong decisions, among some that are perfectly justifiable and correct.

        905
        Unfortunately, we cannot separate the issues by voting on each amendment, as the Conservatives did yesterday, so we shall register our opposition. More importantly, we hope that the Government will hear the voices of hon. Members and those outside the House and change some of these unnecessarily draconian proposals.
        Mr. Neil Gerrard: I want to raise two issues briefly. First, I have a number of questions about new schedule 1. I must admit that I have difficulty in understanding all its implications; the schedule is complex and long.
        Simon Hughes: It is recent.
        Mr. Gerrard: I shall be generous: new schedule 1 has recently appeared on the amendment paper. Clearly, it will have a serious impact on the individuals who will be subject to some of its provisions, as they may lose all forms of support.
        I well understand the argument that questions why a local authority should support someone who is entitled to be supported elsewhere. Why should someone who has perfectly normal rights to receive support in another EU country come to the United Kingdom, turn up at a local authority's offices and demand support? I understand the rationale behind such an argument.
        I clearly understand the reasoning behind the proposals for children and families. Obviously, great pressure would be put on individuals who were told that they were to be removed from the United Kingdom, if the choice that faced them was either to comply with the removal directions, or for their children to receive support and be taken into care under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 while they themselves received no support.
        I may be getting the proposal completely wrong because I have not had the time to understand all the details, but I find it difficult to see exactly how some of the provisions will work. Local authorities provided many but not all of the forms of support referred to in paragraph 1 of new schedule 1, including those under the National Assistance Act 1948, the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 and Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. There is a reference—I am not sure what it means—to section 21 of and schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977. I hope that that does not mean that access to mental health services may be cut, if those services are relevant.
        If those are the sort of benefits that may disappear and which people risk losing, it is fairly obvious that many of the decisions to remove such support will be taken by local authorities. A local authority will be faced with having to decide whether to give someone support under the National Assistance Act 1948, or withdraw the support that has already been given under that Act.
        Ms Karen Buck: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When they make assessments for services, local authorities will have an opportunity to determine whether someone is eligible for assistance. What does my hon. Friend think will happen if someone already receives assistance? How will local authorities know how to implement Home Office decisions involving those who are receiving such services?
        Mr. Gerrard: That is a very important point. Let us consider one or two examples. Let us suppose that failed
        906
        asylum seekers who fail to co-operate with their removal directions have children and have therefore received some local authority support. Even though their asylum claims have been refused, they would still be eligible for support because they have children. According to new schedule 1, if failed asylum seekers do not comply with the removal directions that have been set, their support should disappear, except for that given to their children. I do not understand how that will operate or how local authorities will acquire the information necessary to decide that those failed asylum seekers should be cut off from support.
        Let us consider someone who relies on rights under Community treaties. I have dealt with immigration and asylum casework for a good number of years, but when someone comes to see me at an advice surgery, I am often far from clear about the precise implications of Community treaties. Local authority staff who have to make decisions about whether to supply or continue support will need such knowledge. Perhaps I am getting all this wrong and there are simple answers, but I am bothered about new schedule 1 because of those concerns, although I understand the principle behind it.
        I am also far from clear about how new schedule 1 relates to other parts of the Bill. How can those who are subject to decisions made under that schedule challenge those decisions? Suppose that someone is refused on the basis that they are a citizen of another EEA state and they are not relying on a right by virtue of Community treaties, but they claim that the decision is based on wrong information. Alternatively, a failed asylum seeker who had not co-operated with removal directions might challenge that by saying that they or their representative never received such directions. That is not unknown.
        How will it be possible to challenge the decision? I cannot see how that will be done, unless it is through the mechanism of judicial review of the local authority decision. What happens to the person in the meantime if they try to go through that process? That is a complex matter, and it is difficult to comprehend quickly. I hope that we can achieve clarity with regard to those concerns about the new schedule.
        6 pm
        I shall say a few words about amendment No. 84, which I tabled with other hon. Members and which relates to the removal of the support-only option from the present National Asylum Support Service arrangements. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has gone through the arguments about the number of people who currently receive support only, and the reasons for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) raised the issue in Committee.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), who was then the Minister, provided some clarification. She said that the clause was intended as an enabling power that would create the potential to move away from cash-only support. She went on to say clearly that that was not the Government's immediate intention, and that it would not make sense to implement it until the Government had managed to regionalise NASS and put more effective mechanisms in place. She added that she could foresee a time when, if the reporting system was

        907
        running properly and accommodation centres were working effectively, it might be possible to consider withdrawing the cash-only option.
        A clear view emerged in the Committee that the proposal was long-term—that it would take effect only in the distant future when accommodation centres were up and running, accommodation was provided generally for all asylum seekers and there was no longer a need for cash-only support. I have always felt reassured by the then Minister's comments.
        However, I found myself having to think again about the matter. Some hon. Members may have seen a document from Downing street that found its way into the press not long ago. It referred to ending cash-only support and commented that, among other things, that would create a risk of begging and destitution in London. It also included a comment about implementation in the autumn when NASS accommodation was ready. That worried me.
        The document from Downing street may be totally inaccurate—I would much prefer the reassurances that were given in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey—but amendment No. 84 introduces a safeguard. Let us assume that there will come a time when clear evidence can be provided by the Home Office that accommodation centres are working, NASS accommodation is available and cash-only support is no longer needed. If we reach that point, it should be possible for positive resolutions to be put before both Houses, which would allow us to debate and agree on the evidence. Everyone would then be much more comfortable with the provision.
        Mr. Richard Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern not just about the numbers of places available in accommodation centres, but about the quality of those places? People often take cash support because NASS accommodation has been unsuitable. It would not be acceptable to withdraw cash-only support just because we have 80,000 units of accommodation and 80,000 asylum seekers, if those 80,000 units are not in the right places and of the right quality.
        Mr. Gerrard: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. People would opt for cash-only support for a variety of reasons. I am merely making the straightforward point that, instead of a statutory instrument, both Houses should consider positive resolutions. We might all then feel much more comfortable about a future proposal to end cash-only support. That is the purpose of amendment No. 84, which I hope will gain support in the House.
        Mr. Malins: I wonder what the Government's reaction would be if a Member were to table a new clause saying that any asylum application must be decided within two days of its being made, and that any appeal must be lodged within 24 hours and decided within a further 24 hours. I imagine that their reaction would be, "Don't be silly: people need time to prepare," and that there would be a nodding of heads all around the House. If that is the Government's attitude, God bless them for giving us what the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) described as a complex new schedule and telling us that we have far less time than we would have under my fictitious new clause on asylum cases, and only a matter
        908
        of hours to prepare all our arguments and to take advice from various non-governmental organisations outside the House. I am making a serious point. It is a tragedy that new, complex material is presented to the House without any of us having an opportunity to sit down and study it carefully.
        I want to speak briefly about new clause 4, which I tabled with several hon. Friends. For accommodation provided under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, it defines what will be regarded as adequate. I shall not read through my new clause, but its purpose is to ensure that the accommodation provided meets the basic standards that we all expect of accommodation in this country. Furthermore, it ensures that certain landlords are not able to exploit asylum seekers to make profit at the public's expense by renting out properties that cannot be rented out to the general public. A reasonable, decent standard of accommodation is important.
        The new clause cannot be thought objectionable, and I hope that the Government are prepared to accept it. They need to focus on the issue of the standard of accommodation. It is not many weeks since the controversy about the absence of sprinklers at Yarl's Wood, and there is a continuing problem with companies running removal centres and trying to negotiate insurance cover with various underwriters. All existing centres that do not have proper safety attributes, as suggested in my new clause, should be looked at carefully with a view to closure. I put the new clause out as a feeler, but, behind it, there is a strong point in relation to the adequacy of accommodation.
        We also tabled amendments Nos. 143 and 144, which relate to witnesses and costs. Proposed new section 103B of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 says:
        "The Secretary of State may pay reasonable travelling expenses incurred by an appellant"
        and amendment No. 143 would add the words "and any witnesses". Most witnesses in asylum appeals are other asylum seekers and they are often relatives who are living close to destitution. The Government accept that access to justice is important, so the expense of getting to an appeal could and should be paid for.
        The money would be well spent because it would reduce the need for the adjournment of appeals or subsequent appeals to the tribunal resulting from the fact that, through no fault of appellants or their lawyers, witnesses could not attend. It would not cost much to pay expenses to witnesses who may be destitute, and it could save money in the long term. I hope the Government will consider that suggestion carefully, as points of principle and efficiency are involved. The amendment would enable the Government to have a better and more efficient system.
        Amendment No. 144 also relates to clause 45, which says:
        "The Secretary of State may pay reasonable travelling expenses…in connection with attendance for the purposes of an appeal".
        The amendment would add the words "or seeking legal advice". Again, that might be money well spent. As I have said, many witnesses in appeals are other asylum seekers, and access to the appeal and to the legal advice necessary for the appeal are important. If access to justice is important, the expense of getting to lawyers to prepare

        909
        the appeal could and should be paid for. That would reduce the need for the adjournments that result when appeals are not fully prepared.
        It is important for lawyers to take proof of evidence from witnesses, but I am told that that cannot always be claimed as a disbursement from the Legal Services Commission, or is not financially viable. That is especially so in Scotland where the Legal Services Commission does not operate and attendance of a person under the supervision of a solicitor is paid for at the rate of only £21 an hour.
        These small amendments are not dramatic. They would not alter the Bill in any great way, but they would ease some of the mechanisms, and at little cost to the public purse. They would probably make for more efficiency. That is the view of Conservative Members and, the Government might like to know, of several respected non-governmental organisations. I hope that Ministers will have listened carefully to my arguments on the important new clause defining the adequacy of accommodation and on the two relatively non-controversial amendments. I hope that they will take them on board.
        Mike Gapes: For once, and probably for the only time in the debate, I agree with something that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has said. It is regrettable these substantive proposals were not before us in Committee. That is unfortunate, because it means that we are not able to give proper consideration to their merits.
        I wish to draw attention to the reasons why we may need some of these measures. I do not know whether any other Member saw the "Dispatches" programme on Channel 4 at the weekend. It used a hidden camera to show a Romanian man who had been removed from this country. When he was at Sangatte, he made it very clear that he would return to this country with a false identity. He acquired a family and managed to return to this country after several failed attempts. The programme reported that he was living in Manchester.
        6.15 pm
        If people act in that way, it is necessary to think about how we deal with the problem. I shall not betray any confidences from my advice surgery or mention individual cases but, in my 10 years in the House as a London Member of Parliament, I have dealt with hundreds if not thousands of cases involving immigration, asylum and nationality matters. We come across a significant number of cases in which we know we have not been told the full story, and we know of occasions when people have been abusing the system.
        In the past few weeks, I have been dealing with the case of a Russian woman who applied for asylum and whose daughter came here as a visitor without revealing that she had any relatives in the UK. The woman, who had previously wanted to bring her husband into the country, divorced him and then married another man in this country so as to spin out her case for staying here. We have a corrupt immigration advice system in many areas that enables people to play the system and spin things out. As well as sorting out the legal system, we need to consider the way in which our social security and housing benefits systems are abused.
        910
        I have fought racism and intolerance throughout my life, and many of my constituents have parents and grandparents who came here as refugees. At Valentines mansion in my constituency, there is a plaque commemorating the Belgian refugees who lived there until 1919, after they fled Belgium in the first world war. They were sheltered in Ilford. Many Jewish people live in Ilford and many people in my constituency have fled from the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.
        I have very many Somali constituents. It has been suggested that the introduction of the measures in the Bill will mean that people will resort to begging. I have never seen a Somali begging. Somalis do not stand at traffic lights on the north circular road with dolls or babies under their arms and intimidate motorists for money. They do not go round door to door knocking to ask for money from my constituents. That is done by organised gangs of criminals who are not asylum seekers. It is important to make that distinction, because sometimes the Daily Mail and other publications equate the issues in such a way as to create great tensions.
        I want to introduce measures that will make it possible for the Iraqi Kurds who are fleeing a desperate situation and the Somalis who need our support to receive support without the system being abused by others who come from countries in central and eastern Europe and even from countries that are applying to join the European Union and claim political asylum when we know that there is absolutely no justification for it. There may be arguments about other human rights issues and about the level of law enforcement and criminality, but political asylum is not the issue in those countries.
        It is time that those of us on the left who believe that we should be open, welcome immigration and have a diverse multicultural society were able to say loud and clear that we will not tolerate abuse and people exploiting our housing benefit and social security systems.
        I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) about the level of competency and knowledge in council departments when it comes to making judgments about housing benefit and the habitual residence test. I want to be confident that the system will be applied properly.
        Will the measures apply purely to new applications or will they apply retrospectively? I realise that we are dealing with difficult matters, but some people have been exploiting the system for years and we need to address that. If some families have been housed because they have children and we change the rules, will we face the serious problem of breaking them up? Many of my Asian constituents voice such concerns. I want to be able to tell them and others that the system will not be abused. I want to be able to reassure them that people will not take money or be housed to the detriment of those who have been waiting on housing lists and living in bad conditions for many years. However, I also want to be able to say that the measures will be applied sympathetically, carefully and, above all, accurately. I hope that the Home Office will rigorously improve the procedures within all its sections.
        Mr. Hancock: I apologise for missing some of the debate, but I have been in a Select Committee.

        911
        The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but he has not explained what is wrong with the current system. What aspect of it has failed that allows him to depict such a graphic tale of woe?
        Mike Gapes: I suspect that I would be ruled out of order if I went into that. It would certainly take longer than the time available to give a litany of what is wrong with the way in which the immigration and nationality directorate and housing benefit departments have dealt with individual cases in the past 10 years. All of us whose casework involves many immigration and nationality problems could produce dossiers, perhaps lorry loads, of cases that have not been dealt with adequately.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), the former Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and my right hon. Friend Lord Rooker, with whom I had the privilege to work, have done much to improve the situation, but a great deal more needs to be done to sort out the mess in those organisations.
        Jeremy Corbyn: Surely one of the problems with the new schedule and the proposals is that we are making local social services authorities an extension of the Home Office immigration service. They are already overstretched and understaffed, and have great difficulty in coping with their work load.
        Mike Gapes: I do not agree. The Children Act 1989 and the National Assistance Act 1948 place an obligation on local authorities to do certain things. We need to have a seamless system. The problem does not lie with the Home Office alone. All Departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions, operate on the same basis to achieve consistent decisions so that we have results that are not arbitrary, adverse or foolish. But I do not want to stray from the terms of the debate.
        The proposal is politically necessary. It is right to question the mechanisms. I have much sympathy with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow about how Parliament should scrutinise measures. I hope that when the Bill returns from the other place—no doubt after the Tories and Liberals have ganged up to decimate it, as they do with everything that the Home Office introduces to improve things—we will have another opportunity to discuss the merits of these measures.
        Mr. Dawson: I tabled two amendments in the group, new clause 17 and amendment No. 261. The new clause would allow us to take a small but important step forward, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister accepts it. When young unaccompanied people come to this country, they are initially assessed by a local authority's social services department and should be offered accommodation by a local authority, although not necessarily the one that carries out the assessment.
        Hon. Members referred to the 6,000 unaccompanied children who are under 18 and seeking asylum. That could be considered a considerable number, but it is 10 per cent. of the 60,000 children who are looked after by local authorities and a mere fraction of the 11 million children who live in the UK. We live in the fourth richest country in the world, and we are enjoying economic success and
        912
        well-being for the first time in many decades. Surely, it is not beyond our capabilities to offer good care and support to such a small number of children who arrive here alone and destitute. In many cases, they are traumatised and in a terrible condition. Too often, we offer those children bed-and-breakfast accommodation, indifference and neglect. We make them vulnerable to trafficking and further abuse.
        In the last few months of 2001, some hon. Members and I had the privilege of participating in a programme organised by UNICEF—the United Nations Children's Fund—Save the Children and other children's organisations, called "Journey of a refugee child". It followed a visit that some of us made to Angola, the worst country that I have been to, and which certainly fits the description of the worst country for children to grow up in.
        As part of the programme, we visited some excellent projects in London. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) will recall our visit to the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. Unfortunately, it took place on Guy Fawkes night, so rockets and bangers were going off all around us while we sat in a room with many young people who had gone through the worst experiences that any human being could—
        6.30 pm
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is limited time for this debate? I am not sure that I can connect his reminiscences directly with the new clause to which he is speaking, which refers to asylum-seeking children rather than those who might potentially seek asylum.
        Mr. Dawson: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief, but I am trying to set out the profound needs of asylum-seeking children who come to this country, compared with the inadequate services that we currently offer them.
        Jeremy Corbyn: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend said about the Medical Foundation, which does fantastic work in supporting unaccompanied children seeking asylum. Is he not concerned, however, as I am, that support for asylum seekers increasingly comes from charitable and voluntary organisations that receive public funding that is insufficient to deal with their casework? The problem with new schedule 1 is that it will probably increase the pressure on the charitable sector because the state will be withdrawing from provision.
        Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is precisely the issue that I try to address in new clause 17. If young people were offered accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, instead of the limited support available to them under section 17 of that Act, they would experience a good level of public sector care. They would undergo proper and thorough assessment by professional people, and they would be properly looked after, as children who come to this country should be. There is no reason why every local authority should not tackle this issue.
        In the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, the Government strengthened section 20 of the Children Act, making even more powerful the argument that young

        913
        asylum seekers should have the benefit of support up to the age of 21. Indeed, the experience of many who work with young asylum seekers is that they are hungry for the education opportunities that are available. Having demonstrated resilience in undergoing dreadful experiences, they should benefit from the support provided under the 2000 Act for people in higher education up to the age of 24.
        During the proceedings on the Adoption and Children Bill, I tried to strengthen section 17 of the Children Act. I was assured by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), that more work was being done to ensure that local authorities carry out proper assessments under section 17. I accept that that is true for children from the United Kingdom who, even if their links with their birth families have broken, may have links with an extended family, with their community or with friendship networks that can support them.
        However, Section 17 provisions are not appropriate for unaccompanied children who arrive in this country without any of those forms of support. We should offer them the opportunity to be looked after properly by local authorities. So often in the Chamber we hear criticism of local authorities and the care system, and in many cases it is justified, but there are good parts to the system. There is good foster care and good residential care, and a great deal could be offered to young people from abroad. We should have the confidence to deliver that.
        Amendment No. 261 relates to measures to deny families with children the protection offered by section 17 of the Children Act. Frankly, that is deplorable. The issue was discussed in proceedings on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, and an amendment was passed to prevent such a provision being implemented. Section 17 is a fundamental building block in the support and care that we offer families with children in particularly difficult circumstances. It goes far beyond the provisions of asylum Acts and mere financial benefits. As an hon. Member said earlier, children are children, wherever they come from, and we should not exempt the children of asylum-seeking families from the Children Act.
        Beverley Hughes: We have had a wide-ranging debate, although I accept that, judging by the comments made by some hon. Members about new clause 10 and new schedule 1, it has not been as wide ranging as they would have liked. No doubt additional points will be made in another place and again when the Bill returns to this House.
        The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) did not go into detail about his amendments to new schedule 1, but I should like to comment on them for the record. Several of those amendments seek to ensure that the rights of individuals and rights granted by the European convention on human rights and EU law are safeguarded. When the hon. Gentleman has time to look at the new schedule in some detail, he will see that it specifically safeguards those rights.
        As I said earlier, most of the amendments seek to reinstate the support that the measures propose to withdraw, so they are simply in complete opposition to the Bill.
        Mr. Allan: The hon. Lady will accept our concern, which we tried to express earlier, that although we
        914
        understand that the Government want to deal with a specific instance—that of an individual with refugee status who comes to live in a community in the UK—we believe that the issue goes much wider. When we are talking about the rights of every citizen of every other EEA state, we are talking about social security legislation that should be dealt with in the round, but it has been inappropriately tacked on to immigration law. We have tried to express that general concern in our amendments, but it was difficult, in such a short time, to deal with the generality of EU social security law, which is a huge and complex subject.
        Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman may take that position. However. I take him back to a principle that I outlined earlier. We have to consider whether it is perverse to allow people who cannot draw on central Government sources of support because they have support in another country, they have reached the end of the road in our procedures for assessing asylum seekers, or they have illegally entered the country, to get support from other sources at a local level. The issue is a difficult one, and I know that if the measures are implemented, all hon. Members—including me, as a constituency MP—will face difficult constituency cases. However, I still feel strongly that we cannot duck the difficult issues. There are important points of principle to be dealt with and we as MPs have to represent many different constituencies of people.
        Having made those general comments on the proposed amendments to new schedule 1, I acknowledge that we have to work through a great deal of the detail of the implementation of the new schedule. My hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) and others asked about those details. The law surrounding these issues is complex and the operation of the measures will, to some extent and in some areas, also be complex. I anticipate that when the measures are enacted, whatever form they take, considerable guidance and regulations will be required to help local authorities to implement them. However, I do not accept the view that the measures are about foisting on local authorities decisions that should be made by the immigration service, as one of my hon. Friends said they were. The decisions will be made by the Home Office, the immigration service and the immigration and nationality directorate, but implementation, in so far as it has implications for local authority support, will clearly and rightly be for the local authorities to carry out.
        Mr. Hancock: It is useful that the Minister recognises that there will be additional tasks for local authorities. Will she give the House and, more importantly, local authorities an assurance that the Government will resource local authorities properly to pick up that obligation?
        Beverley Hughes: No. In fact, if the hon. Gentleman thinks though the implications of the measures, the points I made at the start of my speech and those made during the debate, he will realise that local authorities have been providing support—and some continue to do so—to people whom the measures that we are dealing with will say are no longer entitled to that support. The measures are about removing that responsibility and the burden that that responsibility generates for local authorities, thereby considerably reducing the cost. I understand that before it

        915
        took forward its recent case, Birmingham estimated that it had spent £2.6 million—I hope that I have remembered that figure correctly—on providing support that the measures before the House will allow local authorities legally to claim is not their responsibility. They will be able to say that, for specific reasons, it is not legal for them to give support. Therefore, the cost and the burden for local authorities will be reduced. None the less, I accept that the technical detail of the measures' implementation at local level will require local authorities to be given guidance and regulation, and we intend to provide that.
        Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) raised the question of non-NASS-supported asylum seekers who are sent to another part of the country but then return to London—it is usually London—to live. They receive no housing support but vouchers only, and they often live in terrible poverty with other similarly destitute families. Is there any discretion for local authorities to give such people any support?
        Beverley Hughes: Under the measures that we are debating, that would depend on the immigration status of the individual. That is the provision that the measures introduce into existing arrangements. Currently, local authorities do not take immigration status into account; the measures will require them to do so.
        New clause 4 deals with the standard of housing of asylum seekers who are currently within the NASS system. Hon. Members expressed concern about substandard accommodation. If there were to be substandard accommodation, I would share their concern. Such issues are the reason why contracts with both private and public sector accommodation providers already require that the accommodation provided must be fit for human habitation as defined by the Housing Act 1985, or in Scotland by the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, and that it must meet all the regulatory requirements.
        6.45 pm
        It is reasonable to expect the Government to take reasonable steps to ensure that the accommodation they use is satisfactory, but to do as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey seems to want—that is, to place a requirement on the Secretary of State directly to ensure statutory compliance—is neither reasonable nor feasible, given the large amount of housing that is needed and the fact that it is obtained under contract from both the public and the private sector. It is reasonable that the first route to achieving good accommodation standards is through contractual arrangements and the enforcement of those requirements where it is shown that they have not been met.
        NASS carries out property inspections. Its contract managers carry out technical surveys of properties and they can get outside professional surveyors to do so as well. When accommodation is found to be below standard, the provider is required to take steps to remedy the problems; otherwise, they risk being found in breach of their contract. Local authorities, too, have a general duty under section 605 of the Housing Act 1985 to keep housing conditions in
        916
        their area under annual review. Although we accept the spirit of the new clause and what the hon. Gentleman intends to achieve by it, the mechanisms proposed are not reasonable or feasible, and its aims can be accommodated within existing arrangements.
        New clause 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), deals with the arrangements for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. My hon. Friend has great expertise in and a strong commitment to all matters relating to children, so I understand why he has raised the issue. However, he will know that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are currently supported under the Children Act 1989. That means that, in practice, they are the responsibility of the local authority where they first present themselves and are accepted as children in need. It also means—I know that he is aware of this, as it is the point of his new clause—that there is currently no legal framework through which any other local authority can be compelled to accept responsibility for such a child, although authorities can voluntarily transfer cases between themselves.
        My hon. Friend will understand why it is not in those children's interests for us to have the power to compel other local authorities to take them. We would need to ensure first that those other authorities had the necessary infrastructure and experience to provide good quality care. However, the Department of Health and the Home Office are working extremely hard with local authorities to negotiate voluntary arrangements, and I hope he agrees that that is the best way to proceed. Compelling local authorities could result in children being placed in areas that provided a range and quality of care that did not serve the children's best interests. I hope that he will not press his amendments, with the assurance that I understand the spirit of what he is trying to achieve. I hope that he accepts that although we are not changing the legislation, we are working to try to achieve what he seeks.
        Mr. Malins: Will the Minister take the opportunity before 7 o'clock to speak to my two amendments and my new clause?
        Beverley Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman will not intervene on me any further, I shall try to deal with all the issues that have been raised.
        Mr. Dawson: I shall be very brief. I entirely accept the point that my hon. Friend makes and I am very pleased with the information that she has given to me. However, there is the further question of encouragement to use section 20 of the Children Act 1989 rather than section 17.
        Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend needs to understand that the vast majority of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are about 16 and 17, so they are not very young. There is certainly no intention to deprive children of section 20 support if they need it. The fact is that for the needs of many, if not most, of those older young people, section 17 support is more appropriate, because they do not want to live in children's homes and supported accommodation. As he will know, young people's wishes are an important element in the overall assessment of need. It is that assessment that determines the level of support, and when section 20 support is appropriate it will be provided.

        917
        My hon. Friend also spoke to amendment No. 261. If he will forgive me, I shall not dwell on that amendment, in view of the time. The substance of the proposal was debated extensively in terms of the procedures in the 1989 Act. I know he feels strongly about the point of principle that is involved, but with the establishment of a new system of support for asylum seekers, it was felt to be more appropriate that that system also provided for asylum-seeking children in families.
        The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) raised issues in respect of amendments Nos. 143 and 144 that were debated extensively in Committee. I understand his concerns in tabling the amendments, but between the Committee stage and now, we have not changed our view or become convinced that asylum seekers who are appealing against refusal or early termination of their support need access to legal advice or assistance and representation. I can tell him, however, that amendment No. 143 is unnecessary, because the current arrangements already allow for the provision of forms of support other than those specified in section 96(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 when circumstances are exceptional. The power is a permissive one. It would not he reasonable to pay witness expenses in every case, but the legislation contains a power to do so where necessary.
        The substance of amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56 was also debated in Committee. I think that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey knows we believe very strongly that, although personal preference will be one factor in placing asylum seekers in one place or another—accommodation centres or other forms of dispersal—it will not be the predominating factor. He received assurances in Committee about the factors that the Secretary of State will take into account.
        Amendment No. 49 concerns the power sought in the Bill to enable the Government to remove the opportunity for cash-only support. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said, this is an enabling power. We do not envisage taking the power in the short term. We want to see how the Bill's reforms impact; there may be no need to mobilise the power at all, so I ask the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey not to press the amendment.
        Simon Hughes: I asked the Minister not only about the time scale, but about the cost that would be involved if the support-only option were removed. Can she share with the House any information on costs to show how it will be cheaper for the Government to spend the money on support and accommodation, instead of only on support?
        Beverley Hughes: That brings me to amendment No. 84. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow made clear—there was an extensive debate in Committee about this matter—we would consider the evidence on all sides if any proposal were made to exercise the power in the part of the Bill with which the amendment deals. I am persuaded by him that if the Government decided to bring forward the power, it would be right for the matter to be debated through the affirmative procedure. I hope he will accept that the wording of his amendments needs to be checked by parliamentary counsel, but I assure him that we will table a suitably worded amendment to the same effect when the Bill comes before the other place.
        918
        With the exception of the issues on which hon. Members have said that they want a Division, I hope that they will agree not to press their amendments.
        Simon Hughes: With the leave of the House, I shall speak for 30 seconds
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the House is willing, the hon. Gentleman may continue, but he certainly has no right to do so.
        Simon Hughes: With the leave of the House. I am grateful for the Minister's indication that there will be a further opportunity to vote on the removal of support and that we can return to the debate on that matter. For the information of the House, I should like to point out that we hold to our view that for reasons of time and detailed policy, we are not persuaded that we should support the new clause and the new schedule that goes with it. When the time comes, not least because there are new clauses that we have not debated at all, such as new clause 13 and others, we will ask the House to divide on the rest of the Government new clauses, because they contain certain provisions that we cannot possibly accept.
        Question put, That the new clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 456, Noes 69.

        Division No. 269]

        [7.15 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Burden, Richard

        Ainger, Nick

        Burgon, Colin

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Burnham, Andy

        Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

        Burns, Simon

        Allen, Graham

        Burnside, David

        Amess, David

        Burt, Alistair

        Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

        Butterfill, John

        (Swansea E)

        Cairns, David

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Caplin, Ivor

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Casale, Roger

        Austin, John

        Cash, William

        Bacon, Richard

        Caton, Martin

        Bailey, Adrian

        Cawsey, Ian

        Baldry, Tony

        Challen, Colin

        Banks, Tony

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Barker, Gregory

        Chapman, Sir Sydney

        Barnes, Harry

        (Chipping Barnet)

        Baron, John

        Chaytor, David

        Barron, Kevin

        Chope, Christopher

        Battle, John

        Clappison, James

        Beard, Nigel

        Clark, Dr Lynda

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Beggs, Roy

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Bell, Stuart

        Clelland, David

        Benn, Hilary

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Benton, Joe

        Clwyd, Ann

        Bercow, John

        Coaker, vernon

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Berry, Roger

        Cohen, Harry

        Blackman, Liz

        Coleman, Iain

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Collins, Tim

        Blizzard, Bob

        Connarty, Michael

        Blunkett, Rt Hon David

        Conway, Derek

        Blunt, Crispin

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Boswell, Tim

        Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Cousins, Jim

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Cox, Tom

        Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

        Cran, James

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Cranston, Ross

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Crausby, David

        Brady, Graham

        Cruddas, Jon

        Brazier, Julian

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Brennan, Kevin

        Cummings, John

        Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

        (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

        (Copeland)

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Browne, Desmond

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Dalyell, Tam

        Bryant, Chris

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        923

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

        David, Wayne

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Davidson, Ian

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Hendrick, Mark

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

        Hendry, Charles

        Davis, Rt Hon Terry

        Hepburn, Stephen

        (B'ham Hodge H)

        Heppell, John

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Hermon, Lady

        Denham, Rt Hon John

        Hesford, Stephen

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

        Dismore, Andrew

        Heyes, David

        Dobbin, Jim

        Hill, Keith

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Hinchliffe, David

        Dodds, Nigel

        Hoban, Mark

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Hoey, Kate

        Doran, Frank

        Hood, Jimmy

        Dowd, Jim

        Hope, Phil

        Drew, David

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

        Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

        Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Edwards, Huw

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Efford, Clive

        Hume, John

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Hutton, Rt Hon John

        Ennis, Jeff

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Evans, Nigel

        Irranca-Davies, Huw

        Fabricant, Michael

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Fallon, Michael

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Field, Mark (Cities of London)

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Fisher, Mark

        Jamieson, David

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Jenkins, Brian

        Flight, Howard

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Flint, Caroline

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Flook, Adrian

        Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

        Flynn, Paul

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Follett, Barbara

        Joyce, Eric

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Foster, Michael (Worcester)

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Kemp, Fraser

        Foulkes, George

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Key, Robert

        Francois, Mark

        Khabra, Piara S

        Gale, Roger

        Kidney, David

        Gapes, Mike

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Gardiner, Barry

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Gerrard, Neil

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Gibb, Nick

        Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Gilroy, Linda

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Godsiff, Roger

        Lait, Mrs; Jacqui

        Goggins, Paul

        Lammy, David

        Goodman, Paul

        Lansley, Andrew

        Gray, James

        Lazarowicz, Mark

        Grayling, Chris

        Leigh, Edward

        Green, Damian (Ashford)

        Lepper, David

        Greenway, John

        Leslie, Christopher

        Grieve, Dominic

        Letwin, Oliver

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Levitt, Tom

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

        Grogan, John

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Gummer, Rt Hon John

        Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

        Hain, Rt Hon Peter

        LiddelJ-Grainger, Ian

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Lidington, David

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Linton, Martin

        Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

        Lloyd, Tony

        Hammond, Philip

        Loughton, Tim

        Hanson, David

        Love, Andrew

        Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

        Lucas, Ian

        Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

        Luff, Peter

        Heald, Oliver

        Luke, Iain

        Healey, John

        Lyons, John

        924

        McCabe, Stephen

        Pound, Stephen

        McCafferty, Chris

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Primarolo, Dawn

        MacDonald, Calum

        Prosser, Gwyn

        McFall, John

        Purchase, Ken

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Purnell, James

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

        McIsaac, Shona

        Quinn, Lawrie

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Rammell, Bill

        McKechin, Ann

        Randall, John

        McKenna, Rosemary

        Rapson, Syd

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

        McNulty, Tony

        Robathan, Andrew

        MacShane, Denis

        Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Robertson, John

        McWalter, Tony

        (Glasgow Anniesland)

        McWilliam, John

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Mahmood, Khalid

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Mallaber, Judy

        Rooney, Terry

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Ross, Ernie

        Mann, John

        Roy, Frank

        Maples, John

        Ruane, Chris

        Marris, Rob

        Ruffley, David

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Martlew, Eric

        Ryan, Joan

        Mates, Michael

        Salter, Martin

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Savidge, Malcolm

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Sawford, Phil

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Meale, Alan

        Selous, Andrew

        Mercer, Patrick

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Merron, Gillian

        Sheridan, Jim

        Milburn., Rt Hon Alan

        Shipley, Ms Debra

        Miliband, David

        Simmonds, Mark

        Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

        Simon, Siôn

        Mitchell, Austin (GtGrimsby)

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Moffatt, Laura

        Singh, Marsha

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Skinner, Dennis

        Moran, Margaret

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Morgan, Julie

        Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

        Morley, Elliot

        Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

        Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Mountford, Kali

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Mullin, Chris

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Soley, Clive

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Southworth, Helen

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Spellar, Rt Hon John

        Murrison, Dr Andrew

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Squire, Rachel

        Norman, Archie

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Steen, Anthony

        O'Hara, Edward

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Olner, Bill

        Stevenson, George

        O'Neill, Martin

        Stewart, David (Invemess E)

        Organ, Diana

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Osborne, George (Tatton)

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Owen, Albert

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Page, Richard

        Streeter, Gary

        Paice, James

        Stringer, Graham

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Paterson, Owen

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Pearson, Ian

        Swayne, Desmond

        Perham, Linda

        Swire, Hugo

        Picking, Anne

        Syms, Robert

        Pike, Peter

        Tami, Mark

        Plaskitt, James

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Pollard, Kerry

        Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

        Pond, Chris

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Pope, Greg

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        925

        Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Whittingdale, John

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Wiggin, Bill

        Timms, Stephen

        Willetts, David

        Tipping, Paddy

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Todd, Mark

        (Swansea W)

        Touhig, Don

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Tredinnick, David

        Wilshire, David

        Trickett, Jon

        Winnick, David

        Truswell, Paul

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macdesfield)

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Wood, Mike

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Woodward, Shaun

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Woolas, Phil

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Worthington, Tony

        Tynan, Bill

        Wray, James

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Vaz, Keith

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Viggers, Peter

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Walter, Robert

        Wyatt, Derek

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Waterson, Nigel

        Watkinson, Angela

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Watts, David

        Jim Fitzpatrick and

        White, Brian

        Mr. Jim Murphy

        NOES

        Allan, Richard

        Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

        Baker, Norman

        (Ross Skye & Invemess W)

        Barrett, John

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Beith, Rt HonA J

        Lamb, Norman

        Brake, Tom

        Laws, David

        Breed, Colin

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Brooke, Mrs Annette L

        McDonnell, John

        Bruce, Malcolm

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Burnett, John

        Moore, Michael

        Burstow, Paul

        Oaten, Mark

        Cable, Dr Vincent

        öpik, Lembit

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Pugh, Dr John

        Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        (NE Fife)

        Rendel, David

        Carmichael, Alistair

        Robertson, Angus (Moray)

        Chidgey, David

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Salmond, Alex

        Cotter, Brian

        Sanders, Adrian

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Stunell, Andrew

        Doughty, Sue

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Ewing, Annabelle

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Galloway, George

        Tyler, Paul

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Webb, Steve

        Gidley, Sandra

        Weir, Michael

        Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

        Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

        Hancock, Mike

        Williams, Roger (Brecon)

        Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

        Willis, Phil

        Harvey, Nick

        Wishart, Pete

        Heath, David

        Younger-Ross, Richard

        Holmes, Paul

        Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Sir Robert Smith and

        Keetch, Paul

        John Thurso.

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
        It being after Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [11 June].
        Question put, That Government new clauses 12,13 and 16 and new schedules 1 and 2 be added to the Bill:—
        The House divided: Aves 454, Noes 62.
        Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 1

      NATURALISATION: KNOWLEDGE OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIETY
      Amendment made: No. 85, in page 1, line 8, at end insert—
      '() In paragraph 2(e) of that Schedule (waiver)—

      (a) for "the requirement specified in paragraph 1(1)(c)" there shall be substituted "either or both of the requirements specified in paragraph 1(1)(c) and (ca)", and

      926

      (b) for "expect him to fulfil it" there shall be substituted "expect him to fulfil that requirement or those requirements".'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

    Clause 4

      DEPRIVATION OF CITIZENSHIP
      Amendments made: No. 17, in page 2, line 42, leave out "thinks" and insert "is satisfied".
      No. 19, in page 3, line 5, leave out "thinks" and insert "is satisfied".
      No. 88, in page 3, line 11, leave out "thinks" and insert "is satisfied".
      No. 21, in page 3, line 23, leave out "thinks" and insert "is satisfied".—[Beverley Hughes.]

    Clause 10

      RIGHT OF ABODE: CERTIFICATE OF ENTITLEMENT
      Amendment made: No. 213, in page 7, line 13, at end insert—
      '() specify the consequences of failure to comply with a requirement under any of paragraphs (c) to (e) above,'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

    Clause 38

      DESTITUTE ASYLUM-SEEKER
      Amendments made: No. 217, in page 19, line 20, that Clause 38 be divided into 3 clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (6) (Destitute asylum-seeker), the second consisting of subsections (7) to (11) and (15) (Section (Destitute asylum-seeker): supplemental), the third consisting of subsections (12) to (14) and (16) to (19) (Section (Destitute asylum-seeker): supplemental: Scotland and Northern Ireland).
      No. 216, in page 19, line 25, at end insert—
      '() who is in the United Kingdom,'.
      No. 254, in page 20, line 12, at end insert "both".
      No. 255, in page 20, line 16, at end insert "both".—[Beverley Hughes.]

    Clause 45

      ASYLUM-SEEKER: APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL TO SUPPORT
      Amendment made: No. 218, in page 25, line 34, at end insert—
      '() An appeal under this section may not be brought or continued by a person who is outside the United Kingdom.'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

    Clause 49

      DETENTION BY SECRETARY OF STATE
      Amendments made: No. 103, in page 27, line 34, after "10" insert ", 10A".
      No. 104, in page 28, line 48, at end insert—
      '() In section 24(1) of that Act (bail) after "the Immigration Act 1971" insert ", or under section 49 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,".—[Beverley Hughes.]

    Clause 50
      ESCORTS
      Amendment made: No. 59, in page 29, line 9, after "by", insert "reasonable".—[Beverley Hughes.]
    Clause 57

      SERIOUS CRIMINAL
      Amendments made: No. 249, in page 34, line 4, at end insert—
      'of at least two years—
      (i) '.
      No. 250, in page 34, line 6, leave Out "but does include" and insert—
      '(unless at least two years of the sentence are not suspended),
      (ii) includes'.
      No. 251, in page 34, line 7, at end insert—
      ', and
      (iii) includes a reference to a person who is sentenced to an indeterminate period of custody (provided that it may last for two years).'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

    Clause 97

      LEAVE PENDING DECISION ON VARIATION APPLICATION
      Ms Rosie Winterton: I beg to move amendment No. 239, in page 51, line 34, after "66(1)", insert—
      'of the Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Act 2002'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 240, 241, 208 to 212 and 248.
      Ms Winterton: These are mainly minor and technical amendments, but it might help if I run through them briefly in a little more detail—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Ms Winterton: rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the Minister please resume her seat while I am on my feet? I am trying to restore peace for her. Will hon. Members who are not staying for this debate please retire quickly and quietly?
      Ms Winterton: New clause 13 and new schedule 2 make provision relating to changes to the civil penalty and carriers' liability. Amendments Nos. 210, 211 and 212 to schedule 7 are minor and consequential amendments necessitated by new clause 13 and new schedule 2.
      7.30 pm
      The exception is the amendment to section 37(3)(c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which addresses a non-binding concern of the Court of Appeal in Roth. It strengthens the rights of an applicant seeking the release of a detained vehicle by removing the requirement for them to have a "compelling need" for its release.
      928
      Amendment No. 208 repeals section 25A(7) of the 1971 Act, which is being renumbered as section 25D. Section 25A relates to the detention of ships, aircraft and vehicles in connection with offences of assisting illegal entry and harbouring. Subsection (7) is no longer necessary, as the definition of an owner is being added to the interpretation section by new clause 12.
      Amendment No. 209 repeals references in section 28A of the 1971 Act to powers of arrest when a person is suspected of having committed an offence under the present section 25(2) of the Act. Section 25(2) is being repealed, and the new section 25(2) will not contain a separate offence. These repeals follow from that.
      On amendment No. 248, hon. Members will recall that we discussed yesterday new clauses 14 and 15. Non-suspensive appeal rights will come into force on Royal Assent as a result of those new clauses, but the other provisions of part 5 will come into force at a later date. Therefore, there will be a transitional period while part IV of the 1999 Act continues to operate at the same time as the new non-suspensive system. Amendment No. 248 amends part IV so that there is no conflict between the new and old systems.
      Amendments Nos. 239 to 241 correct a drafting error. Clause 97 introduces a new version of section 3C of the 1971 Act to extend a person's leave while their application is outstanding. However, the clause lacks references to the Act that is being referred to. I am amazed that Opposition Members—especially the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who has a reputation for spotting these problems—did not notice that and table such an amendment themselves.
      Having given that explanation, I hope that hon. Members will accept the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 240, in page 51, line 38, at end insert "of that Act)."
      No. 241, in page 52, line 1, leave out—
      'the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002' and insert "that Act)."—[Beverley Hughes.]

    Clause 101

      AUTHORITY TO CARRY
      Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 53, line 20, leave out clause 101.
      We have more enthusiasm for this amendment than the Government had for their last amendments. It would leave out clause 101, which is the only clause dealing with the authority-to-carry scheme. Two provisions in the Bill relate to carriers' liability and involvement in immigration control. Sadly, as a result of the earlier guillotine, new clause 13 and Government new schedule 2, which deal with carriers' liability, were not debated. Like me, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) regrets that, because those provisions raised substantial issues of interest to hon. Members and to commercial operators and their employees, and have been the subject of significant decisions by the courts, one of which resulted in the Government introducing legislation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) shows her assent. It is a great pity that the only debate we can have about carriers is on clause 101.
      Mr. Malins: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. A number of outside bodies, including the Road Haulage

      929
      Association, have worked flat out and diligently not just in the past few days but in the past few hours, to ensure that their views are put. They will be as disappointed as we are that the House was not able to hear their views.
      Simon Hughes: Indeed, that is a frustration. When the hon. Gentleman and I were, quite properly, asked by Government Whips before the spring break what might be an appropriate balance for the debate, within constraints which we did not accept but which we knew the Government would impose, one of the problems was that we did not have sight of the new schedules and new clauses.
      In Committee, we had an interesting debate on clause 101, during which new policy was revealed with almost every minute that passed. By the end of the debate it was clear that the Bill did not say anything about the subject, and clause 101 is limited in that it merely gives a sketch of the scheme that might apply. It provides for regulations to be introduced subsequently when an authority-to-carry scheme is brought before Parliament, so we will have the opportunity to debate the issue under secondary legislation. We learned far more about what the Government had in mind than we had known before.
      My hon. Friends and I are unhappy that the Government are clearly set on replacing conventional immigration controls—which there have to be and which we accept and agree with—with a new form of control, but without the same safeguards as when immigration officers, those working for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office in our overseas missions, the police, and Customs and Excise officers working as agents on our borders and in our ports, act to enforce immigration and related matters. In theory at least, the current system provides the possibility of challenging an Executive decision through administrative review, an adjudicator and a tribunal. Had the Bill not been amended adversely yesterday, every case could have gone back into the legal system for judgment by an independent judicial authority.
      I shall sketch out what the Government are proposing and explain my objections. I do not intend to take long, as I am conscious that we have to fit in three substantive debates with votes between now and 9 o'clock when the guillotine falls. That shows the impossibility of the task that we have been given.
      The scheme will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that require a carrier that brings someone to the United Kingdom without the required authority to pay a penalty. That transfers significant responsibility, including financial responsibility, to carriers. There is a big question over whether that should be the case.
      When I was in Sangatte, I talked to the Eurostar people about the Eurotunnel operation. They were pleased that the Government had decided that they should not continue to be penalised when, despite the company's best efforts, people get on to vehicles that come across the channel. Eurostar had put in place heat-detecting and X-ray equipment. It had done everything reasonably possible, and had spent millions of pounds. I observed for myself that security at the Eurotunnel and Eurostar depot was far more effective than at the SNCF depot on the adjacent tracks, which is the responsibility of the French Government. I understand the anger prompted by the continuing incursion into cross-channel traffic, given that
      930
      the operators who seek to make a living have done a great deal themselves. It is not as though they have not done things that cost them money, and have not had to pass the cost on to users of the service they provide.
      This is how I assume the proposal is intended to work. As I have been to Japan, I shall use it as an example. Having bought a ticket, the traveller goes to a Japanese airport. As he goes to check in, he suddenly discovers that his unacceptability as a passenger has been flagged up on the airline operator's screen. He will not be told why he is not acceptable—the information that is held will not have been divulged—but the airline will have a method of checking with the British authorities whether he should be allowed on the plane. In theory, if other Governments pass similar legislation it will be possible for airlines to check with their authorities.
      What redress would there be? Let us suppose that the traveller wishing to return from Japan happened to be a Member of Parliament who had to be here to do his or her duty the following day. There would probably be no redress if that was not possible.
      Let us imagine that the traveller was from India, wanting to attend a wedding here—an occasion like the wedding reception I attended on Sunday evening. If when that person checked in on Saturday he was told he was unacceptable, he would not be able to do anything, apart from going to the British mission in India, which would not be open until the next working day. By definition, the reason for the flight would then be aborted, as would be the cost.
      That system strikes me as entirely wrong. I recognise that it is better than a system that would give a junior employee of British Airways, or any other airline, information on why Sir Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Miss Rosie Winterton or Mr. Simon Hughes was not an acceptable passenger. Of course I would not want such information to be given. I see that the hon. Member for Woking is glad that I did not include him on that list! I was trying to be fair; if I excluded Conservatives, I did not do so on purpose.
      I appreciate that we would not want junior members of staff, or any other members of staff in private companies, to know something that might or might not be true, or for suspicions to be entertained about anyone. Understandably, someone travelling to a wedding, or indeed to a political rally—or someone who might have a previous conviction, or might be suspected of having a link with an organisation that might be considered unacceptable—might not want the information to be shared. What I do not consider acceptable is the effective replacement of a system whereby immigration control deals with such matters, through a proper process, with a system—totally unexplained in the Bill—involving an administrative block run by a computer link with the Home Office, or at any rate the British Government. Against that, it appears, there would be an appeal system of an unspecified nature—we know nothing about it, beyond the fact that the Minister says it will exist—and a compensation scheme which will operate if the Government get it wrong.
      Let me give a real example. Let us suppose that, owing to a blip in the system, the person whose name had come up and shown her to be an "undesirable" was Miss Beverley Hughes. Let us imagine that it should have been Mr. Simon Hughes. In that event, Miss Beverley Hughes

      931
      would rightly be aggrieved: she might find that the purpose of her visit had been entirely undermined. I do not think it would be easy to compensate her. I do not think it would have been enough for her to be told subsequently that she could have her money back, if the purpose of the visit had been aborted.
      Mistakes do happen. I can give a parallel, although not similar, example. When I went to vote in a local election, a line had been put through my name on the electoral register. An inquiry revealed that the person whose name was above mine on the register had applied for a postal vote, and the line had been put through the wrong name. These things happen, and there is no immediate remedy.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Allan: Is my hon. Friend also worried about the establishment of identity? Airlines and other carriers will now have to collect far more personal information that is not relevant to the purpose of travel—for instance, dates of birth, which are not normally collected on application for a ticket. "Simon Hughes" on its own will not be enough; date of birth, perhaps an address, and all sorts of other personal data will be required under the authority-to-carry scheme.
      Simon Hughes: By implication, that is certainly a risk. My hon. Friend is more of an expert than most of us on those matters, which will arise later in another context, and he has made a very good point—but I now want to make a political point, Sir Alan—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is confused. The House is not in Committee; the Bill is on Report.
      Simon Hughes: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Let me make my political point. Let us imagine that last year, a person was travelling from Zimbabwe. The flight was with a nationalised airline, Air Zimbabwe. The person at the Air Zimbabwe desk, where there were also customs officers, police and so forth, noted that the traveller was, according to the airline, not acceptable. It is surely pretty obvious that the authorities in the country from which the traveller sought to leave would be alerted immediately that there might be something suspicious—and that could be replicated in any country, at any time, when someone tried to leave that country. Under this scheme, it will be possible to trigger a refusal to allow a journey that has been lawfully purchased, and for no explanation to be given at the time in a way that could protect people.
      The Government have not thought through their proposals. We seem to be saying that we are willing to help people who are fleeing from persecution, while being prepared to do exactly the opposite—to alert the authorities in countries where personal liberty and safety may be at severe risk. I want to hear the Government's explanation of how that problem could be avoided, because I cannot see how it could be.
      I understand that this has, in a sense, been happening recently in one part of the world. The British authorities have, I think, placed Home Office officials at Prague
      932
      airport to monitor those coming in, in order to prevent a large-scale arrival in the UK of Romany visitors, or Roma people, from the Czech Republic or further east. As I have not been to Prague recently, I have no first-hand experience; I can only relate what I have been told. I understand that there is at least some evidence of pretty crude discrimination on the basis of ethnicity with regard to who should be allowed and who should not, which has had a disproportionate effect on members of a certain ethnic group—people of Roma origin. I gather on good advice from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants that a court case challenging the procedure is imminent, if it has not already been instigated.
      The really big policy issue is this: we are setting up a whole overall network of different immigration control networks in the public and private sectors, at home and abroad, that are not open to the scrutiny that we would expect in the case of such important decisions.
      The Bill is, substantively, about three things: nationality—not a matter for this debate—asylum and immigration. I assume we are trying to say that we still uphold people's right to seek asylum here. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) made a telling observation in an earlier debate about people who were accepted here during the civil war in Spain, and who have been grateful ever since.
      I note that the Westminster Hall exhibition of Low cartoons includes a cartoon from a February 1947 edition of the Evening Standard. It depicts a British worker reading his newspaper and complaining about "all these immigrants" arriving. Standing behind him are the ghosts of the Saxons, Goths, Vikings and others who—if our history is correct—made up the British race. We are in great danger of undermining the spirit of the refugee convention. If people find it impossible to leave their countries, it will by definition be impossible for them to make a case for asylum in another country.
      The clause will introduce a visa regime without safeguards. The Minister asked me in Committee whether I would prefer a system of visa control, and in many ways I would. At least everybody would then know where they stand. I realise that such a system might prove over-bureaucratic, and that problems would arise in terms of people visiting for weekends, bank holidays and other public holidays. However, at least they would be within the system, rather than outwith it. Unless we are persuaded by the Minister's reply, I therefore hope that hon. Members of all parties will join me in voting to remove clause 101 from the Bill. If we cannot remove a system that would give responsibility to carriers, and establish instead an alternative visa control system, we should at least allow the House of Lords to come back with a more acceptable proposal.
      Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief, as there are other matters that need to be discussed. I was a Member of the House in 1987, when the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill, the forerunner of clause 101, was passed. The motive behind that Bill was to prevent people who wanted to seek political asylum in this country or elsewhere in western Europe from fleeing places where they felt unsafe, and in which the danger was clear. It coincided with an increase in the number of Tamil people seeking political asylum from Sri Lanka, and with similar efforts on the part of many other countries in which political tension was increasing.

      933
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is correct: what lies behind this development is akin to the privatisation of immigration control. In reality, it denies a considerable number of people—their wish to apply for asylum in another country may well be entirely genuine and well-founded—the opportunity to get near enough to an airline desk to pursue that application. If we think back to the situation in Chile before 1990, the question of whether a political person fleeing Chile merited asylum would now be judged not by due process in this country, but by an airline clerk who would be frightened that the airline would be fined £1,000 for bringing in a passenger who would subsequently have to be removed. In fact, enormous pressure was indeed put on the desk staff of British airlines around the world not to allow people about whom they had the slightest suspicion to travel.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made a good point when he cited the example of Zimbabwe. In many other countries—Iran and Iraq, for example—someone could get as far as the airport to buy a ticket, only to be deterred from travelling by a clerk who knew nothing about the reality of the law and the justice of the claim, and who might well be a stooge of the police or the governing regime. That clerk could then deny them the right to travel, and as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, if the police are observing them, they would be put in considerable danger.
      Clause 101 is symptomatic of the paranoia that is sweeping Europe about people who seek political asylum. We live in a world that, for many people, is dangerous, divided and frightening. They regard the Geneva convention as their one hope. If we extend such controls and decision making to faraway airports, we will be comfortably ignorant of the facts. The reality is that some people put themselves at enormous risk merely by trying to exercise the rights that the United Nations convention has conferred in the countries that are signatories to it, of which we are indeed one.
      In her response, I hope that the Minister will reflect on the impact of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act and on the entire process, and that she will think again about the provision and the advice given to airline staff, which denies people their valuable human rights.
      Mr. Malins: I want briefly to raise with the Minister a couple of matters relating to the authority-to-carry scheme that I discussed in Committee. I appreciate that she was not in her post at that time. I mentioned two rail trips that were causing some concern: the twice-weekly Bourg St. Maurice ski-train, and the Disney train. In both cases, when one purchases a ticket there is a Schengen exit check, but no UK check. I mention these matters now because the former Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), kindly said in Committee that she would ensure that we were in a position to respond to any sudden clandestine activity. If the Minister has no information to hand, I should be happy for her to write to me.
      A connected matter is the critical position concerning exits from France. As Minister may know, there is at most one decent, working heartbeat detector machine for Calais and Coquelles. There is simply insufficient investment over there, and the same applies to Dover. The Minister must understand that, whatever her polices in relation to carriers' liability and the authority to carry, only one lorry
      934
      in every 100 is checked at Dover, and there is only one heartbeat detector machine. Because it is not being used properly by certain Dover authorities, it has broken down and that had to be repaired on several occasions. Far greater investment in machinery is needed, not just at Dover but on the other side of the channel.
      Those are small points that are really Committee points, and I am sorry to return to them, but the former Minister was kind enough to say in Committee that they would be considered. I should be glad to be told of developments in due course.
      Beverley Hughes: As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, the amendment would remove clause 101, which establishes an enabling power that allows for the making of regulations to establish the authority-to-carry scheme. However, removing that power would prevent the immigration and nationality directorate from embracing the potential of new technology, and deny us the opportunity to screen passengers better before they embark for the UK. There is an important point here. As the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, the details of such passengers would be checked against data held by the Home Office, to discover whether they posed any known security or immigration threat. There is therefore no possibility of the carriers themselves, or anyone associated with them, having any idea of the information on which a decision would be based. All that the carrier would get would be a yes or no answer to the question whether it has the authority to carry the person in question.
      The second important point is that the provision involves no decision as to whether the requirements of immigration rules are met. The provision is not concerned with immigration control in any shape or form. I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) that it is also in no sense a transfer or privatisation, as he termed it, of immigration control. In that regard, it has no implications. Nor does it delegate, as my hon. Friend maintained, any decision making to clerks or carriers. It is important that people understand that point.
      8 pm
      Jeremy Corbyn: If the authorities in this country say to Iranian Airlines, for example, that person X is not likely to be admitted here for terrorist or immigration reasons, will not that give some important information to a state-owned airline in a country whose human rights record is patchy? It could have implications for the person's family, especially if he or she has family in this country who are applying for asylum.
      Beverley Hughes: No reasons, be they terrorist or immigration-related, would be given to the carriers. They would simply be told whether they had the authority to bring the person to the UK. I understand well the point that my hon. Friend makes, but he and others need to consider my point: if the Home Office has information that suggests that someone is an immigration or security risk—perhaps he or she is travelling on a false passport or some information is known about his or her activities that raises concerns—is it right that we should allow that person on to an aircraft? That is the difficult decision that we have to face. If we have such information, is it right

      935
      to allow that person to be carried to this country, with whatever consequences that might have? The Government contend—it may be a point of difference between us that we cannot bridge—that it would be wrong and irresponsible to tell a carrier that it can carry such a person even though we have unanswered questions about the security risk that he or she presents.
      Mr. Allan: Will the Minister clarify the nature of the schemes proposed? They could vary from a narrow database that accurately defined individuals who posed a security risk to a blanket ruling that all Angolans travelling from Portugal are a risk because a passport scam is going on. In other words, schemes could be very specific or much more general. Will the schemes address specific individuals or classes of individuals?
      Beverley Hughes: We would need to have further discussions about the regulations, but my understanding—I have read the Committee report in detail and received further advice from officials—is that the schemes will be concerned with individuals. To be fair, I must add that that point was made by Ministers in Committee. Data will be presented by individuals to the carriers and the stored information against which the data will be checked will be about individuals. The authority-to-carry scheme would be authorised in particular areas, but the process of identification would be on an individual basis.
      Simon Hughes: Does the Minister not realise the dangerous direction in which these provisions could lead the world? For example, two years ago the Government of Sri Lanka could have told the British Government that they did not want our carriers to allow on to a plane in London anybody who might support the Tamil separatist movement. Someone could be prevented from flying to the US on the basis of the sort of dodgy information that has resulted in people being banged up in Belmarsh prison but then released by the courts because they had no case to answer. Relying on state information to stop people leaving countries is a very different ball game from relying on the duty of the British state to stop people coming into our country. It should not be our job to try to rule the world or to let other people try to rule the world outside their own territorial boundaries.
      Beverley Hughes: The information against which a person's details would be checked would be the information held by our Home Office, not information that another Government had requested us to use. I accept that that point does not remove all the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but we have to strike a balance. The answer depends on judgments about what we should do when we have information about people and know the serious consequences that can arise from carrying people, especially in aircraft, who might be a security risk. The Government's judgment is that we have a duty and responsibility to consider refusing authority to carry when we are concerned that somebody poses a security or immigration threat.
      I may not be able to bridge the gap between the Government and some hon. Members on this point, but I shall try to deal with some of the questions of detail in case that gives them some comfort. The Minister in
      936
      Committee gave an open response to the concerns expressed and made it clear that the regulations would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and transparent. Attempts would also be made to provide sufficient remedy in the regulations for any passenger refused under the scheme to challenge the decision or the data on which it was based. We can discuss the nature of the remedy, but we might be able to provide a hotline through which cases of mistaken identity or wrong information could he checked. We do not have a closed mind about remedies, and hon. Members have already been assured that we will wish to consider, where possible, speedy remedies that will offset the potential disadvantage to people of not being able to board a plane at a certain time.
      Mr. Allan: My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) gave an example in which a person missed an event of great importance because they had been refused permission to board a flight. Does the Minister accept that in such cases of error it will be difficult to assign the blame to individual airline staff or to the Home Office? Given that the Home Office will require the airlines to implement the scheme, does she accept that the Home Office should pick up compensation claims? A hotline will not help an individual who has missed the event to which they were intending to travel.
      Beverley Hughes: I make no commitment in relation to compensation per se, but if a carrier acts on the basis of information provided by the Home Office, it will not be liable for the consequences of implementing the decision. I return to the need to strike a balance on this issue. The example was given of a trip to attend a wedding. It may be that the remedy for a person—that is, attending the wedding—is not available if the authority to carry is denied. No matter how quickly the information could be checked, we might not be able to put that right. However, the alternative proposed by the Liberal Democrats—a visa scheme—could have unnecessary disadvantages for many more people. The imposition of a visa scheme on everybody in a country, as opposed to an authority-to-carry scheme that would identify only those individuals about whom concerns were felt, is another important and difficult question of balance. We do not want to impose visa regimes where they are not necessary. That would be an imposition on a whole population. The authority-to-carry scheme gives the option that individuals can be checked. Some people, such as those involved in the wedding to which reference has been made, may suffer irredeemable consequences, but that possibility has to be balanced against the consequences if a whole population had to go through a bureaucratic process to obtain a visa.
      I might be able to give the House some comfort on some of the details. A question was asked concerning the type of personal data that would be requested, and whether the requirements would extend to sources of personal information that are not sought currently. I assure the House that addressees would not be asked for that sort of data. The information requested would be confined to the person's name, date of birth, gender and nationality, and the nature of the travel document involved. As I understand it, people seeking leave to travel have to give exactly that information now.

      937
      Concerns have been raised about asylum seekers. Authority-to-carry schemes are designed to identify people thought to pose an immigration or security threat. Almost by definition, they would not normally be people who had been to the UK before. Unless a first-time asylum seeker was known to present a threat for some other reason, he or she would not fall foul, almost by definition, of the authority-to-carry scheme. It is unlikely that there would be any information at all on such people. Why would there be?
      Jeremy Corbyn: If a member of the family of a person in this country who has sought political asylum here applies to fly to Britain, will he or she be tagged on the system as a person likely not to be admitted, or will that person be allowed to come here?
      Beverley Hughes: I have made it clear that the information needed to give a yes or no answer to carriers would be that which suggests that there is or is not an immigration or security threat. Relatives of people who come here legally and declare themselves to be asylum seekers so that a claim can be handled in the normal way would clearly not pose an immigration threat. It may be a different matter when it comes to people who come here illegally, but in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend I see no reason to believe that there would be an immigration threat.
      This issue raises some difficult questions about balance. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has said. I hope that he is persuaded by the points that I have made about the detail of the scheme and about the extent to which we want to get it right so that we can reduce to a minimum the negative consequences for individuals. On balance, we think that the authority-to-carry scheme is preferable to an all-out visa scheme. For that reason, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. If he presses it to a vote, I hope that the House will support the Government's proposal.
      8.15 pm
      Simon Hughes: With the leave of the House, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her courteous reply. We are talking about new ideas, so there are many unanswered questions. The proposal has not been thought through or prepared sufficiently, although I do not dissent from what she has said.
      I mentioned the option of establishing a visa system, but that is only one alternative. I shall offer another. If the Government had information leading them to believe that certain people thought to be in Pakistan or Iraq, for instance, would not be accepted here, they could use the normal channels and communicate the matter to the authorities in that country. That is what happens now, and it would mean that the Home Office and immigration authorities, the police and the internal administration system could intervene if they wanted to and if they thought the person involved would get leave to come here and pose a threat.
      If a person has a criminal past or a history of being what the Minister called an immigration threat—a phrase to which I shall return—or, more importantly, a security threat, liaison with agencies such as MI5, MI6, Interpol and others would offer other ways in which to handle
      938
      the matter. That would be better than using commercial operators to tell people that they would not be able to travel.
      Secondly, if the Government are going to go down this road, the time to tell people that they cannot travel is when they seek to book their tickets. The people involved will at least then be alerted to the difficulties before they arrive at the airport.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) has pointed out to me that he has never been asked for his date of birth when booking an airline ticket or turning up at a checkout. Neither have I, so the sort of information that the Minister spoke about goes beyond what people would normally be asked for when purchasing tickets or boarding an aeroplane.
      Thirdly, a real danger that the Government have not thought through—but which was mentioned by me and by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—involves people at risk in their own countries. If the authorities see someone being rejected and do not know whether that has happened because that person, in his or her past, came to Britain on a false passport, or because that person is an international security threat, they might draw the worst rather than the best conclusions. There is a terrible risk that a person in that situation could be regarded as much more dangerous than is truly the case. The result is that that person could become even more vulnerable, and that would also be out of our control.
      Finally, if the Government want to pursue this proposal they should talk to partner Governments in the EU, in the international associations covering air transport and in the other international organisations, to see whether there can be agreement about a common scheme. However, any such scheme must defend people's liberties. It should not build yet more barriers around a fortress Britain in an increasingly fortress Europe and fortress world.
      The Minister is right that a balance must be struck between combating international terrorism and preventing people from abusing immigration and other systems. We judge that the measure goes far beyond that. The implications have not been thought through, and I urge the House to support amendment No. 66.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 61, Noes 301.

      Division No. 270]

      [8.17 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Dodds, Nigel

      Baker, Norman

      Doughty, Sue

      Barrett, John

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Beggs, Roy

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Beith, Rt Hon AJ

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Brake, Tom

      Gidley, Sandra

      Breed, Colin

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Hancock, Mike

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Burnett, John

      Heath, David

      Burnside, David

      Hermon, Lady

      Burstow, Paul

      Holmes, Paul

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Keetch, Paul

      Chidgey, David

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Cotter, Brian

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Lamb, Norman

      939

      Laws, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Moore, Michael

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Oaten, Mark

      Tyler, Paul

      Öpik, Lembit

      Weir, Michael

      Pugh, Dr John

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Willis, Phil

      Rendel, David

      Wishart, Pete

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sanders, Adrian

      John Thurso and

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Sir Robert Smith

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Crausby, David

      Allen, Graham

      Cruddas, Jon

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      (Swansea E)

      Cummings, John

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Atkins, Charlotte

      (Copeland)

      Austin, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Banks, Tony

      Dalyell, Tam

      Barnes, Harry

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Barron, Kevin

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Battle, John

      David, Wayne

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Davidson, Ian

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bell, Stuart

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Benn, Hilary

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Dawson, Hilton

      Benton, Joe

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Berry, Roger

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Blackman, Liz

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dismore, Andrew

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Doran, Frank

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dowd, Jim

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

      Drew, David

      (Dunfermline E)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Edwards, Huw

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Efford, Clive

      Browne, Desmond

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ennis, Jeff

      Burden, Richard

      Fisher, Mark

      Burgon, Colin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burnham, Andy

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Cairns, David

      Flint, Caroline

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Follett, Barbara

      Casale, Roger

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Caton, Martin

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Challen, Colin

      Gapes, Mike

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Chaytor, David

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Gerrard, Neil

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Grogan, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hanson, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Cox, Tom

      Healey, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      940

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hendrick, Mark

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Meale, Alan

      Heppell, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Hesford, Stephen

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Miliband, David

      Heyes, David

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hill, Keith

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hinchliffe, David

      Morgan, Julie

      Hodge, Margaret

      Morley, Elliot

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mullin, Chris

      Hope, Phil

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Olner, Bill

      Hume, John

      Organ, Diana

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Owen, Albert

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Pearson, Ian

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Perham, Linda

      Jamieson, David

      Pike, Peter

      Jenkins, Brian

      Plaskitt, James

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pound, Stephen

      Joyce, Eric

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kemp, Fraser

      Purchase, Ken

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Purnell, James

      Khabra, Piara S

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Kidney, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rammell, Bill

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Rapson, Syd

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Robertson, John

      Lammy, David

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Rooney, Terry

      Lepper, David

      Ross, Ernie

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ruane, Chris

      Levitt Tom

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ryan, Joan

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Salter, Martin

      Linton, Martin

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lloyd, Tony

      Sawford, Phil

      Love, Andrew

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Lucas, Ian

      Sheridan, Jim

      Luke, Iain

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Lyons, John

      Simon, Siôn

      McCabe, Stephen

      Singh, Marsha

      McCafferty, Chris

      Skinner, Dennis

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Soley, Clive

      McKechin, Ann

      Southworth, Helen

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Squire, Rachel

      McNulty, Tony

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      MacShane, Denis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Stevenson, George

      McWalter, Tony

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      McWilliam, John

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mann, John

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Marris, Rob

      Stringer, Graham

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      941

      Tami, Mark

      Watts, David

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      White, Brian

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Timms, Stephen

      Wilson, Brian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Winnick, David

      Todd, Mark

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Touhig, Don

      Wood, Mike

      Trickett, Jon

      Woodward, Shaun

      Truswell, Paul

      Woolas, Phil

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)

      Wray, James

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Twigg, Derek (Halto)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Tynan, Bill

      Vaz, Keith

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mr. Ivor Caplin.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 117

      ASSISTING UNLAWFUL IMMIGRATION, &C.
      Amendments made: No. 195, in page 62, line 35, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

      '(a) does an act which facilitates the commission of a breach of immigration law by an individual who is not a citizen of the European Union,

      (b) knows or has reasonable cause for believing that the act facilitates the commission of a breach of immigration law by the individual, and

      (c) knows or has reasonable cause for believing that the individual is not a citizen of the European Union.'.

      No. 196, in page 63, line 5, leave out "travel within" and insert "transit across".
      No. 197, in page 64, line 2, after "which", insert—
      '(a)'.
      No. 198, in page 64, line 2, at end insert—
      ', and
      (b) does not charge for its services'.
      No. 199, in page 64, line 6, after "deportation", insert "or exclusion".
      No. 200, in page 64, line 8, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

      '(a) does an act which facilitates a breach of a deportation order in force against an individual who is a citizen of the European Union, and

      (b) knows or has reasonable cause for believing that the act facilitates a breach of the deportation order.'.

      No. 201, in page 64, line 12, at end insert—
      '(1A) Subsection (1B) applies where the Secretary of State personally directs that the exclusion from the United Kingdom of an individual who is a citizen of the European Union is conducive to the public good.
      (1B) A person commits an offence if he—

      (a) does an act which assists the individual to arrive in, enter or remain in the United Kingdom,

      (b) knows or has reasonable cause for believing that the act assists the individual to arrive in, enter or remain in the United Kingdom, and

      (c) knows or has reasonable cause for believing that the Secretary of State has personally directed that the individual's exclusion from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good.'.

      No. 202, in page 65, line 7, leave out—
      'brought more than 20 illegal entrants to the United Kingdom'
      and insert—
      'carried more than 20 illegal entrants'.
      No. 203, in page 65, line 12, leave out—
      'to bring illegal entrants to the United Kingdom'
      and insert—
      'in the course of the commission of an offence under section 25, 25A or 25B'.
      No. 204, in page 65, line 23, at end insert—
      '(9) In the case of an offence under section 25, the reference in subsection (5)(a) to an illegal entrant shall be taken to include a reference to—

      (a) an individual who seeks to enter a member State in breach of immigration law (within the meaning of section 25), and

      (b) an individual who is a passenger for the purpose of section 118 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (traffic in prostitution).

      (10) In the case of an offence under section 25A, the reference in subsection (5)(a) to an illegal entrant shall be taken to include a reference to—

      (a) an asylum-seeker (within the meaning of that section), and

      (b) an individual who is a passenger for the purpose of section 118(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

      (11) In the case of an offence under section 25B, the reference in subsection (5)(a) to an illegal entrant shall be taken to include a reference to an individual who is a passenger for the purpose of section 118(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.'.
      No. 205, in page 65, line 24, leave out subsection (2).—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]

    Clause 119

      SECTION 118: SUPPLEMENTARY
      Amendment made: No. 206, in page 66, line 25, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      '(3) Sections 25C and 25D of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (forfeiture or detention of vehicle, &c.) shall apply in relation to an offence under section 118 of this Act as they apply in relation to an offence under section 25 of that Act.'.—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]

    Clause 121

      REGISTRATION CARD
      Mr. Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 68, leave out lines 19 to 21.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 207.
      Mr. Allan: Amendment No. 73 deals with registration cards, which are to be issued to all asylum seekers. We understand that that work has already commenced. We expressed concerns about this in Committee; Liberal Democrat Members have concerns about registration cards in the wider sense, and we sought assurances that they would be restricted to specific purposes to do with asylum and immigration.

      943
      The amendment would prevent the Home Secretary from being able to extend the use of registration cards, even into areas of immigration, through secondary legislation. We remain concerned, as we were in Committee, about the possible extension of registration cards without proper parliamentary scrutiny.
      8.30 pm
      We understood from the Minister's comments in Committee that the initial intention was to limit the card to asylum seekers. Indeed, clause 121(1)(b) is specific about the card being
      "issued…in connection with a claim for asylum".
      We suggested in Committee that if the Government's intention was simply to extend the cards for immigration purposes, it would be better to spell that out in the Bill. The Government have not made any consequential changes and we are left, therefore, with a clause that clearly deals with registration cards for asylum seekers.
      We understood the reason for that and the logic behind it—moving from the voucher system towards a system under which benefits could be claimed. Our understanding is that the cards are really entitlement cards and will be of advantage to the individuals who hold them. That is our general approach to the use of registration or identity cards—they are something that can benefit the individual, which justifies their introduction. On the face of it, however, the clause is saying, "Let us have registration cards for asylum seekers", but subsection (7) will leave the way open to the Secretary of State to
      "by order…amend the definition of 'registration card'".
      The Bill is called the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill and it deals with different categories of people. Asylum seekers are a small and well defined category. In Committee, it was certainly suggested that the amendment envisaged in subsection (7) might mean the inclusion of a broader category of immigration applicant. All people who have immigration business would be a much wider category than asylum seekers—all those with nationality business are a wider category again. Our concern remains that we do not want a provision for asylum seekers to be extended to those broader categories without further parliamentary scrutiny.
      The Bill without the amendment, which would remove the order-making powers, leaves far too much discretion to the Secretary of State to extend the requirement for individuals to carry registration cards. We want further assurances from the Government. In particular, we seek an assurance that they intend further to define the registration card in a manner that will parallel the present definition, rather than leaving us with the definition in the Bill—that the card is for purposes connected with asylum, but with a get-out clause that would allow the Secretary of State to rewrite the provision and say that it is for purposes x, y and z without further defining what those are, other than that they must be generally within the immigration field. We hope that the Government do not intend to leave the legislation like that and we seek further information from the Minister as to what their intentions are.
      Ms Rosie Winterton: I hope that I may be able to give the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) some assurances on that matter.
      944
      Clause 121 would insert new section 26A into the Immigration Act 1971. The section would introduce a number of offences to deal with the creation, possession and use of false or altered registration cards, which are also known as application registration cards, ARCs. Those cards are at present issued to asylum seekers and their dependants as an acknowledgement of their application for asylum. They contain information about the individual asylum seeker, including his or her name, address, nationality, date of birth, photograph and fingerprints, which are stored on a computer chip, as the hon. Gentleman said. They are issued to asylum seekers when they leave the induction process.
      I emphasise that the card is not an identity card, but it will certainly speed up the process of establishing a holder's identity when reporting to the immigration service and when accessing any benefits that an asylum seeker may be entitled to at a post office. Holders of the card will not be required to carry it or to produce it to a police officer. That matter was raised in our earlier debates. Obviously, however, they may find it useful to carry the card to help to establish their identity.
      Although the card has been designed to incorporate a number of security features, which will certainly make it difficult to forge or to alter, attempts may be made to do so. That is the reason why we have created the forgery offences in clause 121.
      The definition of a registration card in subsection (1) of the clause refers to a card
      "issued…in connection with a claim for asylum",
      but it is possible that in future registration cards will be issued to other classes of person who are subject to immigration control. Subsection (7) therefore allows the Secretary of State to make an order by the affirmative procedure to change the definition of a registration card for the purposes of the offences in the clause. There would have to be an affirmative order to create the offence to ensure that if the card were extended to other areas, it would be an offence to forge it. The purpose of that power is to ensure that if registration cards are issued to non-asylum seekers, the offences contained in clause 121 will apply to those cards.
      The amendment would not affect the immigration and nationality directorate's ability to issue cards to non-asylum seekers because, as I said, clause 121 is not concerned with conferring powers to issue cards, it merely creates offences in relation to cards that have already been issued.
      If the amendment is intended, therefore, to restrict IND's ability to issue cards to non-asylum seekers, it would not achieve that purpose. Obviously, it would also create an anomalous and undesirable situation, as someone could commit a criminal offence if they altered a card issued to an asylum seeker, but would not commit any offence if they forged a card that was issued to, for example, an illegal entrant.
      The order-making power in subsection (7) is subject to affirmative resolution, which offers a safeguard to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise any changes in the definition of the card.
      The hon. Gentleman raises several issues about the way in which the card could be extended. Perhaps I can reassure him because, as he will know, the cards are currently issued to new asylum seekers, and we have a

      945
      programme to extend them to existing asylum seekers. However, in future, the IND could consider issuing the card to other categories of people subject to control under immigration legislation. Obviously, the IND is not yet certain which additional categories of people will be covered by ARCs.
      Mr. Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend says that more categories of people could be included, but that would not include anyone who had received indefinite leave to remain, would it?
      Ms Winterton: I was about to refer to the type of people who would be covered. The basis of the functionality of ARCs is a biometric representation of fingerprints, so it is unlikely that an ARC could be issued to anyone who could not be fingerprinted under section 141 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. That helps to explain that the categories are limited to the people who could be fingerprinted.
      I could give some examples if that would assist hon. Members. For example, people who fail to produce a valid passport with a photograph or other document satisfactorily establishing their identity and nationality on arrival in the United Kingdom could perhaps be given ARCs on the basis that their identity is open to doubt. We do not know their true identity or necessarily where they came from. Even if we know both those things, to remove them from the United Kingdom we would need the co-operation of their country of origin, which is by no means a forgone conclusion. I could give other examples, but I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that we seek only to extend the categories to those people.
      I now come to Government amendment No. 207. Section 28B of the Immigration Act 1971 allows a justice of the peace to issue a warrant authorising an immigration officer to enter premises to arrest a person suspected of committing a relevant offence. A relevant offence for the purposes of that section is defined in subsection (5) and includes the current offence of harbouring an illegal entrant or overstayer under section 25(2).
      Clause 123(2) will add new offences relating to ARCs and the possession of an immigration stamp to the list of relevant offences. However, the present 25(2) offence will be subsumed into the general offences under proposed new sections 25 and 25B, inserted by clause 117. The power to enter to effect an arrest for those offences will come under section 28C of the 1971 Act, so there is no need for the section 25(2) offence to be a relevant offence for the purposes of section 28B. Indeed, proposed new section 25(2) does not contain a separate offence. That is why we have tabled Government amendment No. 207. I very much hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam will withdraw the amendment and accept Government amendment No. 207.
      Mr. Allan: I thank the Minister for gently and courteously informing me that I have been tilting at the wrong windmill and seeking to limit the Government's power to specify the offences involving registration cards, rather than dealing with the registration cards themselves. It remains a great joy to me that we often end up talking about things by proxy when we debate legislation in the House. For example, primary legislation is not needed to introduce the registration cards, but it is needed to create the offences that relate to them. I am sure that we shall
      946
      return to registration cards on many other occasions, but having heard the Minister's argument, I think it appropriate to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 123
      SECTIONS 121 AND 122: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 207, in page 69, line 15, leave out "25(2),".—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]
    Clause 125

      POWER OF ENTRY
      8.45 pm
      Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in page 70, line 44, after "28CA", insert ", 28FA or 28FB".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 91.
      Amendment No. 74, in clause 126, page 71, line 16, leave out from "if" to end of line 17 and insert—
      'on application made by an immigration officer a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing'.
      Amendment No. 75, in page 71, line 20, leave out "employee records" and insert "records of that employee".
      Government amendments Nos. 92 and 93.
      Amendment No. 76, in page 71, line 25, leave out "employee records" and insert "records of that employee".
      Government amendment No. 94.
      Amendment No. 77, in page 71, line 33, leave out "employee records" and insert "records of that employee".
      Government amendments Nos. 95 to 102.
      Beverley Hughes: These amendments relate to the new powers of entry to business premises and the power to search employee records. Section 146(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 already allows an immigration officer exercising his or her powers under the Immigration Act 1971 to use reasonable force if necessary. Subsection (2) confers an equivalent power on anyone exercising the fingerprinting powers in section 141 or 142 of the 1999 Act or powers under regulations made under section 144, which relate to other methods of collecting information about physical characteristics apart from fingerprinting.
      An immigration officer exercising the new powers of entry and search created by clauses 125 and 126 will be able to use reasonable force because these powers are being inserted into the 1971 Act. The use of reasonable force by anyone else, however, requires express provision to be made. As the clauses also confer powers on constables and, in the case of clause 125, on detainee custody officers, express provision has to be made to allow them to use reasonable force.
      That has already been done in respect of the power of entry. The first of these amendments therefore makes the equivalent provision when a police constable is using the new powers to search for personnel records. The second makes the necessary consequential change to the title of the sections.

      947
      The power to inspect employee records under the new section 28FA, which is inserted by clause 126, is very limited. It is a power that does not require a warrant because, for reasons that I shall explain, we believe that that is the only effective way in which it can be exercised. We also believe that we have provided sufficient safeguards in the exercise of the power to ensure that the rights of all parties will be properly protected.
      The new power to inspect employee records can be exercised only when a person has been arrested on business premises for one of the specified offences, or when someone is present on business premises who is liable to be arrested for one of those offences. In other words, it requires that a person is identified who is thought to be an immigration offender. If, in addition, the constable or immigration officer reasonably believes that an offence under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 may have been committed, and that employee records on the premises will be of substantial value to the investigation of the offence, this clause allows him or her to search for, seize and retain those records.
      By way of an example, let us suppose that someone has been arrested on business premises for being an illegal entrant. In that case, such a person would not have permission to work in the UK. That would mean that the employer is likely to be committing an offence under section 8 of the 1996 Act by employing that person. When an officer reasonably believes that the employer has committed this offence, and that there will be records on the premises that will substantially assist the investigation of it, he or she can search the premises.
      If amendment No. 74, tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), were to be accepted, however, once someone liable to arrest had been identified, everything would have to stop while an immigration officer went off and applied to a magistrate for a warrant to search for the relevant employee records. Quite what the constable would do in those circumstances is unclear because, under the amendment, only an immigration officer would be allowed to apply for a warrant for that purpose.
      If the officer were forced to go to the magistrates court to obtain a warrant, the employer would clearly have every incentive and opportunity to destroy any evidence of the section 8 offence that had existed before the officer returned. The fact that the employee had been arrested or identified as liable to arrest would clearly have alerted the employer to the interest of the enforcement authorities. In these circumstances, we believe that a power to search without warrant is necessary and proportionate. The amendment would therefore render the new power in the new section 28FA completely ineffective. That is why we cannot accept it.
      Amendments Nos. 75 to 77 would limit the power to search for personnel records under the new section 28FA to a power to search for, seize and retain the records of the person who has been arrested or believed to be liable to arrest. We do not believe that such limitations are practical or desirable. Amendment No. 75 seeks to ensure that the power of search is triggered only when an officer reasonably believes that the records of the arrested person will be found on the premises. The amendment is unnecessary. The proposed new subsection (2) already
      948
      makes it clear that the power of search will be triggered only if the officer reasonably believes that an immigration employment offence has been committed in relation to the person arrested and that employee records will be found that will be of substantial value in the investigation of that offence.
      Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 seek to restrict the scope of the search that can be undertaken and the powers of seizure and retention of employment records to the records of the arrested person. Again, we believe that that limitation is impractical and does not take into account the realities of conducting a search of personnel records: one has to search a whole drawer of records to try to find the one that relates to the person arrested or who is liable to arrest. It is impractical—I would say impossible—not to search through other records to try to find the record one wants. It is highly unlikely that the records of the suspected offender will be kept separately from those of other employees.
      If a constable or immigration officer is searching for the records of that employee, he or she must of necessity have to search through the records of all employees. If, in the course of that search, the constable or immigration officer comes across evidence of other immigration employment offences or evidence of NASS fraud, that person cannot simply ignore it. That would be absurd. He or she needs to be able to seize and retain that evidence immediately. That is what the clause allows.
      Mr. Vaz: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but it sounds a bit like a fishing expedition. The hope is that looking at other records might mean that other offences are discovered. Can she assure me that the records will be returned as soon as possible after the person involved has been dealt with?
      Beverley Hughes: It is not a fishing expedition. I am simply making the point that seeking the employment records of a person who has been arrested or is liable for arrest because he is a suspect inevitably means that a constable must go through a bank of records to see whether the one that he wants is there. In doing that, if records of other people who may be suspected of employment offences come to light, that fact cannot be ignored.
      The Government amendments seek to clarify the conditions that relate to this power and that have to be satisfied for a search to be conducted under the new section. Our amendments are perfectly reasonable and understandable. I hope that the House will accept them.
      Mr. Allan: I shall concentrate on amendments Nos. 74 to 77 and I give notice of our intention to divide the House on amendment No. 74, which deals with an important principle.
      We believe that whenever possible there should be prior judicial scrutiny of requests by law enforcement authorities to search for personal information on premises and remove it. We need to strike a balance between the rights of the employer and the other employees. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) referred to a fishing expedition. Our problem is not with those fishing expeditions that are successful because they catch a full haul of fish, but with those that go through the records of innocent fish for no particular reason. People are rightly aggrieved if their privacy is breached when no serious offence has been committed.

      949
      The rights of the innocent employees whose records may be seized under the provisions and the rights of the employers should be taken seriously. We would, of course, accept advice on who should seek the JP's warrant—the immigration officer and the constable as opposed to just the immigration officer, perhaps. However, without judicial scrutiny there is a serious risk that the powers could be used in an overbearing way.
      If the judicial scrutiny element is included in the legislation, we could develop systems that work. That is especially relevant to those cases in which a constable or immigration officer believes that offences are liable to be committed and that employer X is employing people illegally. In those circumstances, there is no reason why they should not go to a magistrate and get authority for a search warrant as they would in many other instances that require law enforcement agencies to have warrants.
      An additional safeguard is required. There is a risk that the powers will be used inappropriately if the Bill is left unamended, so we will seek to divide the House on amendment No. 74.
      Mr. Malins: There is a problem with the clause. Whenever one sees a reference to search warrants, one wants to see a reference to the courts. The Minister will know that when an officer wants to obtain a search warrant for premises on which there are drugs, he goes before a district judge or magistrate, swears an information setting out his reasons for believing that the premises contain drugs and is then examined by the court, which asks for more information and cross-examines him on it. Only when the magistrate or district judge is satisfied that there is a reasonable case does he grant the warrant.
      Proposed new section 28FA states:
      "This section applies where … a constable … reasonably believes that a person is liable to arrest for an offence."
      In the example that I gave of drugs on the premises, there was a possible challenge to the constable's reasonable belief, which would have been made before the warrant was executed by the district judge. However, the Bill makes no provision for the reasonable belief of a constable to be challenged because there can be no prior challenge and a subsequent challenge would effectively be invalid. The Government have to address that dilemma.
      The other dilemma that they face has been alluded to: will the proposal result in a fishing exercise? The amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats attempt to narrow the remit to the employee records of the employee concerned. When the Minister reads Hansard, she will observe that she referred to the importance of "the relevant employee records". In other words, the records should be limited to that employee. She said that one has to search records thoroughly to find the relevant ones, but what distresses me is that all the records of a firm can be searched, removed and acted on because of the reasonable belief of an immigration officer, which is not capable of challenge. That is a big worry.
      Beverley Hughes: I simply commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      It being Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [11 June].

    Clause 126

      POWER TO SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE
      Amendment proposed: No. 74, in page 71, line 16, leave out from "if" to end of line 17 and insert—
      'on application made by an immigration officer a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing'.—[Mr. Allan.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 292.

      Division No. 271]

      [9 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Baker, Norman

      Keetch, Paul

      Barrett, John

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

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Brake, Tom

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Breed, Colin

      Lamb, Norman

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Laws, David

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Burnett, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Burstow, Paul

      Moore, Michael

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Oaten, Mark

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      öpik, Lembit

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Pugh, Dr John

      Chidgey, David

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Rendel, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Doughty, Sue

      Sanders, Adrian

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Galloway, George

      Thurso, John

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Gidley, Sandra

      Tyler, Paul

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Weir, Michael

      Hancock, Mike

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Willis, Phil

      Heath, David

      Wishart, Pete

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Holmes, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mr. Andrew Stunell and

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Sir Robert Smith.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Allen, Graham

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Browne, Desmond

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Burden, Richard

      Austin, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Banks, Tony

      Burnham, Andy

      Barnes, Harry

      Burnside, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Cairns, David

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Beggs, Roy

      Casale, Roger

      Benn, Hilary

      Caton, Martin

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cawsey, Ian

      Benton, Joe

      Challen, Colin

      Berry, Roger

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Blackman, Liz

      Chaytor, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Clelland, David

      Brennan, Kevin

      Clwyd, Ann

      951

      Coaker, Vernon

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Cousins, Jim

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cox, Tom

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cranston, Ross

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Crausby, David

      Jamieson, David

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      David, Wayne

      Joyce, Eric

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Khabra, Piara S

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Kidney, David

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dismore, Andrew

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Doran, Frank

      Lammy, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lepper, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Edwards, Huw

      Levitt, Tom

      Efford, Clive

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lloyd, Tony

      Ennis, Jeff

      Love, Andrew

      Fisher, Mark

      Lucas, Ian

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Luke, Iain

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lyons, John

      Flint, Caroline

      McCabe, Stephen

      Flynn, Paul

      McCafferty, Chris

      Follett, Barbara

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gapes, Mike

      McKechin, Ann

      Gardiner, Barry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      McNulty, Tony

      Gerrard, Neil

      MacShane, Denis

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gilroy, Linda

      McWalter, Tony

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Goggins, Paul

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mann, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Marris, Rob

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Grogan, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hanson, David

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Miliband, David

      Healey, John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hendrick, Mark

      Morgan, Julie

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Morley, Elliot

      Heppell, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Hesford, Stephen

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Heyes, David

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hill, Keith

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hinchliffe, David

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hodge, Margaret

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hoey, Kate

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hope, Phil

      Olner, Bill

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Organ, Diana

      952

      Owen, Albert

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stevenson, George

      Pearson, Ian

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Perham, Linda

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Pike, Peter

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Plaskitt, James

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pollard, Kerry

      Stringer, Graham

      Pond, Chris

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pound, Stephen

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Tami, Mark

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Purchase, Ken

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Purnell, James

      Timms, Stephen

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Todd, Mark

      Rammell, Bill

      Touhig, Don

      Rapson, Syd

      Trickett, Jon

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Truswell, Paul

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rooney, Terry

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Ross, Ernie

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Roy, Frank

      Wareing, Robert N

      Ruane, Chris

      Watts, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      White, Brian

      Ryan, Joan

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Salter, Martin

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Sawford, Phil

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wilson, Brian

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Winnick, David

      Simon, Siôn

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Singh, Marsha

      Wood, Mike

      Skinner, Dennis

      Woodward, Shaun

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Woolas, Phil

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wray, James

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Soley, Clive

      Wyatt, Derek

      Southworth, Helen

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Squire, Rachel

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mr. Ivor Caplin.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      9.14 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I should like to thank both past and present Ministers for their work and support over the past few months in introducing a complex and difficult measure. I should also like to thank Labour Members for the forbearance that they have shown and the contribution that they have made, and the two major Opposition parties for the way in which the debate has been conducted from Second Reading, through the Committee stage and over the past two days. That impressive difference in tone, compared with the way in which nationality, immigration and asylum issues have been dealt with in the past in this House and elsewhere, has made a difference to the way in which hon. Members and people outside the House have been able to address these very sensitive issues.

      953
      We have had disagreements and will continue to do so, but there has been a unanimity about the way forward that could not have been expected even a year ago.
      In the White Paper and in subsequent debates we have tried to balance the critical issues involved. We want to offer a warm welcome to people from across the world who wish to come to our shores to settle, to work, to be educated, to visit, to be able to integrate through diversity in our society, to bring different cultures, experiences and enterprise, to contribute to the development of our economy and our social life, to make a difference to local communities and to be able to show a different face. This is Britain—a nation that has been built up over the generations and centuries and of which we are proud today.
      Only six months ago, there was controversy about being proud of that heritage and welcoming people as British nationals prepared to learn our language and about our citizenship, culture and history, and to participate in a ceremony to celebrate an important event. Over the past six months, that controversy has died away. The Bill's passage through Second Reading, Committee, Report and, I hope, Third Reading has signalled that people no longer believe that that is a controversial issue.
      It is also no longer controversial to take the view that we can welcome people legitimately into our country while being robust in developing a system that is trusted, that has the confidence of the British people and that protects our borders and prevents clandestine entry and illegal working. The Bill encapsulates, as the White Paper sought to, the balance between that warm welcome and a hard-headed and sensible, but sensitive, approach to ensuring that our hospitality is not exploited. I said that when I presented the White Paper and on Second Reading, and I say so tonight. We can be proud of providing a sensitive and balanced policy that gets it right in turns not only of our humanitarian obligations and simple humanity, but of our common sense and knowledge that there will always be those who exploit the weak and the timorous, who do not hear the clarion call of clear leadership. That is why, in taking on prejudice and racism, we must be clear about our own leadership and the values that we hold. We must take a common-sense approach that ensures that people know both that we are not to be taken for granted and that we understand what is necessary to protect their interests.
      It is in that spirit that I ask the House to give the Bill its Third Reading. I do so briefly, so that hon. Members can express their views and have their opinions heard in that broader context: not on individual items on which we may have differences, but on the broad thrust—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I mean the right hon. Gentleman no discourtesy, but he should address the Chair.
      Mr. Blunkett: I shall happily address the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      That broad thrust, which unites so many hon. Members and people outside the House, is not to make mischief, not to pretend that we are introducing measures that we are not, not to use terms such as "concentration" for open accommodation centres, and not to encourage people to believe that we are introducing measures that suppress the right of people across the world to come to our shores and
      954
      to be welcomed in doing so, but to ensure that we as a Parliament express a unified view that we can take all these measures in a manner that commands the support of the British people. If we can do that, we shall do the British nation an our global humanitarian interests a great service.
      I intend to try to achieve the goal through bilateral and multilateral negotiations with our European partners on behalf of our Parliament, and by ensuring that we build social cohesion in our communities, understanding for our stance and a deep and lasting commitment against racists, who will always exploit differences and would bring us to our knees if they had the chance.
      9.20 pm
      Mr. Letwin: I join the Home Secretary in welcoming the tone of our national debates on asylum in past months. I am also pleased that our discussions have been rational and that some progress has been made in understanding each other's positions. I welcome the Government's significant moves towards our position.
      The Bill remains a curate's egg—it has some good and bad bits. It is good that it sets out the legal foundation in domestic law for the move towards bilateral and multilateral agreements. The Home Secretary knows that I pressed him on that for months, and I shall continue to do that for, I hope, not many more months. I have no doubt that he will claim a great victory when he achieves the bilateral agreement. I hope that he will remember that there was a time when he did not believe in the need for it. I shall consider it a major success if we manage, through him, to achieve that necessary goal.
      The measure sets out a framework for accommodation centres—another Conservative suggestion with an older origin. It is a credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that she began the process of persuading the Labour Government of the need to move in that general direction. We have pointed out at many stages that, although the accommodation centres are an improvement on our starting point, they remain unlikely to fulfil the critical role that is essential if the system is to work properly. I shall not speak about the many detailed amendments that are required for the centres to operate properly.
      I want to animadvert to perhaps the most ingenious coup that the Home Secretary has pulled off in his term of office. I know of no other major officer-holder in the Government who has managed to create a problem and subsequently collect so much praise from so many quarters and so much opprobrium from others for solving it.
      By dint of moving towards large centres in rural areas, the Home Secretary created the problem that local schools could not withstand the effects of having all the children in the centres deposited on them. He subsequently solved the problem, thereby acquiring a reputation in parts of the right-wing press as the sort of Home Secretary who should be the shadow Home Secretary. I wrestle with that problem daily. I cannot understand why his production of a solution to a problem that he created is a matter for congratulation in the right-wing press. I hope that we will persuade him of the need for smaller centres that will not cause the difficulties, and thus deprive him of a victory for solving a problem that did not need to arise.
      The need, which the Home Secretary identified, for a balanced and effective system remains. It has to balance the needs of people who are desperate with those of our

      955
      nation to control the flow of immigration through proper and fair rules. It has to be effective, because if it is not, the whole immigration system will be brought into disrepute, and control over it will cease to be a possibility. We share those acknowledgments, not just across these Dispatch Boxes but more widely, in Parliament and beyond.
      The great advance that we have made is that there is now a general recognition—I agree with the Home Secretary about this—that this subject needs to be addressed, and that we need a system that is not only balanced but effective. I hope that three years from now, the Home Secretary's measures will have achieved that, and that he will make enough further changes to the Bill to maximise the chances of achieving that desirable result.
      9.25 pm
      Angela Eagle: I had not thought, when I wound up the Second Reading debate on the Floor of the House on 24 April, that I would be making my contribution on Third Reading from the Back Benches. But the view from up here is quite good, and I am sure that I am going to enjoy myself.
      I should like to thank those right hon. and hon. Members who were kind enough to compliment me at the beginning of the debate on Report—it was much appreciated. I also wish the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), very well in her new post. I admire her greatly and I am sure that she will do a good job.
      Given my new-found freedom, it will not surprise the House that I shall now be making a different speech on Third Reading from the one that, two weeks ago, I had anticipated making. Before anyone gets too excited, I should say that this speech will not consist of sudden and spiteful anti-Government rhetoric. Indeed, I continue to support what the Government are trying to achieve in the Bill. I wish, however, to air publicly a couple of the points that I have been making in private, which I believe will increase our chances of success.
      We are right to see immigration and asylum as one of the most emotive and difficult issues facing us today, which is why I welcome the tone of our debates, both Upstairs in Committee and on the Floor of the House. We are right to see it as a difficult issue for Governments of the progressive left, and to accept that it is not one that we should duck. A superficial analysis of recent elections in Europe will blame worries about illegal immigration and asylum for the string of losses suffered by social democrats. While the uncertainty and hostility to illegal immigration was undoubtedly a feature in some cases, that analysis is an over-simplification.
      I cannot agree with the third-way guru, Anthony Giddens, who recently argued that the far right can be beaten by being tough on immigration. I might have agreed with him if he had said "illegal immigration", but since he did not, I have to say to him that we will not deal with this issue by out-Powelling Enoch. Indeed, it would be immoral to be caught triangulating with far-right fanatics. Fortunately, that is not what the Bill does. We need a system that makes decisions fairly and effectively, cuts out the profits of the traffickers and deals firmly with
      956
      those who seek to abuse either the asylum or the immigration system. This should include those who employ clandestine immigrants illegally in the United Kingdom.
      Giddens went on to argue that we need to be
      "tough on the causes of hostility to immigrants".
      That is part of his agenda with which I can agree, and this is an area in which we need to do much more. Too many of our ethnic minority communities still suffer a daily experience of racism and discrimination, exacerbated by certain debates and by hysterical press coverage of the asylum issue. The Government must work harder to make our vision of equality a reality for these communities. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and the recent introduction of tougher sentences for racially and religiously motivated crime is a step forward, but that should be only the beginning. The work being done on community cohesion in the aftermath of last summer's riots is vital if we are to demonstrate by our actions rather than just by our rhetoric our absolute rejection of racism and our abhorrence of the discrimination that is its inevitable consequence.
      We need to look at the White Paper and the Bill as a whole. They present a more holistic approach to the issues than we have seen in the past, and I for one take some pride in that. The Bill, for example, provides for the development of a resettlement programme that will, for the first time, afford a legal gateway into the UK for UNHCR refugees, better integration programmes for those accepted as refugees, and the extension of legal routes for economic migrants to enter the UK to work in both the high and medium-skilled categories. The Bill also strengthens powers to tackle illegal working and introduces new offences of people-trafficking to fight the organised gangs that are currently making huge profits from the trade in human misery and exploitation. Those are all extremely welcome developments, which I support wholeheartedly.
      I now want to take a little time to raise the two issues that I mentioned earlier. The first concerns administrative coherence in the immigration and nationality directorate, and the second is the lack of a low-skilled migration route into the United Kingdom, which regrettably the White Paper omitted to deal with.
      I am not the first hon. Member to make an observation about the IND, but I believe that more needs to be done on general administrative coherence and competence. Some standards are improving, and many staff do a superb job, but they are badly let down by the systems in place. The systems are largely paper based, and files are too often duplicated or lost, or go missing, which leads to unnecessary delay and confusion. The system can be especially slow for those who are waiting for upgrades. Although Labour in office has improved the Conservative average for end-to-end casework from 20 months to 13, that is clearly still not good enough. We need a step change. Without good progress in this area, these reforms will not lead to the improvements that we all want.
      The second issue is the creation of a new, low-skilled migration route into the UK to assist our returns policy. We know that there is a demand for low-skilled labour in the UK, which is currently being met by illegal immigrants in the black economy, often in exploitative conditions. Their arrival in this country is usually facilitated by the traffickers.

      957
      We know that many of the countries whose citizens are involved benefit from the flow of funds that such workers send back, so they are reluctant to accept them back when we seek to return them. It is impossible to return any citizen of a country without that country issuing papers to the individuals concerned to allow them to go back. Despite the arrival of many Chinese citizens every month, last year the Chinese Government issued papers for the return of only seven of them. Would not it be more sensible to say to such countries that, if they take back their clandestine entrants, we will issue permits that allow their citizens to come and work in the UK legally in the low-skilled areas that are currently short of labour? I believe that everyone would gain from such an approach. The demand for such labour here is far better filled legally than illegally. We and the countries with which we reached agreement would decide which individuals could come and work here and for how long, rather than the criminal gangs that currently make such decisions for us, usually upon payment of large amounts of money. I was disappointed that that chance was not taken when the White Paper was written, and I hope that we will be able to put that omission right soon.
      I welcome the chance to speak in the debate. For the first time in many years we have an opportunity to make progress together across the Floor of the House on these difficult issues. I support the Bill, and I wish it progress and every success.
      9.33 pm
      Simon Hughes: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle). I repeat my tribute to her work in her time in the Department. We are happy to have worked with her, whatever our disagreements may have been. I also join the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) in saying that I have valued the constructive, co-operative, rational and intelligent way in which we have conducted the whole debate from Second Reading until now, whatever important disagreements we have had and will probably continue to have. I hope that between the end of this debate and the passage of the Bill into law we will have more constructive dialogue inside and outside the parliamentary Chambers so as to get as much as possible of a Bill on which we can agree, even if it is not the Bill that my colleagues and I would have put before Parliament.
      On Second Reading, I recommended to my colleagues that we reserve our position, and we did not vote against the Bill. We thought that it was right that it should proceed. I expressed some of our reservations, and the significant reservations of others. Since then, two major events have occurred. First, major parts of the Bill have gone undebated in Committee and on Report. In the past two days alone, we have had 84 Government amendments, eight Government new clauses and two Government new schedules. In today's earlier debate that was guillotined at 7 o'clock, we dealt with only two out of 14 groups of amendments. The largest part of that was new Government business that was introduced last week and had never come to Parliament before. That in itself is enough to make me tell my colleagues that the Bill is not fit or ready to proceed to the House of Lords, and that is why my colleagues and I sought yesterday to recommit it to a Standing Committee so that we could do the work properly, rather than in a hurried way.
      958
      Many others, advising us from positions of great authority, have said that parts of the Bill have been hurriedly and badly drafted. In relation to the amendments concerning appeals, the Public Law Project wrote only this week that it was
      "extremely concerned about the substance of these developments along with the fact that they have occurred partway through the Bill's passage and without meaningful consultation."
      Mr. Blunkett: They are lawyers.
      Simon Hughes: The first body whose words I used was the Immigration Advisory Service, a Government- funded agency of the highest reputation. Many people involved are not lawyers, and the lawyers in this instance work for those who are the most disadvantaged. I hope that the Home Secretary will repress his innate dislike of lawyers, and understand that there are much more significant interests here.
      Of course there are good things in the Bill. It is best that we improve citizenship and nationality law, despite the remaining confusion about nationality definitions. The Home Secretary and the Government know that we welcome the principle of induction and accommodation centres. We need more work permits for immigrants—and, as the hon. Member for Wallasey knows, I have long argued that they should be available to low-skilled as well as highly skilled workers. Of course it is also right to provide more resettlement programmes under the UNHCR.
      Nevertheless, the Bill contains things that are significantly wrong. Although yesterday's concession—people in families would be in accommodation centres for only six months—was welcome, the centres are likely often to be in the wrong places. They could be privately run; the conditions of residence could be oppressive. The facilities are not guaranteed, and as the Home Secretary knows, in every case bar one that he currently contemplates, they will be far too large to command the confidence of the public and all the agencies concerned.
      There are severely bad proposals to withdraw the option of support for asylum seekers who stay with their families or with friends. There is no justification for such proposals. There are also badly argued and insufficiently debated proposals to remove other benefits. That should be done on a European basis as a social security reform, not on a national basis as a way of making it more difficult for people to stay here.
      There is the completely inexplicable change of name, from "detention centres" to "removal centres"—although many people in the centres will not have completed the process preceding a decision on their case. Making those people think they will be removed before any adjudication will give them no confidence in the impartiality of the system. That too is entirely unjustified. There is no automatic bail: the Government have proposed the repeal of their own measure in that regard. Perhaps the worst proposal of all is not only to deny rights of appeal in this country, so that people must go abroad to exercise those rights—that, in most cases, will mean their not being exercised at all—but to take them out of the normal process of judicial review. Some of the carrier proposals that we have not debated are also wrong, as are some proposals relating to offences.
      Mr. Letwin: I share many of the hon. Gentleman's reservations, and we too tried to recommit the Bill to a

      959
      Standing Committee; but is he really saying that the country would be better off without the Bill, imperfect as it is?
      Simon Hughes: The Bill is not fit to proceed, and we cannot support it in its present form. It is possible to deal entirely properly with immigration and asylum matters if time is taken over it, but on three previous occasions Parliament has rushed legislation through without listening to advice. On all three occasions, it has got the legislation badly and—in some cases—criminally wrong.
      My colleagues and I are not, therefore, willing to endorse a fourth mistaken set of proposals, and we are going to rely on the other place to amend the Bill as far as possible. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary may say "sanctimonious", but I shall end simply by saying this.
      We in this country have a proud tradition of standing up for human rights, and whatever the Government do, I hope that the courts will ensure that we retain that proud tradition. Immigrants have been the backbone of this country. They have contributed and continue to contribute to it economically and in every other way. We have a duty to asylum seekers to offer them the best reception. In the words of Will Hutton in last weekend's edition of The Observer:
      "it's time to stand up for your liberalism".
      Although Governments throughout Europe are running scared of this issue, and although the argument of mainland European Governments may differ from ours because, unlike us, they fall within the Schengen agreement, it is not justifiable for any Government of this country—let alone a Labour Government—to worsen the position of immigrants and asylum seekers by moving further to the right.
      I am afraid that we must vote against giving the Bill a Third Reading, and in doing so we make it absolutely clear that it contains many proposals that will be bad for race relations, bad for immigration policy and bad for asylum seekers. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to join us in opposing a Bill that has got worse, not better, in the past few months.
      9.41 pm
      Mike Gapes: If that was a constructive contribution, I would hate to hear the Liberal Democrats make a destructive one. [Interruption.] That was a typical response—[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
      Mike Gapes: It was a typical response from a party that is unable to make a constructive contribution to anything. In Committee, I listened for hour after hour to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). The main reason why we did not discuss most of the clauses was that he spoke at interminable length, and for far longer than anybody else. Nor was that the first time that he has done so. [Interruption.] I remember when we discussed legislation on the Greater London Authority and on terrorism in Standing
      960
      Committee. He is an expert at taking up the time of other Committee members and Members of this House. [Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address his remarks to Third Reading.
      Mike Gapes: I shall return to the substance of the issues before us. The Bill is vital. It contains important provisions on citizenship, integration and respect that we in this country can be proud of. It is also about incorporating our black and ethnic minority communities, so that they have full rights and are fully integrated. The fact that the Liberal Democrats propose to vote against it tells us a great deal about the nature of their party. [Interruption.] As we know, in parts of the country such as Oldham, they have pandered to racism and xenophobia, and have played a duplicitous role in respect of accommodation centres. [Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mike Gapes: It is time we told the truth about the two-faced, Janus-like Liberal Democrats, who say one thing in one street, and another in the next. [Interruption.] When it suits them, they are on the left—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said a few moments ago. Will he please address his remarks to Third Reading of the Bill?
      Mike Gapes: I appreciate your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will do as you say.
      Importantly, until the previous contribution, the tone in the House and in Committee showed that this country as a whole—including local government and central Government—welcomes immigration and wants to establish a legal route for primary immigration for the first time in 30 years. It is very important that we talk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) said, not only about professional people coming to work and live in this country, but about other people from all over the world. Some operators charge poor people, who put their families in hock for the money, $7,000, $10,000 or even $12,000 to smuggle them in dangerous conditions from, for example, Sri Lanka through the Balkans into western Europe. When they arrive, those people live in semi-slave conditions, often working illegally with no social protection. That undermines the national minimum wage and thus one of the other achievements of this Labour Government—the attempt to raise people out of poverty.
      From the left—[Interruption.] The Liberal Democrats are laughing because they are not of the left. The Labour party has always stood up for the rights of the oppressed and the poor. Those who are most oppressed and the poorest in our society are the black and Asian people who work in hotels and catering, in sweatshops and garment factories in the east end of London, and those who are paid £1 an hour or less as home workers. We need to ensure that such criminal exploitation does not continue. I hope that the Home Office will work with other Departments, especially the Inland Revenue and the Treasury, to ensure that we have rigorous enforcement of the law on employment. In that way, as we welcome more people to this country, we will ensure that they work in

      961
      the right conditions with proper taxes and national insurance. They need to be here legally so that they can join trade unions and consult Members of Parliament to expose the bad employers and those who do down the socially inclusive policies for which we all stand.
      9.47 pm
      Tony Baldry: I suspect that there is no Member of Parliament who does not want to see a just and tolerant society. One of the tragedies of the Report and Third Reading stages of this Bill is that we have had such a short time that we have tended to emphasise our differences instead of finding common ground. I suspect that considerable common ground could be found on these matters. My first ever speech, as a 19-year-old student to a Conservative party conference, was in support of the then Conservative Government's decision to allow east African Asians into the United Kingdom in 1972. I suspect that the differences between the sides are not great, but I am concerned about the size and location of accommodation centres. Little attention has been paid during the debate to those who have raised concerns.
      For example, Oxfam has written to every hon. Member about the Bill. It has stated:
      "Oxfam is particularly concerned about the proposals to set up Accommodation Centres. We believe centres with 750 beds wiml inevitably be highly institutionalised, and result in damaging 'warehousing'—with knock-on rises in boredom, stress and even violence among what is likely to be predominantly a young male population … It also appears that a number of sites under consideration for the location of Accommodation Centres will be too isolated."
      The Refugee Council has said:
      "The size of the centres is a major concern … the capacity of such centres should not exceed 100 bed spaces."
      It also believes that
      "the locations the Government is currently considering are remote from urban centres and away from the kind of support infrastructure that asylum seekers and their families would need."
      Many other organisations have made similar comments.
      All I ask of the Home Secretary is that Ministers approach this trial with open minds. Indeed, I hope that all of us will evaluate the experiment fairly and properly. The trial will include only three accommodation centres in its initial phase. For reasons that we rehearsed yesterday, they will all be in Conservative-held constituencies in relatively rural areas.
      The centres are an experiment that involves us all, so I shall simply repeat what I said yesterday. If, after the due process of the planning system and the public inquiry that I hope will be held—at which the Government will be judge and jury in their own cause—it is decided that there will be an accommodation centre in my area, I hope that hon. Members of all parties will visit my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) shares that hope in connection with his constituency. It is important that all hon. Members should he involved in evaluating the experiment.
      The last thing that I want people to say when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and I tell the House about accommodation centres as we experience them through our constituency surgeries is that we are being nimbyist. I suspect that we are the three least nimbyist hon. Members in the House.
      962
      The House has a collective responsibility in this matter, and I hope that other hon. Members will be willing to share in that responsibility.
      Mr. Letwin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Tony Baldry: Indeed.
      Mr. Letwin: I just want to correct an apprehension that may exist among Labour Members by putting on record the fact that I think that the three Conservative Members involved in this matter have behaved with astonishing propriety and courage in a very difficult situation. They have argued the case for their constituents without the slightest nimbyism.
      Tony Baldry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. We all appreciate that other hon. Members—and I see that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) is in his place—also have problems with the proposals. We do not deny that. However, the Government have decided that the experiment will involve huge numbers of people in comparatively remote locations. I say again that the responsibility must be shared. If the accommodation centres go ahead, I very much hope that other hon. Members will visit the relevant constituencies and see them.
      Mr. Blunkett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Tony Baldry: I give way to the Home Secretary.
      Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful. I want to put on record the fact that we understand perfectly well why the hon. Gentleman and those of his colleagues affected by the proposals have stated their position on more than one occasion. On a slightly lighter note, I think that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) has been outdone when it comes to being the least nimbyist of hon. Members. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) is at this very moment looking for a site in the south-west of Sheffield to house an accommodation centre. I greatly look forward to receiving that application.
      Tony Baldry: I conclude by saying that there is one matter on which the Home Secretary and I will always agree. That is that, whatever initiative we take in politics, we will always be outdone by the Liberal Democrats.
      9.53 pm
      Mr. Gerrard: On Second Reading, I acknowledged that there were parts of the Bill—the proposals on trafficking, work permits, and so on—that would be welcomed by everyone. However, I did raise some concerns about the Bill, and nothing that has been said in Standing Committee, and in particular on Report, has served to decrease them. In fact, the opposite is the case.
      Much of what the Bill contains in relation to asylum seems to be an example of the Government seeking to impose legislative solutions on matters that are not really legislative problems. We are placing a new and more expensive system of support on top of a system that was already complicated and which did not work especially well.

      963
      If accommodation centres are established—and I shall be interested to see when we get the first one—they will be very expensive. They will have to be large—otherwise the Government will find it incredibly expensive to provide services on site. I still have my doubts about on-site education.
      Much of the argument has been misplaced, as it is clear that the accommodation centres are much more about processing applications than about providing accommodation. I would prefer the millions of pounds-worth of capital being devoted to establishing and running the accommodation centres—which will generate about 1,200 jobs—to be used to improve the Home Office systems that exist now. Perhaps we could start paying asylum seekers at income support level instead of at 70 per cent. of that level.
      If we had not made the mistake in 1997 of sticking to the Tories' spending proposals and getting rid of people from the Home Office, perhaps we would have had a chance of getting Home Office systems that worked. We might have got answers to letters that we sent and decisions might have been made and implemented in a reasonable time. I accept that implementing decisions means removing people who are refused, yet last week someone turned up in my surgery five years after I had written to a Minister and been told they would be removed. If that is what is happening, it really does not matter what we do in legislation. That is where our efforts should go.
      As we have done three times in the past 12 years, we are yet again grossly overestimating the effects that legislation can have on the numbers of people coming to this country and the numbers of unfounded claims. We should deal with claims quickly and enforce the decisions.
      I believe that much of the asylum legislation is unnecessary and some of it is bad. I am not convinced that accommodation centres will work—I think that we will live to regret them. The provisions on the removal of appeal rights and judicial review, and the loss of support are all fundamentally bad legislation. As with previous legislation, the Bill will penalise the genuine applicant as severely as the applicant who is not genuine.
      The Bill is in many ways designed to send messages rather than solving the problems that should be solved. I am afraid that it will not have my support in the Lobby tonight, and I know that some of my hon. Friends will be joining me.
      9.56 pm
      Mr. Gregory Barker: The Bill provided me with my first opportunity since entering the House of Commons to serve on a Standing Committee, which is probably why I have been called at 9.56 pm. Nevertheless, it was a real privilege to serve on the Committee considering such an important and serious piece of legislation.
      It was also a real privilege to serve under the expert, generous and wise tutelage of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), whose combination of rapier-sharp intellect and faultless charm is deadly. Although we did not agree with the Government on many issues, hon. Members on both sides in Committee proceeded in a
      964
      professional and workmanlike way. I was impressed at the way in which all Members worked together. That was partly due to the skilful stewardship of the Bill by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), as well as by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). That is why I was particularly surprised to see the hon. Member for Wallasey so unceremoniously dumped from the Government at such a critical time in the Bill's passage.
      I wish to make three points. The first relates to the welfare and well-being of the majority of asylum seekers who do not remain in this country. Throughout the Committee's proceedings, we debated ad nauseam the welfare of those who are to remain, the education of the children and the nature of the naturalisation ceremonies. However, we largely ignored the fate of the 78 per cent. of asylum seekers who, in theory, are to be removed from the country. While it may be fair and even just that they are returned whence they came, it cannot be right that we simply wash our hands of them. Far more needs to be done to address the problems that will face those people who, we hope, with the passage of the Bill, will be returned to their point of origin.
      My second point deals with the size, scale and location of the centres—issues that have been well rehearsed. However, I would say that the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) are not nimbyism. They are shared by all members of isolated rural communities the length and breadth of Britain who see their own social infrastructure and public services stretched and underfunded.
      My final point concerns the way in which this legislation was rushed through Committee, and then through the House tonight. We were—
      It being Ten o'clock MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [11 June] put the Question already proposed from the Chair:—
      The House divided: Ayes 362, Noes 74.

      Division No. 272]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ainger, Nick

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Boswell, Tim

      Allen, Graham

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Brazier, Julian

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Brennan, Kevin

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Austin, John

      Browne, Desmond

      Baldry, Tony

      Burden, Richard

      Banks, Tony

      Burgon, Colin

      Barker, Gregory

      Burnham, Andy

      Barron, Kevin

      Cairns, David

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Caplin, Ivor

      Benn, Hilary

      Casale, Roger

      Benton, Joe

      Caton, Martin

      Bencow, John

      Cawsey, Ian

      Berry, Roger

      Challen, Colin

      Blackman, Liz

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Chaytor, David

      965

      Clapham, Michael

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Clappison, James

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hanson, David

      Clelland, David

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hayes, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Healey, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Conway, Derek

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cousins, Jim

      Hendry, Charles

      Cox, Tom

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cranston, Ross

      Heppell, John

      Crausby, David

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Heyes, David

      Cummings, John

      Hill, Keith

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov"try S)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hodge, Margaret

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hoey, Kate

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hood, Jimmy

      David, Wayne

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Davidson, Ian

      Hope, Phil

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Hume, John

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Dismore, Andrew

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jamieson, David

      Doran, Frank

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Edwards, Huw

      Joyce, Eric

      Efford, Clive

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Kemp, Fraser

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Fisher, Mark

      Kidney, David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Flint, Caroline

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Flook, Adrian

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Flynn, Paul

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Follett, Barbara

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lammy, David

      Foulkes, George

      Lansley, Andrew

      Francois, Mark

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Gale, Roger

      Lepper, David

      Gapes, Mike

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gardiner, Barry

      Letwin, Oliver

      Garnier, Edward

      Levitt, Tom

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lidington, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Goggins, Paul

      Lloyd, Tony

      Goodman, Paul

      Loughton, Tim

      Grayling, Chris

      Love, Andrew

      966

      Lucas, Ian

      Purnell, James

      Luff, Peter

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Luke, Iain

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lyons, John

      Rammell, Bill

      McCabe, Stephen

      Rapson, Syd

      McCafferty, Chris

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      McFall, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Rooney, Terry

      McKechin, Ann

      Ross, Ernie

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Roy, Frank

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Ruane, Chris

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Russell Ms Christine (Chester)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Salter, Martin

      McNulty, Tony

      Savidge, Malcolm

      MacShane, Denis

      Sawford, Phil

      McWalter, Tony

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      McWilliam, John

      Selous, Andrew

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Malins, Humfrey

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mallaber, Judy

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Simon, Siôn

      Mann, John

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Marris, Rob

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Martlew, Eric

      Soley, Clive

      Mates, Michael

      Southworth, Helen

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Squire, Rachel

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Meale, Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Merron, Gillian

      Stevenson, George

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Miliband, David

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Morgan, Julie

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Morley, Elliot

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mullin, Chris

      Swayne, Desmond

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Tami, Mark

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Tipping Paddy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Todd, Mark

      Olner, Bill

      Touhig, Don

      O'Neill, Martin

      Trickett, Jon

      Organ, Diana

      Truswell, Paul

      Ottaway, Richard

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Owen, Albert

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Page, Richard

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pearson, Ian

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Perham, Linda

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Picking, Anne

      Tynan, Bill

      Pike, Peter

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Plaskitt, James

      Vaz, Keith

      Pollard, Kerry

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Pond, Chris

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Pope, Greg

      Waterson, Nigel

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Watkinson, Angela

      Pound, Stephen

      Watts, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      White, Brian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Whittingdale, John

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Purchase, Ken

      967

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wray, James

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wilson, Brian

      Wyatt, Derek

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Woodward, Shaun

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Woolas, Phil

      Angela Smith and

      Worthington, Tony

      Joan Ryan.

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Keetch, Paul

      Baker, Norman

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

      Barnes, Harry

      Barrett, John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Beggs, Roy

      Lamb, Norman

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Laws, David

      Bennett, Andrew

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Brake, Tom

      McDonnell, John

      Breed, Colin

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Moore, Michael

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Oaten, Mark

      Burnett, John

      öpik, Lembit

      Burnside, David

      Pugh, Dr John

      Burstow, Paul

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Rendel, David

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Salmond, Alex

      Sanders, Adrian

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Chidgey, David

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Coleman, Iain

      Skinner, Dennis

      Corbyn, Jeremy

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

      Cotter, Brian

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Doughty, Sue

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Thurso, John

      Galloway, George

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Tyler, Paul

      Gerrard, Neil

      Wareing, Robert N

      Gidley, Sandra

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Hancock, Mike

      Willis, Phil

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Wishart, Pete

      Harvey, Nick

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Heath, David

      Holmes, Paul

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Bob Russell and

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Mr. Andrew Stunell.

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

Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Bill (Money)
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
10.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Bill it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under or by virtue of the Act, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act.

The motion concerns the private Member's Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). On Second Reading, I welcomed the Bill on behalf of the Government. I said that we were sympathetic to its objectives and content for it to proceed into Committee. That was then agreed by the House.
There was clear agreement from all sides about the scale of the problems caused by antisocial behaviour and the so-called "neighbour from hell" problem. Unfortunately, it is something that we all see in our constituencies. The Bill offers a new approach to the problem which we are keen to explore.
However, I also made it clear that the Bill would need substantial amendment to make it technically workable and to address human rights concerns. I said that we would work with my right hon. Friend to try to resolve those points. We have been doing that, and I hope that in Committee next week we will be able to debate this thoroughly.
For that reason, I do not propose to talk about the details of the Bill today. In any case, my right hon Friend is unable to be here. He has asked me to pass on his apologies to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House.
One essential point is that this Bill is designed to be an additional weapon in the fight against antisocial behaviour. It is meant to be neither the sole solution nor the main solution. However, this Bill might send the message that the right to support from the state is linked to the responsibility to behave appropriately.
We are tabling this motion because it is likely that the Bill—whatever precise form it took—would lead to additional expenditure for my Department and for local authorities, which administer housing benefit. The costs involved would depend on the shape of the Bill at the end of the Committee stage. However, we felt that it would be prudent to seek this resolution tonight. I commend it to the House.
10.14 pm
Mr. James Clappison: As the Minister rightly said, this is the money resolution for the private Member's Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Sadly, he cannot be present for this debate.
The Bill will permit the Secretary of State to withhold payments of housing benefit in certain circumstances because of antisocial behaviour. The resolution is concerned with authorising expenditure, and I appreciate

969
that if I were to venture into a debate about the merits and the substance of the Bill you would soon rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, in the light of the Minister's comments, it will be helpful if I point out that we share the Bill's objectives. When it had its Second Reading, it received a general welcome from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition.
Mr. John Bercow: A very great man.
Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As the House well knows, my right hon. Friend is also a caring man. No doubt because of his caring nature, he gave the Bill a warm welcome. However, it was not just that. He shares our concern with the problem that the Minister described. The problem of antisocial behaviour affects many of our constituents—it plagues law-abiding and decent people.
The Minister has adverted to the Bill's history and to the Government's intention to table amendments. It is useful to know that at this stage, but I gently draw the House's and the Minister's attention to the fact that the Bill received its Second Reading on 19 April. We were given to understand that it would go into Committee today. The Minister looks puzzled, but we have received notification of a change of date and that the Bill will go into Committee next Tuesday.
As of today, the only amendments that have been tabled are those in the names of myself and other Opposition Members. They were tabled a little while ago and we have yet to see any Government amendments. The Bill will go into Committee next Tuesday and Friday is a non-sitting day. Although the Minister has said that the resolution will authorise general expenditure, one would have thought that that point would have been clear when the Bill received its Second Reading. Whether or not that is the case, it is appropriate to consider how such expenditure might arise, and the nature of the amendments is important for that. However, as matters stand, we have not seen the amendments, and we do not know how extensive they will be. We gather from what the Minister said that they could be fairly extensive. We should have the opportunity to table amendments to the Government's proposals. The amendments that we have tabled already are to the Bill as it stands, but we do not know what the Government will propose.
I shall not venture into the Bill's merits, but the amendments are germane—the Minister accepted this in his remarks—to the money resolution. Although we do not wish to express anything but sympathy for the Bill's aims, we gently draw the Minister's attention to the circumstances facing us and to our wish to give the Bill proper consideration, as is our duty.
10.19 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Although I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have considerable reservations about the Bill, we think that the resolution is appropriate. The remarks of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) about the process and procedure leading up to the Committee stage next week enhance my concern that we might end up with a Bill that is less satisfactory than it should be. Nevertheless, we shall not oppose the resolution
10.19 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the principle behind the Bill. People who live with neighbours from hell, as they are commonly called, should be afforded protection. However, I want to put down a marker. Housing benefit is paid from money that comes to Northern Ireland from the Treasury. I take it that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have to amend legislation because the measure relates to social legislation, which it covers. I certainly wish the proposal every speed in this place so that we do something to protect good neighbours from those who are bad.
10.20 pm
Mr. Paul Goodman: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) rightly emphasised that there is general support on both sides of the House for the principles behind the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) suggested, my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House also supports it. He is renowned for his compassionate and caring approach—
Mr. Bercow: And generosity of spirit.
Mr. Goodman: Of course.
However, the Minister said something that is slightly puzzling and it threatens to disturb the happy consensus across the Floor of the House. The Government have introduced the money resolution but have not tabled amendments to the Bill, which received its Second Reading on 19 April. I understand, however, that its Committee stage has been delayed. The puzzle is that the Government have introduced the money resolution but we do not know what it will apply to because we do not know what the Government amendments will be. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere is also puzzled by that and was entitled to raise it. We are concerned and disturbed because the puzzle threatens the consensus on a popular and necessary Bill.
10.22 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I have three points to add. First, I want to reinforce the contention that it is impossible to have proper scrutiny if the Government continue to table amendments at the last moment. They did that on the Adoption and Children Bill, which also had widespread support. Those amendments dealt with hugely complicated material. Many of them were welcome, but they were produced at the last minute, just before Report.
Secondly, I cannot emphasise how strongly I support a money resolution to fund the measure. My surgeries are dominated by the problems caused by antisocial behaviour. Some people may wrongly imagine that Canterbury is a leafy and comfortable part of the world, but it has a great deal of poverty. I would never identify poverty with villainy. Far from it. It is certainly true, however, that poor people suffer from the villainy of antisocial behaviour far more than the better-off. Any measure that tries to address that is welcome.
Thirdly, the particular merit of the measure, as opposed to almost all the other measures that have been introduced to tackle antisocial behaviour, is that it is specifically civil rather than criminal. The problem with criminal measures to deal with antisocial behaviour is so obvious that it

971
should not be worth explaining. However, hardly anyone has thought it through. As antisocial behaviour is by its very nature—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the money resolution to the Bill.
Mr. Brazier: You are right, Madam Deputy Speaker. There will inevitably be many disputes between neighbours, and I was merely observing that it is well worth spending the money on a measure that offers a civil route to solving those problems because it does not require the high standard of proof that would be necessary in criminal proceedings.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in welcoming the money resolution. However, I am also disappointed that the Government are frustrating the scrutiny process.
10.24 pm
Malcolm Wicks: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the debate.
I welcome the support for the measure which has been reiterated in the House this evening. The main emphasis has been on the fact that we are all concerned to tackle antisocial behaviour because it affects so many of our constituents.
There is no discourtesy to the House in the delay in tabling our amendments. I made it clear on Second Reading that we were sympathetic to the Bill's purpose, but translating it into purposeful policy involved complexities, not least those involving the European convention on human rights. We had to take proper advice about those matters, and it would have been foolish to rush into amendments. I am sorry if the delay has inconvenienced the House, but there are reasons for our need to take careful counsel on the issue. Any amendments will be tabled, and we will be discussing these matters in Committee next week, when I hope we can have a full and frank debate.
As for Northern Ireland, these matters will be for Northern Ireland itself to decide, and it will need to debate them. We know that they affect people throughout the United Kingdom.
Again, if Members have been inconvenienced by the fact that amendments have not yet been tabled. I regret that, but this is technical and complex legal territory. We know that rushing into legislation can produce bad social policy, and no one wants that.
Finally, we discussed fully with the Bill's promoter, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the delay in the Committee proceedings, and of course he agreed that there was a need for that slight delay.
I hope that after those words, and with the strong feeling among hon. Members that something must be done about this pressing social problem, the House will agree to the money resolution.
Question put and agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE CONVENTION
Ordered,
(1) There shall be a standing committee, called the Standing Committee on the Convention, for the consideration of reports from the United Kingdom Parliamentary Representatives to the Convention on the future of Europe.
(2) At any sitting of the standing committee, the chairman may permit the Parliamentary Representatives to make statements on the discharge of their responsibilities, and questions may then be put thereon by Members;
Provided that no proceedings under this paragraph may continue after the expiry of a period of one and a half hours from their commencement, except with the leave of the chairman.

(3)

(a) At the conclusion of proceedings under the preceding paragraph, the committee shall consider only a motion proposed from the chair 'That the committee has considered the report of [date] from the United Kingdom Representatives to the Convention on the future of Europe'; and the chairman shall put any Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on such a motion, if not previously concluded, when the committee shall have sat for two and a half hours;

(b) The chairman shall thereupon report that the committee has considered the report of [date] from the United Kingdom Representatives to the Convention on the future of Europe, without putting any further question.

(4)

(a) Notwithstanding Standing Order No. 86, the standing committee shall consist of those Members of the House nominated for the time being to the European Scrutiny Committee (appointed under Standing Order No. 143) and to the Foreign Affairs Committee (appointed under Standing Order No. 152), together with the Parliamentary Representatives to the Convention; and

(b) Any Member of the House, not being a member of the committee, may participate in the proceedings of the committee, but shall not vote or make any motion or be counted in the quorum.

(5)

(a) Alternate Representatives to the Convention on the future of Europe who are members of the House of Lords may, if that House thinks fit, make such statements as are mentioned in paragraph (2) of this Order, answer questions thereon, arid participate in debate on the motion made under paragraph (3), and

(b) other members of the House of Lords may participate in the committee's proceedings, but no member of that House may vote or make any motion or be counted in the quorum.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

PETITION

  Stocksbridge Bypass
  10.27 pm
  Helen Jackson: I wish to bring to the attention of the House the petition of 2,000 of my constituents and others about the dangers of the Stocksbridge bypass, following the tragic deaths of Tom and Kieran Moore which brought the death toll on that road to 24. Subsequently there have been even more deaths.
  The petition states:
  The petitioners request that as a matter of urgency the Minister of State for Transport should implement road improvements which will make the A616 Stocksbridge bypass safer.
  And the petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Myalgic Encephalopathy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
10.28 pm
Mr. John Bercow: It is my pleasure and privilege to speak tonight on the subject of myalgic encephalopathy. I do so with enthusiasm and commitment, the more so because I know that the debate will be answered by the new Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy). He has had a meteoric but thoroughly deserved rise to office. I wish him well in fulfilling his responsibilities, and in particular I look forward to what he has to say in response to my speech.
In the House since 1997, interest in ME, or chronic fatigue syndrome, has been manifested in no fewer than 116 written and oral parliamentary questions; a number of early-day motions—three, if I remember correctly, of which the most popular was the one tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) in November 1997, which attracted no fewer than 164 signatures; and several Adjournment debates. Of the latter, two in particular stick in my mind. The first was initiated by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright), whom I am pleased to see in his place tonight. The chairman of the all-party ME group, he has devoted himself to the issue with remarkable results, and his conscientiousness has earned him the justified respect of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The other debate was introduced by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), who is not able to be with us tonight; he spoke on 6 February this year, to telling effect.
My motivation is straightforward: the ME Association, which is one of at least six such organisations and does pioneering and appreciated work in the field, recently moved its headquarters from Essex to my Buckingham constituency—a thoroughly judicious choice of location. Its offices are on the Buckingham industrial park. I said that I wanted to support the association in its work, and I meant it. I pay tribute to the efforts of its chairman, Ian Franklin, its new chief executive, Val Hockey, its public relations and communications manager, Tony Britton, and the excellent medical adviser to the association, Dr. Charles Shepherd.
There has been a long-standing argument about the cause of ME or chronic fatigue syndrome, but about its appalling symptoms and consequences there can be no doubt. Due not least to the work of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, it is now, I am pleased and relieved to be able to say, a clinically diagnosed condition. It is severe and potentially disabling, resulting in muscle and joint pain, sleep disorder, sore throat and enlarged glands, and loss of balance, concentration and memory; it can cause intolerance of food, alcohol and even light. The House and the wider public must understand that ME sufferers experience sheer exhaustion and excruciating pain. Those are often the daily endurance and harrowing ordeals of sufferers, who can be afflicted by the illness at any time of their lives. A quarter of ME sufferers suffer depression as a result of their affliction.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: My wife suffers from ME. In addition to the crippling illness and
974
symptoms that my hon. Friend has graphically described, one of the problems that my wife faces is that it is not understood that ME is a disease that often affects highly capable and very active people. I am sure she would want me to emphasise that to the House tonight.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—ME can strike someone at any time of their life and its effects can be variable and unpredictable. People can be well one day, and the next day be incapable of performing the most personal and simple task. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
It is estimated that there are about 4,000 cases of ME per million of the population. The Effective Health Care bulletin recently speculated, with some authority, that ME sufferers comprise between 0.4 and 2.6 per cent. of the UK population. Millions of days are lost to ME in the workplace each year. The monetary impact is estimated to be about £4 billion. A 1997 study relating to schoolchildren found that ME was the single most common cause of absence from school.
However, there have been good developments. The establishment of the working group on chronic fatigue syndrome or ME was one such positive development. Set up by the Department of Health in late 1998 and chaired by Professor Allen Hutchinson, director of public health at the school of health and related research at Sheffield university, the working group was given important duties and has discharged them to admirable effect. The working group's terms of reference obliged it
"to review management and practice in the field of…ME with the aim of providing best practice guidance for professionals, patients and carers to improve the quality of care and treatment for people with…ME."
The group produced its findings on 11 January this year in relation to the diagnosis of the disease, its management and its treatment. There were several conclusions, with which the Minister will be broadly familiar. It was concluded that health care professionals should recognise the chronic character of the disease and co-operate with affected parties. Early diagnosis, instead of a third of people having to wait 18 months or more to be diagnosed, is viewed as a priority. There is a crucial imperative for clinical evaluation and follow-up, preferably by multidisciplinary teams. The quality of support from GPs in co-ordinating strategies and then, where necessary, making appropriate referrals to specialists must be part of the mix.
The focus on domiciliary services should not be ignored either. There is a role for therapeutic strategies. Some of them—cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise—have come to be extremely controversial. That is why many experts think that there should be a new emphasis on pacing, which will require a commitment from Government and other agencies. There is a role for patients in the management and treatment of their condition. There is an overriding need, on which everybody, from whatever side of the argument, agrees, for more research, not least into the physical causes of the affliction. In relation to children, it is thought that care is best co-ordinated by an appropriate specialist—usually a paediatrician.
I think it is a positive development that that work has been done and that we now have the endorsement of the chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, for the

975
proposition that this is a recognised disease. The days in which it was pejoratively and offensively dismissed as yuppie flu, and as something whose resolution required people simply to get their act together, are rapidly being consigned to the dustbin of history.
I hope, however, that the Minister will understand that I want to put a number of particular questions to him. I do so making it absolutely clear that this matter is not a party political football as far as I am concerned. The Government have done considerable good work on this subject, so I am not cavilling at them, but performing the proper role of a constituency Member of Parliament as well as an Opposition Member in seeking to encourage still greater efforts from the Administration.
Who is now on the scientific advisory panel established by the Medical Research Council? The chief medical officer and the Government want the MRC to have such an independent panel and to produce a strategy. I think it was originally expected that that strategy would be produced by the end of February. Later, in debates both in the other place and here, it was suggested that we would hear further from the MRC in spring this year. We are now, even by the most elastic definition, into the summer, and a good deal that we had expected has not yet been forthcoming.
What patient involvement will there be in the work of the MRC? When will its biomedical and health services research strategy be finalised, announced and started? Does the Minister agree with me—and, I suspect, other hon. Members in all parts of the House—that the matter is pressing because too little is known about the aetiology and pathogenesis of ME? What use are the Government making of the ME Association's booklet "ME/CFS/PVFS: An Exploration of the Key Clinical Issues", which is authoritative and is designed to be useful to them in communicating to all the agencies, including general practitioners, good and effective practice?
What assessment has the Minister made of the levels of primary, secondary and tertiary care, and what plans does he have, on the strength of his few days in his important post, for their improvement? In the light of the fact that another Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), declared at column 1008W on 12 March this year that there was merit in the development of clinical learning networks at local level, can he advise the House whether there has been any progress on that subject? Is it his judgment that such work should be undertaken before, after or concurrently with the formulation of the MRC strategy?
Has the incapacity benefit handbook for medical service doctors been changed? The Minister will know—if he does not, that is excusable and he will soon be informed about the matter—that there is great anxiety that, in the past, not recognising the disease meant unfairness for sufferers who tried to get the benefits to which most of us now believe they are entitled. Has the handbook been revised? Has the changed decision, the new attitude and the reformed culture been communicated to the people who determine whether sufferers get that to which they are entitled? Is the Minister satisfied that people are getting what they are due?
Mr. Russell Brown: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the Adjournment debate. Despite
976
the chief medical officer's deliberations and findings, does not the hon. Gentleman believe that great problems remain locally because some GPs continue to fail to recognise ME as an illness?
Mr. Bercow: I do. I say in no frivolous spirit that I was guilty—I frequently am—of seriously understating my case. I brought a delicacy of touch and natural kindness to bear in my remarks. I should have stated more bluntly that the Government should not only provide advice and communicate the new culture to GPs but put their foot to the backsides of those who have consistently misunderstood and displayed insensitivity towards people suffering badly at a difficult time in their lives. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), whose point of view on the subject I share. Much remains to be done.
Does the Minister acknowledge that the ME Association is playing its part through funding a major study by Dr. Derek Pheby, director of applied epidemiology at the university of the West of England, under the auspices of the Ramsay Research Fund? It is designed to consider factors that might explain ME that is so chronic that victims become housebound or even bed-bound.
Will the Minister visit the information centre that the ME Association is developing in my constituency? I do not know how he can resist such a gracious entreaty only days after his appointment. I should be delighted to act as host. He knows from my remarks that the invitation is made in a non-partisan spirit. The issue is too big for political games. I should be delighted to welcome him if his busy schedule permits him to make such a visit at some stage. I know how pleased the ME Association would be.
Sir Liam Donaldson accepted the conclusions of the working group report on the subject without exception. They represented a milestone. Genuine progress has been made and there is no time to let up. We must not hold back; we need to consolidate and build on the progress. The evil of chronic fatigue syndrome must not be compounded, through errors of commission or omission, by chronic delay syndrome.
I am pleased to encourage the Minister, who well deserved his promotion as I said earlier, in the work that must follow. I look forward enthusiastically to his reply.
10.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for his remarks and I congratulate him on securing the Adjournment debate. It is my first Adjournment debate as a Minister and I am pleased that it is on such an important subject as ME and chronic fatigue syndrome.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned several detailed matters and he will forgive me if I reply to some of his substantive points in writing. However, I hope that most of my comments will tackle the important issues that he raised.
I welcome the debate, not least because it provides an opportunity for us to state clearly our policy on chronic fatigue syndrome and ME more generally. I want to begin by acknowledging how distressing and debilitating the condition can be for individuals, their carers and their families. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to illustrate

977
how debilitating this condition can be for individuals, and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) described very clearly the effects of the disease on his wife.
In January, an independent working group reported on ME. It is quite clear from the report that some patients have found it very difficult to get the treatment and care they need to help them to manage their illness and to make a recovery. We now want to move to a situation in which everyone with ME gets the treatment and care that they need, when and where they need it. I know from my own constituency that not only patients but the voluntary organisations that serve them are anxious that the momentum created by the publication of the independent working group's report should not be lost. I would like to assure hon. Members that we are aware of these anxieties, and I hope to address them in my speech.
It is fair to say that this is a controversial area, and that many in the field have different views on the nature of this very debilitating complaint. However, harnessing the views of patients, parents, families and carers to underpin the guidance was afforded high priority by the working group. The group aimed to capture views from individuals with special interests or expertise, and from a wider constituency, and to structure that material to reflect the range of opinion.
On the basis of that opinion, I want to make it absolutely clear that the Government endorse the view of the working group that this is a chronic illness. Health and social care professionals should recognise it as such. We welcome the publication of the report as the start of a process of improving awareness and understanding of ME. I acknowledge that the working group was faced with a difficult task. There is widespread uncertainty surrounding this condition, along with disbelief and controversy about its existence, and disagreement about the best way to treat it.
Four key challenges face clinicians caring for people with ME. First, there are no agreed diagnostic criteria. Diagnosis is often made by eliminating other conditions through a series of tests. There is agreement, however, that overwhelming fatigue is one symptom that characterises ME. There is a continuing debate about which other factors should be taken into account when making a diagnosis.
Secondly, we do not currently know the cause of ME, although there are many theories about that. Research has demonstrated immune, musculoskeletal and neurological abnormalities, and shown that physical, psychological and other factors are interrelated and all play a role. Thirdly, there is no one form of treatment to suit every patient, but treatment to relieve the wide variety of symptoms that individuals can experience is a matter for individual doctors to decide in consultation with their patients.
Finally, we are aware that there is controversy about some of the approaches used for managing ME. It is clear that the task ahead is to ask all the stakeholders in this field to work together to establish what treatment, or combination of treatments, will best help patients to get better, or at least relieve their symptoms.
The potential to develop service networks between the various stages of care—tertiary, secondary and primary—alongside primary care trusts and strategic health authorities is also important. This would improve access
978
to the skills, experience and resources of secondary and tertiary centres, and incorporate the principles of shared care.
The report was not intended to be a comprehensive clinical guideline, and has not been developed as such. A referral to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to provide guidance on management and treatment is being considered. Thought needs to be given to what is the most appropriate clinical tool for helping patients with this condition.
An audit, a referral protocol or a guideline might best meets the needs of patients with ME. These matters need to be discussed in some detail with the national institute. It would be better to consider all the evidence, rather than to rush in and create a guideline that may turn out to be wrong in the short term.
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I take on board the point that the Minister has just made about referral to NICE. Is he aware that such a referral sometimes takes up to two years? The length of time that it sometimes takes to come to the working group is too long. We need to speed up the process. Bearing in mind the seriousness of the issue, will he give a commitment to consider that problem, and to try to deal with it as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Lammy: As a new Minister, I shall of course give a commitment to consider that issue. This is a complicated area. The report is substantial and makes serious recommendations. The consultation with NICE is being considered at the moment, and I hope that in due course I can come back to my hon. Friend with some conclusions about where we are at now.
We will also ensure that the external reference groups that will develop the two national service frameworks for children's services and adults with long-term conditions consider this report and its recommendations for improving treatment and care.
Within those frameworks, ME may not be considered as a specific condition. However, the NSFs will address some of the generic issues affecting the management of illness in childhood and adolescence and long-term medical conditions in adults. NSFs set standards for treatment and care, and support health and social care professionals in the delivery of high quality services.
I want to address some of the points that the hon. Member for Buckingham raised. He referred to the Medical Research Council. I understand that earlier today senior members of the MRC appeared before the all-party parliamentary group on ME. They described the process that the MRC is using to develop a research strategy for ME.
Hon. Members will recall that, following the publication of the independent working party report on ME, the Department of Health asked the MRC to develop a broad strategy for advancing biomedical and health services research on chronic fatigue syndrome and ME. The MRC has now assembled a small group to develop this research strategy. The group comprises individuals who are not active in the CFS field but have the requisite scientific expertise. They will be joined by lay members drawn from the MRC consumer liaison group and others to take this issue forward.

979
The proposed terms of reference for the group are to consider the report of the working party on ME, including its recommendations for research; to consider other recent reviews—the hon. Gentleman referred to one—of the current knowledge and understanding of ME; to take account of patient and lay perspectives; to recommend a research strategy to advance understanding of the epidemiology and biology of ME; and in the light of current knowledge to suggest what areas of further research are needed with regard to possible treatments.
I understand that the MRC hopes to conclude the process by the end of the year, but it recognises that the consultation steps may require slightly more time than previously anticipated. The MRC considers it vital that the process is not rushed. I can provide the hon. Gentleman with a list of the membership of that group if he so wishes.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of benefits for ME sufferers, and I realise that that is a sensitive area. The Department for Work and Pensions recognises that ME is a debilitating illness. However, entitlement to benefit is dependent not on claimants having any particular diagnosis, but on their care and mobility needs in the case of disability living allowance or on the illness's effect on their ability to perform prescribed work-related functions in their assessment.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: May I stress that ME can lead to a patient being unable to walk?
Mr. Lammy: I am sympathetic, and assessments are made relating to such factors as mobility. The hon. Gentleman may be aware, however—I know this from the report, which I have with me and which I read at some length in the Library earlier today—that there is a spectrum of diagnosis. It is therefore right for a proper
980
benefit analysis to be made, and for full account to be taken of the variety of debilitating effects that the disease can have.
Clinicians face challenges, and we agree that the working group has provided an evidence base from which to start. We fully support the need for more research on a wide range of aspects of ME, and we have asked the Medical Research Council to develop a strategy; I have mentioned the terms of reference. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of a long-standing and important principle of successive Governments—that Governments should not prescribe the details of what research councils should do. The Department is considering the benefit aspects in depth, but benefit will rather depend on the spectrum of complaints that an individual may have.
Mr. Bercow: I understand the Minister's point of view, but does he accept that, historically, the bias of research projects has tended to be towards psychiatric explanations of the disease rather than its physical causes?
Mr. Lammy: I think it would be wrong for me to comment on the science of what is a complex disease. I am not a physician. We have a working report, which is being studied.
As I have said, there are many views on this complex complaint. What is important is that the Government take it seriously, that clinicians, general practitioners, primary care trusts and strategic health authorities—among others—take it seriously, and that consultation takes place with NICE. I hope to return to the hon. Gentleman in due course with news of that. Moreover, the Medical Research Council is engaged in a strategic study of the issues.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
SIR ALAN HASELHURST[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Carers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
9.30 am
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce the debate on support for carers. I intend to outline some of the difficulties that carers face in their duties. I shall focus on three particular areas: children who need care, hidden carers—placing emphasis on young carers—and the health needs of carers. I acknowledge the moves that have been taken to support them, but I am sure that it will come as no surprise to the Minister that I shall be pressing her for more to be done on their behalf.
I have personal experience as a former foster carer for a local authority. I also cared for my mother during her terminal illness. I recognise the number of people who, at some time in their lives, will inevitably face caring responsibilities. It is a great pleasure to hold the debate in the middle of carers' week, an event that is especially important as it will highlight the difficulties faced by carers throughout the United Kingdom. It came into being through co-operation between several organisations that represent carers and which were anxious to highlight the difficulties they face. The organisations wanted to emphasise the contribution that carers make not only to the people for whom they care, but to society as a whole.
The organisations were Carers National Association, Contact a Family, Crossroads—Caring for Carers, and the Princess Royal Trust for Carers. The week's activities are supported by the National Lottery Charities Board. The entire week will be devoted to highlighting the needs of carers, as well as celebrating and thanking them for their work. The organisations that are involved in carers' week highlight the fact that carers come in many and varied forms. They range from young carers under 18 years of age who care for a family member to people in their 70s, 80s and even 90s who care for a friend or a spouse. There are many other variations of carers, including, of course, parents who care for disabled children. I shall refer in detail to that group of carers later.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) is present. She has expertise in the work of carers, having been responsible for Barnardos in Wales before becoming a Member of Parliament. I am sure that everyone recognises the work of Barnardos in providing valuable respite care for families with severely disabled children.
Despite the variation in age and other factors, the definition of a carer is now widely accepted. It is a person who, without payment, provides help and support to a friend, neighbour or relative who could not manage otherwise because of frailty, illness or disability. Who are carers? Some facts and statistics from the 1995 general household survey give an insight into the wide
254WH
range of carers. Six million people in the United Kingdom care for a relative, partner, friend or a child with a disability. That is about 10 per cent. of the population.
Carers can be of any age or gender and from all communities. Invariably, because of their caring duties, their lives are restricted. We are here today to debate support to ease those restrictions. It is perhaps not always recognised that men are almost as likely to care as women—42 per cent. of men compared with 58 per cent. of women. Despite the examples at either end of the spectrum, carers are most likely to be aged between 45 and 64 years. Half of all carers look after someone over the age of 75, a situation that will increase with an ageing UK population. Almost 1 million carers care for more than 50 hours a week, a fact that should, perhaps, be viewed alongside recent improvements made in the workplace. The European Union working time directive has given people a choice about the number of hours a week that they work. Figures show that a significant number of carers work well beyond the stipulations of the directive.
More than 2.5 million carers juggle care with paid work. A survey of carers showed that 50 per cent. had given up work to care. That is another important aspect that relates to support, for two reasons. First, we must enable carers to maintain their income. Evidence shows that financial stress is a major problem for many carers. Secondly, we must prevent isolation, another problem that carers have identified. Keeping contact with the workplace is important.
I remind the Minister that, in a speech in London on pensions on 5 February 2002, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that too many people leaving the labour market do so not because they want to but because they feel that they have no choice. Many cannot afford to do so. It would be interesting to know how many leave their jobs because of caring responsibilities. Is any research being done on that, especially in light of the carer survey sample that I cited previously, in which 50 per cent. of carers surveyed gave up work to care?
The Government's family-friendly work strategy that has been implemented since 1997 is helping carers in a way that has not existed before. It is important that the situation is continually reviewed and that every possible help continues to be given to support carers in the workplace.
Surveys of carers have common themes. They all show that carers often suffer from financial worries; emotional stress; physical demands; isolation; loneliness; and, regrettably, still, despite the acknowledged efforts of recent years by the Government, lack of information and support.
Carers' needs are varied, and support for those needs must be equally wide-ranging. However, I shall take up the three aspects of caring to which I referred earlier. The first is children who need care. Three per cent. of children under 19 have a disability and need care. About 95 per cent. of those are cared for at home by a parent. That is an estimated 1 million parent carers, whose plight I shall examine in a little more detail.
Every day, 75 children in the UK are born or diagnosed with a serious disability or rare syndrome, and the vast majority of them are cared for at home.

255WH
Discovering that their child has a special need or disability is probably one of the most devastating experiences that a parent will live through. The feeling of both physical and emotional isolation can often be acute.
There are more than 325,000 disabled children in the UK. Caring for a disabled child presents parents with challenges that are different from bringing up a child who does not have a disability. It can also have a dramatic impact on other, non-disabled children in the family.
Surveys have shown that more than half of households with a disabled child lack some of life's basic necessities because they cannot afford them. Three quarters of families with a disabled child live in an unsuitable home. There are few specialist nurseries or child minders with accessible premises. Training needs are involved, to enable parents to work. No assistance is provided for families towards the cost of visiting a disabled child in hospital.
Contact a Family offers parents of disabled children access to good-quality advice and information and contact with other families in similar circumstances for mutual support. It also provides training for parents of disabled children, such as in how to lift and care for a growing child. Obviously, such training can help to avoid health problems for carers. Will the Government consider making access to such training a statutory entitlement, perhaps through the education budget, in the same way as, for example, basic literacy and numeracy training is free for adults?
I am also aware from my constituency casework of the many different stresses and strains that are placed on families with disabled children, who must often wait for assessments to be carried out. Delays are often caused by a shortage of certain professionals, such as speech therapists. Such delays can impact on their child's ability to stay in mainstream education, which in the long term is to the child's detriment. Other delays, whether relating to adaptations to the home or supply of necessary equipment, also impact on families unnecessarily. What further practical steps does the Minister feel can be taken to minimise delays to families in obtaining such necessary help?
Secondly, one of the most disturbing facts identified in research by carers' organisations is the number of hidden carers. They are people who care for another person but do not identify themselves as carers. They might be frightened of a perceived stigma or be simply unaware of the importance of their role. Either way, it means that many people who undertake a caring role fail to gain the available help and support that could improve the quality of their lives and the lives of those for whom they care.
There are an estimated 51,000 young carers aged under 18 who are part of the group of hidden carers. It is important to identify those young people and to give them help in their caring roles. Their roles are often recognised only when they are absent from, or have problems in, school. A closer examination of the widely publicised case of the mother who was jailed for her daughter's truancy from school revealed that two hidden carers were involved, which demonstrates the problems.
256WH
There are several projects, drop-in centres and websites specifically for young carers but, unfortunately, the Government's guidance to schools to be alert and sensitive to the needs of young carers does not seem to have been adopted by all schools and education welfare services. I understand that a young carers information pack that has been designed by the Carers National Association is available through the Department for Education and Skills. Will the Minister confirm whether that pack has been distributed to all schools? I understand also that officials from the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills met earlier this year to consider support for young carers projects and the production of quality standards for young carers' support. What was the outcome of those meetings?
Carers UK should be congratulated on two leaflets that it produced specifically for carers' week. The first gives information to carers on the help that is available, and the other is designed to help general practitioners to identify their patients who have caring responsibility but might not readily realise their role.
Thirdly, I turn to health needs of carers. The Princess Royal Trust for Carers published information at the end of last year showing that 23 per cent. of the carers it surveyed had suffered deteriorating health since taking on caring duties. The figure was 35 per cent. for carers who had cared for 10 years or more. Carers UK has conducted work on carers' health. It found that half all carers have sustained a physical injury since becoming a carer and that half have suffered a stress-related disorder.
Surveys undertaken by Crossroads show that a regular break can make all the difference to carers and will enable them to maintain their own health and well-being. A break from caring is invaluable in reducing the psychological and emotional stress that many carers face.
One of my constituents is a mother whose severely disabled teenage child has been allocated one overnight stay a fortnight in a respite care facility. That break has made a tremendous difference to the family. However, it should not have required a letter to the local newspaper and contact with the family's local Member of Parliament to achieve that.
Clearly, the £140 million carers special grant that was announced last year for respite care will be a substantial help. Will the Minister say whether the situation is being monitored? What further moves are being made to examine carers' health needs overall?
We have a different situation in Wales. It is the Assembly's responsibility to deal with the practicalities of grants for carers. However, I shall mention one of the worries of Pembrokeshire Crossroads, which is in my constituency. It wants to ensure that carers' special grant money that is given to Wales by the United Kingdom Government is not rolled up by the Assembly into the general rate support grant after 2004. Although clearly the Assembly must decide how to handle the funds, I hope that it will listen to the views of carers' organisations in Wales before making its decision.
Henry Johnson, who is the chairman of Pembrokeshire Crossroads, told me that 4,000 extra hours of support have been provided to local carers for short breaks—for example, to go shopping—under

257WH
existing arrangements. He told me that there is a tremendous local fear that if the funding is rolled up rather than ring-fenced, Pembrokeshire county council will not recognise and support the valuable work of carers. Regrettably, that fear has substance. Studies recently undertaken reveal that Pembrokeshire has the lowest per capita spending on social services of all the unitary authorities in Wales. Certainly, my local council's approach to social services spending is reflected in my mailbag by problems that might not exist if there were a greater commitment to the needs of carers. Perhaps the Minister will discuss Mr. Johnson's concerns when she next meets the National Assembly's Minister for Health and Social Services.
From the information that I have gathered about carers, it is apparent that the caring role arises out of a relationship. Practical caring is usually an extension of emotional caring, whether as a parent for a child, a child for a parent, a neighbour for a neighbour or a spouse for a spouse. Caring arises out of human relationships, which are above economics. However, we cannot ignore that, on a financial level, the work and commitment of carers saves the United Kingdom vast amounts. Figures published on 2 May 2002 by Carers UK show that carers save the state about £57 billion a year—the total annual cost of the national health service.
It has also been shown that 77 per cent. of carers providing substantial care are financially worse off. The Government have now announced changes to invalid care allowance that will benefit many carers and will come into operation in October this year. They have also listened to the requests of carers for ICA to be paid for eight weeks following the death of the cared-for person, which reduces stress at an emotional time. Carers' organisations welcome these changes.
Whatever ICA is called, it has always meant a loss of earnings benefit. Many carers would wish me to raise that problem. Given the massive financial and social contribution that carers make, it is time that the Government considered making carers' allowance a benefit that recognises the extra costs of caring rather than being a simple loss of earnings benefit. That would eradicate the many problems caused by overlapping benefits, which cause carers tremendous frustration. Significant cost implications would obviously be involved in any such change, but viewed against the straightforward financial value of carers' work to society as a whole, the sum would be well spent. I would welcome the Minister's response to that point.
Another worry for many carers occurs when the person being cared for moves into a residential home, and the carers find themselves without security of tenure. During the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, the Government gave a commitment to review the need for a mandatory property disregard when former carers continued to live in the properties of individuals permanently admitted to residential care. At that time, the signs were that progress could be made only if resources became available. Will the Minister update hon. Members on that commitment?
In its document "Caring on the Breadline", Carers UK identifies another disturbing fact—it is estimated that one third of carers in receipt of income support are cutting back on food to make ends meet. That is entirely unsatisfactory and is bound to have an impact on a carer's health. The same research found that nearly eight
258WH
out of 10 carers aged 56 to 60 who were providing substantial care had given up work in order to care, which underlines my earlier point about the need to support carers in the workplace.
The carers and caring organisations that I spoke to all acknowledged the significant work done so far by the Government through the national strategy for carers. However, it is clear that, as the Government have said on many occasions, while much has been done, there is much more to do. I hope that the Minister will continue to stress that point, especially to her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, with regard to incomes for carers. Every year, more than 3,000 people become carers, which is testimony to the continual need to monitor and review support for carers. As I said, the estimated financial benefit to society offered by carers equates to the entire annual cost of the NHS. That should be kept continually in mind. It is important that the amount is quantified, if only to show how public expenditure on care would increase if a tiny percentage of carers stopped providing support for any reason.
There are 14,688 identified carers in Pembrokeshire, and 376,000 throughout Wales. If only 10 per cent. of carers in my county alone could no longer carry on, 1,500 people would become totally dependent on the NHS and the local social services department. It is not difficult to understand the impact that there would be on public spending if that pattern were repeated across the UK.
Although a health Minister is present, I hope that she will accept that many of the issues under debate apply equally to other Departments, and I hope also that she will give an undertaking to discuss them with her colleagues. The Government have so far listened to what carers need and have implemented several of the requests that have been highlighted. However, with an ageing population in the UK, there will inevitably be more demands on carers, and those demands must be matched by continued government commitment and action. That action has been forthcoming, but as someone once famously said on another issue, such actions should be a process and not an event. It would be welcome if the Minister acknowledged that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are fewer than 40 minutes of Back-Bench time left, and 10 hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that those whom I call will be mindful of the needs of others.
9.51 am
Mr. John Randall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence), not only on obtaining the debate and on her timing—it is national carers' week—but on how she presented her arguments. In many ways, she has said everything that can be said on the subject.
I, too, thank carers throughout the country for their dedication to a job that they have taken upon themselves voluntarily. We all know from personal experience of people who have devoted themselves to the care of another person, whether elderly or young. It is easy to pay lip service when thanking people for that work, and we must ensure that we do more than that.

259WH
We must not take them and their work for granted. It is undoubtedly true that carers save various agencies a great deal of money—although that is not why they do it—but we must not let that be taken merely as a fact. We must give them as much aid as possible in the vital work that they do.
The hon. Lady mentioned many of the issues that strike one immediately, such as the need for respite care. Looking after someone with the dedication of carers is time consuming, emotionally draining and physically difficult. Many people have back trouble, for example, as a result of having to lift someone for whom they care who is not able to help to move themselves. Sadly, that often means that the carer soon becomes ill or disabled. It is not unknown for the carer to pass away before the person that they are looking after, such is the strain put upon them.
There is also the question of isolation. It is difficult for people who devote themselves to looking after someone full time to get out and about. The hon. Lady mentioned Crossroads, which does a superb job, as do organisations like it. However, that job cannot be left purely to some of the voluntary agencies. There must be more help, to enable carers to live as full a life as possible. Sometimes, they do not ask for it, but it is always vital.
Most hon. Members will have experience of something else that concerns me; the early release of patients—especially the elderly—from hospitals. It seems that hospitals operate like conveyor belts; they have to make room, because beds are needed. Therefore, patients are sent home when proper care is not readily available for them there. That puts great pressure on people such as elderly partners. We must always be looking into that.
Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I will conclude. I offer heartfelt thanks to all the people who do the hard and dedicated work of the carer. It is not easy work, and although we all hope that we would be able to do it, we will he unsure whether we have the necessary backbone until the situation arises for us. It is easy for us to pay tribute to people in the House of Commons, and we often do that. However, we must ensure that that is not merely lip service; we must thank carers for the work that they do, but we must also act to ensure that their lot is improved.
9.56 am
Mr. David Lepper: I add to the congratulations that have been offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on securing the debate. I am sure that the Minister has noted that many hon. Members of all parties are present and hope to take part in it, and that, at the last count, more than 180 hon. Members had signed the early-day motion which is in my name—and in the names of other hon. Members who are present—in support of carers' week. These facts show that hon. Members are very concerned about the plight of carers; they appreciate the value of the work that they do, and they understand that they need additional support. I also congratulate all those who work with the voluntary organisations that have organised carers' week; it enables us to focus on and celebrate the work of carers, and to recognise their continuing needs.
260WH
The isolation that is felt by those who care for others has been mentioned, so I also especially welcome Carers UK's recently launched carers' online website. It is intended to develop it to become one of the tools that enable carers to overcome a sense of isolation, by the provision in their homes of information about their rights, and the benefits and services that are available to them, and of news that is of interest to them. Eventually, the website is intended also to enable carers to contribute to the debate about policy development, and for it to become a truly interactive service, so that it operates as a sort of virtual community of carers. As has been said, they often feel isolated from the real communities in which they live.
One of the aims of carers' week is to highlight the hidden carers—those who not only work in isolation in their own homes looking after relatives or friends, but who often do not think of themselves as carers, and therefore do not claim the benefits that are available to them, or ask for support. Perhaps they would do so, if they knew where to find them.
In the area that I represent—the city of Brighton and Hove—there will be several events this week, including one on Saturday that is being organised by our own carers' centre. It will bring together several organisations that work in our local community. I pay tribute not only to the organisations involved in organising carers' week, but to many others, and particularly the Alzheimer's Society, with which I have been connected. It is only in recent years that the full impact of dementia on family life and the need for support for those caring for dementia sufferers have been recognised.
I welcome the moves that the Government have made since 1997 to recognise the needs of carers. For the first time, we have a national carers strategy. Improvements have been made to the invalid care allowance, there is the carers grant and there will soon be the second state pension, a scheme that will provide support that has previously been missing to carers who have been unable to obtain their full pension entitlements on retirement because they left work early to take on caring responsibilities.
Many hon. Members would welcome some reassurance from the Minister about the future of the carers grant beyond 2004. We would also welcome some indication of how the Government will ensure that carers who are entitled to the second state pension but who might not claim it know that they can. What will the Government do to reach out to those people?
I also ask that the Government give some attention, although the matter does not lie within their responsibility, to the importance of paid care workers in providing respite for carers. Many organisations need such care workers to provide that respite and they are a vital group, whose pay is shockingly and scandalously low, especially for those who work through private agencies. As they have to pay their own travel costs, they often earn less than the national minimum wage.
I shall highlight one aspect of the work that is done in my constituency. I have mentioned our carers' centre, which brings together several organisations working with carers, including Crossroads—Caring for Carers. One of its most successful projects during the past few years has been its young carers project. My hon. Friend

261WH
the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire has already mentioned the importance of acknowledging the needs of young carers.
The young carers project in Brighton and Hove works with youngsters between five and 18 years of age. It is currently working with 110 young people. Over four years it has worked with 250 such youngsters, and 50 per cent. of them have been of primary school age—children under the age of 11 who have a caring responsibility in their family. In our city, in a third of families dependent on young carers at least one of the parents has mental health problems, adding to the burdens faced by these youngsters.
The young carers project provides support for those carers in their homes. It works in our local schools to raise awareness of the importance of young carers and their needs. It works with teenagers, bringing them together for social activities that they might otherwise not have the opportunity to take part in because they are stuck in their home with a responsibility that they face day in, day out.
The project is working in many ways to overcome young carers' sense of isolation and to ensure that they do not miss out in terms of academic attainment and social accomplishments. I am sure that anything that the Minister can say to assure hon. Members that the Government are aware of the needs of young carers and the need to provide them with extra support would be welcomed.
The local chairman of Crossroads in my constituency points out that every Crossroads scheme that must be registered faces a 29-page registration document requiring a range of information not only about those working for the organisation but about its trustees. Often, documents such as passports and birth certificates are required, which he says adds to the bureaucracy faced by those organisations. We must be scrupulous in ensuring that the people who work for organisations such as Crossroads are able to go into other people's homes to help. I ask the Minister to consider the registration requirements again, and whether anything can be done to streamline them.
10.5 am
Hywel Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on securing this important debate during carers' week.
From personal experience within my family and as a social worker, I know of the dedication of carers. It seems sometimes that the last people whom carers care about are themselves, and that they come at the end of the queue. We know of the long hours that carers put into their work. The requirement for invalid care allowance is that care should be substantial and regular, which is usually defined as 35 hours a week. When I say that, I hear hollow laughter the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, because 35 hours a week would be a lovely treat.
The value of carers should not be in dispute. What is lacking is sufficient support, proper services and, importantly this week, an organised opportunity for carers to contribute to the community and have that contribution recognised. From the documents that I have read in preparation for the debate, I have been impressed by the number of hours that carers put in by volunteering for community activities.
262WH
Recently, carers in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) held consultation days. The concerns raised were familiar and depressing, but constructive. They discussed benefits and noted difficulties in claiming disability living allowance and attendance allowance, including the formidable size of the application forms. They noted that invalid care allowance stopped at pension age, although the care role increased. I have had recent dealings with the West family in my constituency, who have cared for their daughter over a long period and now face difficulties as she turns 18. They will almost certainly face a cut in benefits after leaving work to give a large amount of selfless care.
In Wales, health is a matter for the National Assembly, but the carers in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and Caernarfon noted concerns throughout the UK, such as the lack of communication between hospitals, carers and day-care facilities on such basic matters as medication. They noted difficulties in the standard of care, such as the feeding of people with Alzheimer's, a lack of back-up staff in, for example, the memory group, difficulties connected with bathing in day hospitals and the intense transport difficulty that is significant in much of rural Wales. People are often taken to day care via several other communities and spend long periods in cars and vans. I will not go into detail about these problems, but they are avoidable and should be sorted out. They would be sorted out if we valued carers more than we do.
Mindful of the number of hon. Members who want to speak, my next point shall be my last. It is about language, which is something especially significant in Wales but also relevant elsewhere. It is essential that services fit the carer, rather than the carer fitting services. In Wales and elsewhere, that entails a choice of the language in which services are delivered. I would be interested to hear the Minister speak about the development of services in languages other than English throughout the UK.
The Welsh Language Act 1993 has gone some way to securing the availability of services in Welsh and English on the basis of equality, but much more needs to be done. Certainly, we do not provide services in languages other than English and Welsh, so we have some way to go when providing highly personal services in discussing people's deep problem. We must normalise proper, diverse linguistic provision throughout the UK. We must normalise the service, rather than the carer's place in it. The service must change, and language choice must be institutionalised. A manual called "They all speak English anyway" contains five principles relating to language and social work. The first is that language choice should lie with the user, not the provider, and I commend that principle.
10.10 am
Laura Moffatt: I am delighted to be called in this important debate, which gives hon. Members an opportunity to pay tribute to those who act as carers, day in, day, out. It is important that those of us with no experience of such things recognise their contribution.
As a nurse for 25 years, I regularly worked 12-hour shifts and cared for people with carers at home. Caring for people with dementia-type illnesses for 12 hours was

263WH
quite enough for me. It left me exhausted and strung out, and I can hardly imagine what it must be like to care for someone full time in one's home, even if one loves them very much. That must be extremely difficult.
Many hon. Members have spent time with carers in their constituencies in the past few days, and this is a time to celebrate being a carer. I had a fantastic opportunity on Friday to spend time with members of the Crawley carers' social club. They do not feel downtrodden or put upon, but they share a collective interest. Many hon. Members have talked about isolation, but such groups diminish isolation enormously. On Friday, we had lots of laughs, ate fish and chips and drank wine.
We also discussed issues related to caring. Members of the Crawley group said that we should not think of them as down-trodden, or assume that their lives are thoroughly miserable, even though caring is difficult and frustrating. One of them, Mrs. Kidd, told me some funny stories. She said that she had cooked some steak for her husband, who suffers from dementia. She went out, and when she returned the steak had gone. Her husband had thrown it in the bin, because he did not fancy it. They had to have chips and peas because that was all that was left, but Mrs. Kidd laughed about it. She told me also how difficult caring was and about how she had to sleep by the front door, because she was afraid that her husband would walk out of the house.
Each member of the group had similar experiences, and another carer, Rose, told me about caring for her mother and husband. The person who gets the group together, Yvonne Morris, cares for her mother and for a child with severe learning disabilities, but she makes time to go on day trips, and ensures that she is part of the community. She did not have the sense that things were wrong. The Crawley group shows how information is shared, that people can understand issues, and how isolated people get to know about the many advances that have taken place. There is no doubt about that.
The Government's carers strategy was an important step in ensuring that carers are properly recognised for their work, and it has made a massive contribution alongside the other carers package. Of course, carers still face enormous difficulties, and they feel strongly about financial insecurity. Why should they be disadvantaged because of their position as carers?
We have heard much today about the money that the state would lose if it had to care for people who are looked after by carers. The reality is, however, that carers will not walk away. That is not a primary argument for supporting carers. We support them because they want to do the job properly. They all want to hold up their heads and say, "I am doing this job because I want to do it, and I want to do it well." The Government's role, in which the House of Commons must play a proper part, is to ensure that that happens.
We have heard that early discharge can cause difficulties, but a proper discharge plan could deal with that problem. I should be surprised if anyone in a ward would say, "I am sorry, but you have got to have your carer back home because we cannot cope here." To me, as an ex-nurse, that would be unforgivable, and greater account should be taken of that. When carers eventually
264WH
find that they can no longer continue their caring duties and when delayed discharge from hospital into the settled, safe and caring environment of a residential home is not quickly forthcoming, enormous despair can ensue. It is important that we continue to work on that. We know that caring is difficult work and that it can be extremely damaging for the carers, and we in this place have a role to play.
Like other hon. Members, I was glancing at information for today's debate. The Department of Health carers website, which was both interesting and helpful, highlighted some of the things that are happening. I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had written an introduction, and I am sure that not many of us would disagree with it. He wrote:
"What carers do should be properly recognised and properly supported—and the Government should play its part. Carers should be able to take pride in what they do. And in turn, we should take pride in carers."
I hope that everyone recognises the truth of that statement, and that we must move forward and celebrate their work.
10.17 am
Norman Lamb: First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) for securing this debate. It is important, this week especially, to draw attention to the situation of carers.
Lorna Fish and Brenda Howlett, two hands-on carers, together set up a campaign called "A better share for those who care". They say that carers are the backbone of the nation's care structure and that many carers feel undervalued and, to some extent, exploited. I hope that everyone would agree with the Prime Minister's comments on the Department of Health website, but we do not yet provide adequate support. These women make two key points—first, that carers need improved financial support; secondly, that improvements need to be made to the infrastructure of support services.
On finance, they make the obvious point that any of us could face having to give up a well-paid job in order to care for a relative. At that point, one's income plummets and, as other hon. Members have said, one is left in the invidious position of having to work very long hours in order to care for a loved one. A good case can be made for a thorough review of the financial structure of support for carers.
They make a case for improving the infrastructure of support. My experience is of a rural area, and other hon. Members have spoken about isolation, saying that carers can be stuck completely on their own in a community but with no access to guidance, support or help on the services that may be available to them. Brenda Howlett told me that she had to fight for two and a half years to get two nights' care a week for her father-in-law. In order to look after him, she has to live separately from her husband for most of the week. That situation has alerted me to the fact that it is the articulate, those who know how to fight the system, who get the support that they need. What about the others who do not have those attributes? They are left sinking on their own, often suffering ill health, as we have heard.

265WH
There needs to be much better and more regular respite care. Two weeks a year is no good; it needs to be on a regular basis. There must also be top-up care every week, to provide the support that such people need.
I am concerned about the carers of children and teenagers. I have come across some tragic cases of parents looking after autistic children and children with Asperger's syndrome. They are totally frustrated and in despair that the authorities and agencies push them from pillar to post. There is no co-operation between agencies. When they try to arrange education for someone with autism, they find that the health service will not talk to the education department—there is no joined-up thinking about how to provide a proper package of support for children who are being looked after by parents who are often in absolute despair.
Finally, I reiterate the point about the pay levels for paid carers. Norfolk county council is proposing an effective pay cut for the care workers that it employs by cutting their pay for unsocial hours. That is being proposed to a group of already very low-paid workers. That is how we treat people who are caring for others in the community. The attitude of authority and of society has to change. This week is especially important in terms of drawing attention to the needs of carers. I hope that it will lead to action from Government; it is much needed.
10.21 am
Julie Morgan: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on having secured the debate and on her comprehensive coverage of most of the issues that we want to address.
I am particularly pleased to speak because, as my hon. Friend said, before I came to the House of Commons I was an assistant director for Barnardos and was involved in setting up schemes to provide respite care for disabled children throughout Wales, and support schemes for young carers. Thus, in my previous professional life, I had a lot of experience with carers.
I am also a carer—I look after my mother, who was severely disabled by a stroke two years ago. Since that happened, I have become so well aware of the vast number of people—men and women, as has been stressed—who care for relatives or friends in their own homes and who do not always recognise themselves as carers. They are doing a tremendous job and make a huge contribution to society.
I, too, want to mention paid carers. It is important to recognise what a skilled job they do. Consider what they do when they come into a home, often entering a difficult and sensitive situation. They might spend the night caring for a member of the family and acting in a way that could require years of training—yet we know that many of them have not had such training; they have learned on the job and are not paid the rates that they deserve. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and others have made that point strongly, and I want to stress it. We must value the paid carers who come in to help the carers. It is often only because of people like that that carers, who otherwise suffer broken sleep, getting up two or three times a night, are able to keep going. The health needs of carers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said, is an important area to consider. In this carers' week, it is important to emphasise the sensitive way in which many paid carers work to help carers.
266WH
I shall refer briefly to young carers. The Government have started to address the problems in that area, as have the Administration in Wales in the Welsh carers' strategy. Youth is an important time in the lives of young carers. I am sure that many hon. Members have seen the look in the eyes of young carers whose parents are suffering from alcoholism, when they are waiting to see in what state they will come home at any hour of the day or night. I have seen that wary look. We must recognise that those events are happening at a time when that child or young person is developing and should be having a good time, enjoying social activities and developing their school work. Many young people are missing out on that or doing it halfway, because at the back of their minds they are worrying about their parent, who may have any of a range of disabilities. I have worked with children whose parents have mental health problems, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire highlighted the issue of young carers.
I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. It is important that we all have a chance to have our say on this important subject during an important week. In the debate, we have recognised the achievements of carers, who want to do their work. As elected politicians, we must ensure that they have as much help as possible.
10.26 am
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence). I shall keep my remarks brief, but I want to draw on the experience of the Milton Keynes carers project, of whose work I cannot speak too highly. It supports carers by ensuring that they have access to information about the services and benefits available to them and by providing incredibly effective support and networking. I am sure that there are many other equally effective organisations in other areas.
The Government must recognise the important work that is done by such organisations and ensure that they have adequate finance to do it properly. Five years ago, the Milton Keynes project was in touch with about 400 carers. It is now in touch with about 850. That is a substantial number, but it is still only 4 per cent. of the estimated total number of carers in Milton Keynes. The project could do much more and reach many more people if it had more funding.
I shall draw attention to two groups of carers with specific needs. The first is young carers, to whom many hon. Members have already referred, and I emphasise the importance of supporting them. One young carer in Milton Keynes is quoted as saying that the peer support provided by the young carers' group let him know that he was not alone in the world.
The second group is forensic carers, whose relatives are not held in high regard. A group has been set up in Milton Keynes for people who care for mentally disordered offenders currently or previously resident at Marlborough house, a local secure mental health facility. I know that the Home Office is interested in the work of the group. Such carers face enormous problems but receive little support because other people are scared of the relatives for whom they care.

267WH
The Milton Keynes carers project asked me to stress the need for real joint working between health and social care staff and day-by-day involvement with carers. It is extremely important that professionals acknowledge that carers should be equal partners in supporting the people for whom they care, and that social services and health care workers should take every opportunity to listen to and work with carers. I quote a carer with an adult son with a learning disability who, after a review meeting, said that she felt that "it was the two of us against the seven of them. I felt it was them or us." That is terrible and should never be the case.
10.30 am
Mr. Michael Weir: I congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on securing the debate. I, too, am a carer and have much experience from caring for a young daughter.
In Scotland, the situation is slightly different because many items affecting carers are devolved. One item that is still reserved to Westminster is benefits, and I hear many complaints about that subject in my surgeries. People such as myself do not have the financial difficulties that are suffered by many carers, some of whom are desperately poor and rely on benefits. The Carers National Association estimates that half of Scotland's 620,000 carers have no savings and that a third struggle to pay utility bills. As many as 23 per cent. cut their food bills and buy out-of-date food, and many cannot afford to pay their rent or mortgage. That is a desperate situation.
Angus carers recently held a conference, during which we heard much about the benefits problem. Many carers said that they had to tread through a minefield to get benefits, and that what they received from one hand was taken away by another. If they received income support and claimed invalid care allowance, the allowance was deducted from the support, so they were no better off. One of my constituents gave up her job to look after her mother and, as a result, became far worse off. That is not unusual.
Hon. Members have said that carers save the state a large amount of money each year. A recent report from "Carers Week" showed that in Angus alone, which is not a large area, carers saved £106 million per annum.
There are further inequalities in the system. If the cared-for person does not live in the same home as the carer and the carer claims invalid care allowance, it is deducted from the benefit of the cared-for person. That creates an immediate problem for a carer who wants to ensure, as he or she gets older, that the cared-for person has a chance of an independent life when they have gone. That is a factor that faces all of us who care for children—at some point we will no longer be there. We have to ask ourselves what will happen to the child then.
In a recent debate on carers in Scotland, the Minister referred to changes in pension arrangements for those over 65 who receive the ICA. Carers are confused, however, as to whether that will be paid in addition to the retirement pension. Will the Minister clarify that point?
268WH
I would not like to give the impression that carers are concerned only about money. Many other issues affect constituents, especially in areas such as mine. One of my constituents raised the problem of travelling to benefits appeal hearings. In my area, the appeals are heard in Dundee, which is a considerable distance from many places in my constituency. For a carer to get to an appeal hearing, he or she must first find someone to look after the person who is being cared for before travelling a considerable distance from Montrose to Dundee, for example. That is not easy or cheap without a car. The carer is away for the whole day, causing considerable stress to the carer and the cared-for person. Will the Minister consider the possibility of holding appeals nearer the home of the carer rather than in central locations?
10.34 am
Mr. Paul Burstow: I congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on securing the debate on this particular week and giving so many hon. Members the opportunity to take part in it. It is a great pity that it is impossible for everyone to have their say in a debate of an hour and a half, so the Government may arrange a debate on another occasion.
Thanks to the carers' centre in my constituency, I have been fortunate to have the opportunity to shadow carers over the past four years. It has been a real eye opener. Life changes when a person becomes a carer. Things that he or she took for granted stop. It is hard work suddenly to find that one's husband or wife is in need of support, and no longer able to give support. The carer is alone even when the person for whom he or she cares is around. Getting started as a carer always seems to be a challenge. Obtaining help from the national health service, social services and other agencies can prove time consuming. It is not so much that such help cannot be provided, but that the agencies take so long to get their act together.
Unless people are carers, they cannot begin to put themselves into the shoes of carers and understand the mixture of emotions that caring day-in, day-out, stirs. No matter how deep the love that binds people together, caring 24 hours a day grinds a person down. That is certainly the experience of the carers whom I have met. Should society expect people to carry on caring in that way? If carers want to, that is fine. However, if such action is taken out of a sense of obligation and because the alternative is degrading and unacceptable, it is wrong.
Surveys show that most of us want to carry on living in our own homes for as long as possible. I support that view, but we must make sure that those unsung heroes who are carers do not shoulder an unbearable burden. Earlier this week, I again had the opportunity to shadow a carer, something which relates to part of the speech made by the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire. I spent time with Jenny, who cares for James. James is nine years old. He has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autistic spectrum disorder. Jenny is full of praise for the support that she has received from health, education, social services departments and others, particularly the carers' centre in my constituency. Her story has been one of struggle to have her son's needs met. Were it not for her persistence, a move back to

269WH
Sutton and her decision to seek a private diagnosis of her son's condition, the agencies that rallied round to help might still be arguing over what the matter was, what help was needed and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, who was responsible for providing that help.
Like so many carers, Jenny feels isolated. She has a second son, Lewis, who is at infant school. No allowance is made and no support is offered to him by his school, yet he is a young carer—supporting his mum, making her laugh, keeping her going and looking out for his brother. Will the Minister talk to her colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills about the possibility of Ofsted, in its inspections, examining how policies are being developed within schools to turn the packs that are given to them into a practical reality? Perhaps such action can be a positive initiative.
School holidays can be particularly isolating for such families. The development of regular, supervised holiday activities for children, with opportunities for parents to meet others in a similar situations, could do much to overcome isolation. Just having an adult conversation can make a difference. If we set Jenny's story against the fact that three in five of us could become carers, it is clear that there is much more to be done to improve the lot of carers. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk said, carers are the backbone of the care system. Without them, the NHS and social services would be overwhelmed.
As the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said, it is estimated that 6 million carers save the United Kingdom a staggering £57 billion a year. In 10 years, the proportion of carers providing between 20 and 49 hours of care a week—and probably many more—has more than doubled. In the past five years, the number of people receiving home care, which was formerly provided by social services, has fallen by 100,000. The burden on carers has increased at a time when social services departments are increasingly rationing access to care, especially when an informal carer is already on hand. What assessment has the Department of Health made of the impact of the increasingly restrictive eligibility criteria on carers? The consequences of the rationing of care will be to store up problems for the future.
Research clearly shows that half the people who become carers sustain an injury. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) referred to back injuries. Similarly, many carers will require treatment for stress-related disorders. A survey that was carried out last year by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers UK suggested that one in four carers in the United Kingdom had suffered health problems. The report suggested that lack of help—two out of three received no support at all—was having a significant impact on their health.
That brings me to the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, which was meant to give every carer the right to an independent assessment of their needs. Like all carers' legislation, it was a private Member's Bill, not a Government Bill. In the Labour party's general election manifesto, there was a promise to examine the development of a fund to help local authorities to meet the needs found through those assessments.
Resources are dearly needed; indeed, the Local Government Association's survey of this year found that one in four councils did not have the resources to
270WH
implement the 2000 Act. They estimated a modest shortfall of £40 million. What is the point of an assessment if there are no resources to follow it up? Will the Minister tell us whether the examination promised in the Labour party's manifesto has begun, when it will be concluded, and with what results? When will the Act be backed with resources?
Investment in carer services is as much about preventing the carer from descending into disability, ill health and dependency as it is about sustaining the cared-for person in his or her home. Research shows that despite the national carers strategy and the carers' grant, which are welcome, it is the experience of too many carers that the agencies are going through the motions when it comes to consultation, and that lip service is paid to the need to recognise carers, but that such recognition is still not deeply ingrained in the culture of public service organisations.
I hope that the Minister can tell us what is going to be done to change that, and I hope that she will take from the debate an important message: that national carers' week should be every week. Carers are undervalued, overlooked and overloaded, and unless we change that, not only the Government but the wider community will lose out.
10.41 am
Tim Loughton: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on securing the debate and on her timing. Not only is it the beginning of carers' week, but she has made sure that the overtime in the England match did not sprawl into the debate. Perhaps that is why so many hon. Members are here and have made it such a good and worthwhile discussion, which has included a vast array of individual experiences.
The hon. Lady is competing this week with men's health week and volunteers' week, but carers are important members of our constituencies of whom all of us have personal experiences. Those experiences may be of the many carers' organisations that hon. Members have mentioned. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) commented on how important it is that those organisations are supported, and are given the resources to support the carers that they represent. I am sure that many of us have experiences of family members who have been carers.
The debate gives us all the opportunity to say thank you to those carers and carers' organisations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said, it is important that they should not be taken for granted, as they so often can be. I should like to congratulate Carers UK, too. The "Adding Value" report that it has just brought out has been quoted extensively and considers the extent of carers' involvement in supporting other carers. I think that that is particularly interesting. It estimates that the value of carers' involvement amounts to at least £1 billion per annum in community activity, excluding the wider value of the impact of their support on reduced health costs, for example.
The study found that one in four carers had helped to set up new services in the voluntary sector in the past 12 months. The respondents had contributed an average of 18 hours per month to their local community, often on

271WH
top of full-time caring responsibilities. "If you want to get a job done, ask a busy person" could not be truer than it is in that case. More than half of those surveyed were driven to become involved and set up organisations by their frustration at the lack of services for disabled people or carers in their communities. That is an important point because as everyone agrees, carers perform an invaluable service in their communities and in the country as a whole. We need to make their job as easy as possible, not put hurdles in the way of it.
The hon. Lady gave an array of figures; there are almost 6 million carers in the country. That is one in eight adults. In particular, it struck me that 51,000 carers are young people under the age of 18. They are missing out on a social life and on a child's normal development into adulthood. There are particular pressures on them, and they need especial support. More than 2.5 million carers have to juggle their caring responsibilities with paid work. Over half of carers look after someone who is older than 75, and 18 per cent. of them care for more than one person. Perhaps the most alarming statistic is that more than half of all working carers suffer from health problems as a result of caring. They suffer not only from back problems and other physical injuries, but from mental stress. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) said, that is particularly the case with regard to looking after people with dementia problems such as Alzheimer's disease. That can bring enormous stress to family environments. Many carers also suffer from financial stress, as hon. Members have mentioned. We need to address that in a sensitive and sensible way. In short, carers do not suffer only from physical injuries.
Recently, on television, I watched the story of a woman in her 70s who was a carer for her disabled husband and for her two grown-up and educationally challenged sons. She had also been waiting 15 months for a knee operation. She was hobbling around. We need to be much more sensitive to individual carers' needs. That woman was looking after three family members, as well as coping with her own severe difficulties. Such people need the maximum help. Given such examples, it is no wonder that Carers UK calculates that carers save the Government £57 billion per annum, which is an enormous increase compared with 10 years ago. We should pay particular attention to the illness and stress that is caused to carers themselves.
The costs of caring will further increase, as will the number of carers who are needed, and the number of older people who require care, because of demographic trends—more than 2 million of the 6 million carers in this country are older than 60, and a fifth of them are older than 75. A lady came to my surgery recently; she was 77, and she had been looking after her 95-year-old mother for many years. She said, "Look, I've been a pensioner for the past 17 years. I cannot go on like this. I need help." She had done that work with dedication, and we need to give such people much more help. These problems will become worse.
Despite the progress that has been made as a result of the Government's national carers strategy, problems remain. "Adding Value" mentions that 63 per cent. of carers did not feel that their caring role, or their expertise, had been properly recognised, or that their
272WH
contribution had been properly supported. Too often there is a problem with regard to giving proper recognition to the valuable role that carers perform. Being a full-time carer is not regarded as a proper job, but it is, of course. Carers often have problems with financial services, and accessing bank accounts and other simple matters, because they do not have a conventional job. We are placing extra financial stresses on carers who already have enough stress and problems.
Almost all of the hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned respite care. In that context, the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) made an important point about travelling to benefits appeal hearings. Just trying to get respite care to be able to do that results in a catch-22 situation. If carers cannot get to those appeals, they cannot get the benefits, which means that their job becomes even worse. More respite care cover is also needed so that carers can go to local social service departments, or wherever, to get better training. However, it is extremely difficult to get respite care for training cover.
We know about the pressure on social services because the subject comes up virtually every other week in debates in Westminster Hall. Many social services departments are experiencing large funding gaps, which means that they are retrenching many of the services that they might offer. That has led to a shortage of home helps, and that problem has been exacerbated by bed blocking problems. Too many people are being forced out of hospital beds early. That is a false economy because many of them have to return to hospital within a couple of months of their early discharge.
It is no good sending an elderly person home when their broken leg—or whatever—has been patched up if that person cannot look after themselves at home. That is a false economy. If carers do not have the resources to do that, we are only storing up problems for the future. Carers commonly complain that families and carers are not consulted prior to a patient being discharged, and there must be much more sensitivity in the health service.
The low pay of private care workers was also mentioned. That is especially a problem in the south-east, where there is a great shortage of such workers. Buying in private care workers is subject to value added tax, which adds to the problem.
I shall leave several questions with the Minister. Will she tell us about the future of the carers grant, which is guaranteed only up to December 2004? How many assessments of carers' needs are carried out annually? What improvements have there been since the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 took its place on the statute book?
Also, can we encourage employers? It is good employment practice to take account of a worker's needs, if they care for people at home. Companies such as Centrica offer their employees greater flexibility, enabling them to switch their hours to take an afternoon or day off to look after a relative at home.
It is right that we should help carers. We should give them far more support and encouragement because there is a demographic time bomb—by 2037, an extra 3.5 million carers will be needed to cope with an estimated increase of 3 million in the 75-year-old plus population. We must give carers greater respect and

273WH
pride in their important role and help make their jobs as easy as possible. They are some of the most vulnerable people with the most acute needs. We must give them help and support, not hassles and hurdles. There are too many institutionalised hassles and hurdles in the system, and I urge the Minister to do more to help.
10.51 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): In the relatively short time available to me, I hope to respond to as many points as possible made by hon. Members in this excellent debate. The number of hon. Members present, the range and depth of knowledge and experience of personal matters brought to the debate have helped it to come alive. I shall be taking away all the issues raised in order to inform our policy and ensure that it is more responsive and accessible to the carers in our community.
This is a timely debate. Not only is it carers' week, which raises the issue all the way up the agenda, but we have also seen the publication of important reports from the Office for National Statistics, which updates the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence). It is now estimated that 7 million adults are involved in caring. The number of carers is growing and they are becoming an increasingly substantial part of our community.
A report directed specifically at the health needs of carers identifies that, in terms of mental health, carers who are caring for more than 20 hours a week are more likely to report mental health problems, and that women carers are more likely to report mental health problems. Women are, perhaps, more willing to report health problems, but huge numbers of men are carers and are under similar stresses and strains as a result of their responsibilities.
My hon. Friend set the scene in an excellent speech. She covered a range of issues on which action has been taken, although I am the first to acknowledge that much more remains to be done if we are to provide the type of support mechanisms for carers that are required.
Dr. Desmond Turner: Although the Government support package for carers is welcome—especially the carers grant—given that there are 7 million carers, it amounts to about £20 per carer per year, as against about £10,000 that each individual carer saves the country in terms of professional services. Little respite can be bought with £20 a year, and local authorities are cutting back on support for carers. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that support for carers is slipping back rather than developing?
Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point: we must put as much resource as we can into supporting carers. However, he must acknowledge that, although there have been substantial increases in personal social services over the past few years, there is always a need for more. In the Budget statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out that there will be increases for personal social services of 6 per cent. over and above inflation over the next three years, which should enable local authorities to begin to meet more needs, not only of carers but of personal social services in general.
274WH
My hon. Friend is right to keep up the pressure for services for carers. However, some of the practical examples that hon. Members will have seen in their communities this week show how the carers grant is beginning to provide much more respite. That speaks for itself.
One issue highlighted by all hon. Members is the need for services for young carers. A range of projects in communities tries to support young carers. An example that I should like to highlight is that in Gloucestershire, where for the past few months a project has been implemented to try to help young carers who are preparing for their GCSEs and who have not had time out for study and training, to ensure that they have the chance to get the qualifications that will be so important for them in future. They have had a residential weekend away, with support and respite—a real break from their day-to-day responsibilities. Such projects are being implemented throughout the country. Several projects deal especially with the needs of black and ethnic minority groups. Hidden carers are a top priority for the Government.
Hon. Members mentioned culturally sensitive services and ensuring that services are provided in languages that people can understand. The services are extremely personal, and we must ensure that they are as culturally sensitive as possible. In Kensington and Chelsea, a night-sitting service is available, especially for Bangladeshi, black African and Caribbean, Chinese, Indian and Pakistani families. Such services were not in place years ago. There is real innovation and support in the field.
Lincolnshire has a hospice-at-home project, whereby carers care for terminally ill friends and members of their families and communities to try to ensure that at a desperate time for many people, care and respite is available. Indeed, many voluntary organisations, such as Crossroads—Caring for Carers—have a night-sitting service in Wigan, which provides a huge amount of help to people with dementia, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) mentioned. We must be aware of the huge stresses and strains on people.
One of the top aims of carers' week and of the Government's priorities is tackling the issue of hidden and young carers, who have never before been on the agenda. For young carers, we have the quality protects programme, which is designed to ensure that we consult young carers in devising policies. We must ensure that the structures put in place reflect the needs that they tell us that they have. We want not a system whereby the Government or local authorities provide a one-size-fits-all service, but one that is flexible and responds to communities' needs. We now have learning mentors in schools to help young carers get the most out of their education and the early years, when they should be enjoying making friends, having a social life and doing all the things that children in other families sometimes take for granted. We have the Connexions service, with personal advisers for 13 to 19-year-olds, which is again designed to involve young carers.
The matter involves not only the Department of Health and local government but the Department for Education and Skills and important benefit issues, which are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions. I shall certainly bring the matter to the

275WH
attention of my colleagues in those Departments to ascertain what we can do with Government and the voluntary sector working together in partnership. It is one of the key areas in which services in silos will never support the incredibly valuable work of carers.
Another important aspect that many hon. Members mentioned is supporting carers in employment. The measures that we have introduced to enable people to have time off work for family emergencies are a real innovation. We must ensure that employers are aware of carers' needs, and we have a mountain to climb. Our £1.5 million project on work and family life balance is designed to ensure that employers are sensitive to carers' needs and can adapt their working practices to fit in with people's family demands.
Work is also being done to provide a new national helpline for families with disabled children, which many hon. Members mentioned, and a system that can put them in touch with all the different agencies that can provide a package of care and support, whether relating to education, health, support in the community or transport. We are funding Contact a Family to the tune of £500,000 a year for the next three years to set up that national helpline, which will be a huge step forward. We are also match funding Carers UK's employment project to support carers in work. The Department for Work and Pensions has introduced the new ONE series, which is designed to get carers back to work and to give training, support and advice.
I pay tribute to the tremendous work that carers do. We have made significant progress on the strategy, the carers grant and practical projects. However, I acknowledge that we have much more to do to ensure that we give carers the right support, information and care for their health. We must ensure that they keep well so that they can do their fantastic work. I look forward to a continuing dialogue with carers on these important issues.

Music Industry
11 am
Pete Wishart: I declare an interest. I am a member of the Musicians Union and of the Performing Right Society, I have been contracted to Chrysalis Records, EMI Records and Sony Music and I receive an ever-diminishing return on my recorded work. As a Scottish nationalist and part-time member of the tartan army, may I offer my most sincere congratulations to England on qualifying for the second round of the World cup?
I find it astonishing that this is the first House of Commons debate to be held exclusively on the music industry, because it contributes some £3 billion to our economy and employs 122,000 people full time throughout the United Kingdom. We are second only to the United States as a source of repertoire, and the UK market is the third largest for recorded music in the world. Although the rest of the world, including the United States, recently experienced a decline in record sales, there has been growth of some 5 per cent. in the United Kingdom.
Our music industry is a UK success story—it is something that we do well—and I believe that we lead the world in creativity and innovation. The history of UK popular music is littered with all-time greats of world pop and rock music. Our consumption of music is massive—greater than that of any other nation—and we buy four units of either CDs, cassettes or our old friend vinyl per person per year. We bought 226 million recordings in 2000. Music extends to all genres, but we must be clear about the fact that the majority of music bought in the UK is popular and contemporary: pop, rock, dance and soul music. That accounts for some 80 per cent. of all albums sold in the UK.
Years ago, there might have been a reluctance to discuss the music industry, because perhaps we fuddy-duddy politicians should not raise a subject that is primarily focused on young people. However, popular music and the industry that supports it have been with us for some 50 years and they are involved in all our lives. Popular music has formed at least part of the soundtrack to the lives of everybody in this Room.
I was in London last week when the extraordinary concert from Buckingham palace garden took place. If there was ever a question whether popular music has arrived as part of our mainstream culture, it was answered that evening. When Ozzy Osbourne plays in Buckingham palace garden —he did not quite receive royal approval, but maybe royal assent—we know that we are once again at a defining moment in the history of popular music. Politicians must play a role to ensure that our music industry becomes the most competitive and successful in the world. It is our task to ensure that we remain brand leaders in something in which we excel.
As a new Member of Parliament elected last year, I was keen to bring my 15 years' experience in the music business to an all-party music group, so I was surprised to discover that no such group existed. I set about establishing a new group and I met key figures in the music industry. We now have a successful and viable all-party music group, which is chaired effectively by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), who is present. I hope that he contributes to the debate and that

277WH
the all-party music group continues to engage meaningfully with the music industry and to be an effective forum for the exchange of ideas between us—the politicians—and the key players and representatives of the industry.
In addition to being a great success story and contributing so much to our economy, the music industry faces key challenges, not least that presented by the illegal recording of recorded pieces of work. That might threaten the viability of the music industry's future more than any other issue.
The music industry is at the cutting edge of new technology and e-commerce. Music exists in a digital and online world, with products easily cloned and available for download on the internet. Unfortunately, the pirates and criminals who look to profit from the creative works of others have been able to exploit that new environment and marketplace. The legal framework to protect our artists and creators is insufficient. At best, it is patchy and it is certainly applied inconsistently across the European Union.
Compact disc piracy loses the music industry millions on millions of pounds each year. Yesterday, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry released its new figures, which show that 1.9 billion pirate recordings have been sold, and it is estimated that one of every two CDs in this nation is a pirated and illegal recording. That is simply unsustainable for any business. It is therefore our responsibility to ensure that the legal framework is in place and that we make the laws to protect our creators and artists. We must also stress to the public that such piracy is a serious criminal activity.
Piracy threatens the well-being of our music industry and when a pirate CD is sold, money goes to criminals, not to the artist, the musician or the creator of that music. Many of those criminals are linked to organised crime, such as drug trafficking and money laundering. Piracy affects every level of the music business, from the top acts to aspiring musicians in its many cottage industries. Only a few weeks ago, the top artist Eminem made the unprecedented decision to rush-release his album by two weeks, in a vain attempt to beat the pirates.
It is not only artists such as Eminem who are affected by piracy, however. For example, the excellent singer-songwriter Dougie Maclean lives in my constituency. Dougie runs his own record business from his base in highland Perthshire, and he recently took the extraordinary decision not to put his new album into retail or distribution, such is his fear of piracy. His livelihood is fragile, and piracy threatens the well-being of such people.
The Government can do more to protect our industry, and some key measures are before them. Those measures are technical—they might be said to be boring—but they are important. Most notable are the draft electronic commerce regulations and the European copyright directive. On both, the Government face choices that will either enhance or undermine the industry's ability to maintain and build on its position on the world stage. What they offer and what the industry wants is the development of technical measures that will increase flexibility and choice for consumers while protecting creators from theft.
278WH
Before the recess, progress was made in the other place on the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Bill, the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who unfortunately cannot be here. That useful and helpful Bill would harmonise the law relating to intellectual property. Importantly, it would also increase the penalties on some copyright offences from two years to 10. I know that the Government support it, so there should be no reason to assume that it will not be on the statute book before too long. I look forward to the Minister's comments on that and on the implementation of the EU directive.
However, even if the Bill becomes law and we have the best possible result from the EU directive, there will still be serious concerns about enforcement. Trading standards services are woefully underfunded and under-resourced. Provisions exist to deal with certain crimes under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, but so often the pirate and the counterfeiter evade the law because there are not enough personnel to deal with such crime.
The music industry earns the Exchequer £300 million a year in VAT receipts, so I believe that it is justified in reminding the Government of the money from it that boosts the economy and in asking for money in return to ensure that the laws are enforced and that the pirates and counterfeiters are brought to justice.
We must tackle the culture as well as enforcement and the establishment of the legal framework necessary to protect our artists and creators. If we are successfully to stop piracy and the illegal counterfeiting of music, we need the support of the general public. We must ensure that they understand that the crime is serious. The message that we must put across is that stealing somebody's intellectual property is the same as stealing their video recorder or car cassette player.
A culture has grown up that music has no real ownership and that anyone is free to use and abuse it in any way they want. Concepts such as the freedom to use music whenever and however anyone wants are usually mentioned in debates on the subject, and that attitude is usually accompanied by the belief that some bureaucratic, remote, faceless, well-endowed industry will pay. That is not so. The artist, creator and musician pay and they ultimately lose out; their livelihood is threatened. We must ensure that that message is understood by the public, especially young people.
Many young people know how to download music from the internet, but we should stress to them that they could become creators or songwriters, turning their leisure skills into careers. Our vision of a dynamic online society, which is one of the Government's key objectives, will be achieved only if we educate young people as to the responsibilities as well as the opportunities offered by the online world. Education remains vital to increasing young listeners' awareness of the value of music and of incentives to be creative. If, at an early age, young people valued their own creations, their own pieces of art, as much as they value their skateboards and their Game Boys, we would begin to make progress.
Record sales in the UK have grown while sales worldwide have declined. Although we may be relatively satisfied at the robustness of the UK industry, there

279WH
must be concern about that worldwide decline. We are a net exporter of music, which has consequences for the UK industry in a worldwide slump. EMI provides the most notable evidence of that, as restructuring has meant the loss of hundreds of jobs.
There is also justified concern about UK penetration of the US market, which is by far the largest music market in the world. The UK market share has fallen from some 32 per cent. in 1986 to a measly 0.2 per cent. in 1999. That must be of great concern to the music industry, not least the artists who rely on US success for part of their international profile.
US business infrastructure has changed, and UK acts are failing because they are struggling to keep pace. The British Council report on the performance of UK acts in the US was released last week. I was surprised that it made the UK news, but, for the first time ever, there was no UK act in the American top 40. That is a monumental development. The report concludes that the UK music industry in the US does not depend only on the personal choice of the American record-buying public; its troubles are due to a lack of a musical business infrastructure in North America. The report argues that trading conditions for UK music companies in the US have become considerably less favourable in recent years.
The report ends with a good suggestion—the establishment of an office in the US to act as a musical embassy for creators, record companies, artists and managers. It could be used to re-engage more positively in the American market. That initiative is looking for Government support. Would the Minister's Department be prepared to support it?
We must consider the future. As well as challenges, the new technology offers many exciting opportunities for the industry and artists. If we can put the necessary legal framework in place and provide the protection that musicians, artists and creators need, there is no reason to believe that the online world will not enhance our music industry. For instance, the ability to put work on the internet is an incredible way for unsigned, new artists to get an audience.
When I started my musical career, I was told that the future of music would involve the selection of pieces from a wire in my living room. Although that dramatic, brave new world has not exactly arrived, I believe that customers look for flexibility and increased choice in music purchasing.
Many superb initiatives have emerged recently, especially in the independent sector, allowing fans the flexibility that they desire to purchase their favourite music. They also give labels secure digital distribution. We must consider how we can best exploit such opportunities and we must move beyond the siege mentality that considers new technology to be a massive threat. There is no escaping the future, so we must make the future work for us if we are to be successful.
I do not have time to touch on a number of issues that are crucial to the music industry. If I were to deal with everything that affects it, such as education and tuition, the work of the Brits, the two-in-a-bar law, which is the Minister's favourite, and the live music scene, which has
280WH
experienced difficulties and challenges, I would be here all day. I hope that other hon. Members mention those aspects.
I know that the Minister supports our music industry, and the Department has been receptive to its concerns. I hope that the debate shows that the music industry is a grown-up industry that deserves our understanding and support. The House should be aware of the contribution of our music industry not only to our economy, but to the cultural well-being of every single part of the United Kingdom.
11.14 am
Mr. Stephen Hepburn: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). I was going to say north Teesside, but that would be slightly wrong, given his accent. The debate is today's second most important event, after England's qualification for the next round of the World cup a couple of hours ago. Our elation at that victory has probably taken something from the atmosphere here today. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, despite his political beliefs, congratulates the England team on their great achievement. I congratulate him on securing this wide-ranging debate. As he said, he could not raise every issue, because that would have taken several hours, and I appreciate his leaving time for other hon. Members to put their points.
As chairman of the all-party group, I was delighted by the enthusiasm that Parliament showed in setting up the group and, subsequently, in getting involved with the music industry. As Members of Parliament, we represent people throughout the country, and our enthusiasm for the industry reflects the general view. Music is an important part of everyone's life, and we all have our favourite songs and pop groups. We all recall favourite memories and special occasions involving listening to music, and we all had heroes when we were younger.
Like football, the music industry is loved in this country, because of the memories, enjoyment and entertainment that it gives us. However, the industry is more important than memories and favourite songs, and we must remember what it does for the UK. It is a UK flagship, which fosters international relations like no other industry does. We have seen the problems of football and violence, but there is never violence when the music industry goes abroad. It does great things for the UK, and it promotes the use of the English language like no school or education media could. UK stars are household names throughout the world.
Hon. Members have mentioned the industry's important input to the national economy. I have seen the figure of £4.5 billion, £1.5 billion of which is exports. The industry has 122,000 full-time employees, and we cannot laugh at such a figure when jobs are so important to all our regions.
I want to concentrate on trading standards capabilities and on stamping out piracy while ensuring that money stays with the industry and, of course, the UK taxpayer. I pay tribute to the work of trading standards departments throughout the country. As local Members of Parliament, we all work with them, and we know that they play a vital role in protecting consumers from rogue traders of all kinds. Their expertise will be vital if we are to take piracy seriously, and we must use their capabilities to stamp it out.

281WH
I hope that trading standards departments see our efforts to give them extra powers and extra duties not as a burden, but as a professional opportunity. It would be wrong not to appreciate their concerns about any additional powers, however. Departments are understaffed, and there is a shortage of trading standards officers. They also lack the resources to carry out their duties, although that is not the Government's fault.
Every year, there is a budgetary round in local government and a scrap over who gets the money from the pot. Nine times out of 10, trading standards departments come out worse off, because the more attractive services, such as education and social services, get the greater share of the money. However, we appreciate the departments' problems. As well as considering giving trading standards departments the additional duty of stamping out piracy, we might consider ring-fencing money when it is provided, as the Government have done through the modernisation fund, to ensure that trading standards departments get it and can use it to combat piracy in the music industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): My hon. Friend knows that the £30 million that was made available—while I was the Department of Trade and Industry Minister responsible, I might boast—is there to be bid for by local councils. It is not to be spent on anything else and it is up to the local authorities to show the imagination and the initiative to start tackling the pirates and the gangsters. The money is there for them if they bid for it.
Mr. Hepburn: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which I appreciate, but my general point is that although trading standards departments do a great job, they have to battle against other local government services for their share of the money. If we are considering introducing additional powers, we should try to give trading standards departments a lead and propose new initiatives to enable them to compete for the modernisation funds.
There is no doubt that illegal CDs and piracy in general are causing a major problem. They are being sold in their thousands, not only in shops, but on the internet and at car boot sales. Profit margins for the criminals engaged in that trade are huge and the risk of capture is minimal. The Government have recognised the importance of stamping out piracy, because they have increased the maximum penalty to 10 years' imprisonment, but the departments' lack of statutory powers or duties to enable them to act renders that meaningless.
Piracy in the music industry has a Del Boy image in the UK. It must be tempting for somebody who does not earn a lot of money to buy a top 10 CD for £4 or £5 from somebody who comes into their local with a suitcase full of them. We must get away from that image, because such CDs are not as good as the genuine article and consumers often receive shoddy goods. Being undercut by that criminal activity costs UK workers their jobs in the music industry and it costs the taxpayer, because money goes not over the counter in reputable and proper shops, but from hand to hand. That makes taxes rise, which affects the national health service and other services, and revenue is lost to the music industry itself.
282WH
I recognise the serious impact that such crime has on all walks of life and that the Government appreciate the problems experienced by trading standards departments and are making extra money available, but I ask the Minister to address the specific problem of piracy. In particular, will he comment on the fact that local trading standards departments have real concerns about getting involved in such work, not only because of a lack of resources, but because of manpower issues and their knock-on effects?
11.23 am
Mr. Chris Bryant: I, too, am delighted that the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) has secured the debate, but I want to pull in a slightly different direction from him and other Members who are interested in the subject.
Of course, the music industry is phenomenally important to the United Kingdom. Whether one is a republican or a monarchist, one must acknowledge that last week was an enormously significant event in terms of public relations for this country. Generations of British musical talent performed at Buckingham palace in classical and pop concerts, showing a cultural breadth and excitement about Britain that will have been attractive to tourists around the world. I congratulate the Department on its involvement in the jubilee weekend, which provided perhaps the best piece of PR for the country in many years.
The music industry has been especially important to the Celts among us, and I reckon that about 50 per cent. of those in the Chamber are English and 50 per cent. are Welsh or Scottish. [Interruption.] All right, the Celts have the majority.
The Minister is to visit my constituency on Friday, travelling a great distance from Pontypridd to Rhondda, to see one of the most interesting innovations in a traditional, post-industrial constituency. The Pop Factory is where Corona—"Every bubble's passed its fizzical"—was originally made. Now, it is where pop music is made and where all the greats of British and Welsh music over the past few years have played. Television programmes are made there and young people are encouraged to get involved in the music industry, not just in its traditional forms, but in new online and digital versions of music. That is all very exciting, because it brings economic opportunities to an area that was associated solely with decay following the closure of the mines.
Historically, the Government and the law have protected the rights of artists and the recording industry through copyright legislation. Almost all the discussion over the past few days in anticipation of the debate has centred on the economic rights of rights holders—those who make the music—but moral rights are equally significant. People should have the right to say, "I wrote this piece of music and no one else can use it without my permission. If they use it, they must attribute the music to me."
Many people do not think of copyright as dramatically affecting their lives, yet how we consume music, television and theatre is affected by copyright law. For example, we never hear "Happy Birthday To You" sung in a movie because copyright must be paid to use it. Invariably, one hears "For He's A Jolly Good

283WH
Fellow", even if it is a woman's birthday, because no one wants to pay the extremely expensive rights for "Happy Birthday".
Similarly, one reason for our strong church music tradition, which does not exist elsewhere in the European Union, is the exemption for such music under British copyright law. That exemption has allowed the Church to invest significantly in music, which can then be used in every other church in the country without additional moneys being paid to the composer when it is used in a church setting. That caused complications for Princess Diana's funeral, due to uncertainty about whether the music written by John Taverner, which was subsequently made available on CD, was exempt. Much of the preferred music for the funeral could not be used because of copyright law.
"Top of the Pops" has been so successful in this country and around the world partly because British copyright law enables broadcasters to reach an easy resolution of copyright issues with the recording industry. Furthermore, a French, Spanish or German satirical television programme that uses a song that takes the mickey out of someone renders it exactly whereas in Britain a version is used—for example, a song that sounds like a Sting song. Other countries have exemptions for music used for satirical purposes.
Copyright law goes to the heart of whether we enjoy our music and television programmes. It also affects news broadcasts. In Belgium, there is no exemption for showing public works of art and buildings, which means that one cannot film a news clip in front of the European Parliament building, for example, without obtaining permission from the architect. There is such an exemption in the United Kingdom, which is why it is unnecessary to obtain permission from Richard Rogers or any other architect involved before filming in front of the Lloyd's building. I happen to think that the exemption is right, but others in Belgium, France and other EU countries take a different view.
There are also exemptions in the United Kingdom for the blind and throughout Europe for copying for libraries. The nub of my argument is private copying, and a different resolution of that issue has been arrived at in each EU member state. In the United Kingdom, it has been accepted that individuals might legitimately record a television programme or a CD on to tape for use at a different time, on the condition that they bought the original CD.
That practice is written into the life of British society, as thousands of people record television programmes on a Friday evening and watch them the following week. The law presumes that they will then wipe the tape. We would certainly enter interesting territory if every Member in this Room who has kept a tape of a television programme recorded several years ago declared themselves pirates. However, the assumption is that every private copy of a CD or a television programme is in some sense pirated.
We must establish a clear and balanced position that benefits the artists, the recording industry or broadcaster and the consumer. Governments should be wary of responding on the rightful claims about privacy by saying that all private copying must stop. In
284WH
Germany, there is a blank tape levy under which video and audio tapes are more expensive, with the extra money going to the recording industry. There is provision in the EU copyright directive for the United Kingdom to take or not to take that option. Politicians should be wary of treading on consumers' toes in respect of such issues.
Although I have heard a lot from the recording industry about possible damage to artists—that industry is one of the most effective lobbying organisations in the world—I also hear from artists, who say that their rights are often not protected by the recording industry. Nina Simone is unable to be with us today, but if she were here she might point out that she has not received a single penny for the song that plays in every bar in the country—I cannot remember its name. Many recording artists get a bum deal from the recording industry.
Dr. Howells: The song is called "My Baby Just Cares For Me".
Mr. Bryant: I thank my hon. Friend. Everyone in the Room knows the name of the song apart from myself—I feel very inadequate.
When the Government implement the copyright directive later this year through a statutory instrument, I hope that they continue to allow for private copying when it does not lead to commercial use. That is the nub issue.
Pete Wishart: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's views. How would he make a distinction between private copying for individual use and illegal pirating for sale? What distinction would he draw between the rights of those who make private copies and those who undertake illegal mass production of CDs?
Mr. Bryant: The issue is complicated, and many battles were fought in the European Union, the Commission and the Council over the wording. In fact, all parts of the industry are happy with the wording in the copyright directive on that issue. I am simply worried that the Government may be pushed into being more restrictive than the copyright directive allows for. When they implement the copyright directive, the Government should consider allowing some of the additional exemptions in this country that would have no commercial significance and that are available in other countries. Harmonising copyright throughout the EU would be in the interests of all concerned, because many of those issues are not purely national. People can pirate from one country to another. I hope that Ministers will be keen to point out that although not all copying is piracy—one can be a legitimate copier—we need to put an end to illegitimate piracy.
It is worth pointing out that an MP3 does not provide a perfect copy. It has been said that digital copies are always perfect, and that that causes many more problems than in the past, but that is simply untrue. Embedded phonographs—music used in television programmes—should be treated as a legitimate form of copying and not immediately submitted to harsh restrictive practices, otherwise broadcasters in the UK would find it difficult to sell programmes abroad that provide a good showcase for British talent.

285WH
The UK recording industry faces a few substantial challenges, one of which must be finding a new revenue stream. I doubt whether more trading standards officers or more restrictive copyright laws will be able to stem the tide in the change of the revenue stream. It is up to the music industry to find that alternative source. I know that many recording artists have chosen to bypass the recording industry in an attempt to achieve that. The recording industry must establish better contractual arrangements for artistes. Many artistes get a bum deal, and they need a better deal. It needs to find a way of building long-term talent, and not only the "Pop Idol" style of talent that we have seen during the past few years.
David Cairns: Shame.
Mr. Bryant: I supported "Pop Idol" and watched every programme, but—[Interruption.] I voted for Will. I always support the winning team.
It is important that we make use of the slow-build talent; it may be more costly for the recording industry, but in the end it may prove far more beneficial for it and for the country. Some of the biggest names associated with UK recording are those who have been around the longest—the Stings, the Elton Johns and others—who would not have got to the top if they had been judged only on their first album.
My final challenge to the industry—it is one that the Select Committee has issued to the recording industry several times—is to make CDs cheaper, because that is the best way of ensuring that people buy more of them. It is disgraceful that CDs are still dramatically more expensive in this country than in the United States or Canada. Despite much special pleading from the recording industry, responsibility for that still lies with industry itself.
Mr. Eric Illsley (in the Chair): Before I call the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), I remind hon. Members that if they are brief I should be able to call everyone who seeks to catch my eye before the wind-up speeches begin.
11.33 am
Mr. Nigel Evans: I start by congratulating the England team. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and I watched the match on the Terrace, and we are delighted at the result. [Interruption.] That was on our Terrace, not theirs. Anything that gives Sir Cliff Richard an opportunity to rush out another version of "Congratulations" as England win the World cup is good.
It is good to take part in a debate that might even get clipped on MTV—who knows?—and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on securing it. Part of the problem is that people treat the music industry as if it were peripheral and unimportant, and as if it can take care of itself. The music industry is important to the nation. It creates billions of pounds-worth of revenue, and hundreds of millions of pounds, if not more than £1 billion, of tax revenue flows from it. It also creates employment.
286WH
When we talk about jobs in the music industry, we all think of the musicians themselves. Of course, they are vital; without them, the many other jobs would not exist. Those involved in selling CDs and DVDs are important, as are those involved in holding concerts in venues such as theatres, pubs and clubs throughout the country, although I know that there is a licensing problem, which I hope the Minister will address in his speech, and those who manufacture and sell the merchandising that goes along with music, and the music press.
When I was involved with the original all-party group on music many years ago we went to Abbey road and walked across the famous zebra crossing, and we put out a press release saying that we had walked in the footsteps of the Beatles. My researcher was not as au fait with the spelling of their name as I was, and we were ribbed in the New Musical Express for not being able to spell the name of the most famous group in the history of music. One has to take the rough with the smooth.
Without a shadow of a doubt, the music industry is vital. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) about "Pop Idol" and how important that was. It gripped the imagination of the entire nation, and I understand that the format is being sold all over the world. Undoubtedly, royalties will accrue from that as well. More people voted in "Pop Idol" than voted Liberal Democrat at the last general election —which I am sure we all understand. It is absolutely amazing how that gripped everyone, and it is not just Will Young who has done well out of it, but Gareth Gates and several others. I went into the pub the next day and just said "Will or Gareth?" to people at random, and they knew fairly well what I was talking about, and were able to say who they had voted for.
The music industry is enormously important. Of course, "Top of the Pops" has been mentioned in the debate, and rightly so. That programme has been sold all over the world. I was in South Africa this week and managed to watch on BBC Prime editions of "Top of the Pops" and "Top of the Pops 2", which featured some of the bands that I grew up with. The format has been sold in a number of other languages, which is important as well.
Just because we are supporters of the music industry, it does not mean that we support every type of music. That is clearly not the case. There is some music that I do not like, and I understand that there is some that the Minister is not so keen on at times, but I suspect that we will not hear too much about that today. We have preferences, and as vice-chairman of the all-party music group it was great to go with the chairman and the Minister to the Ivor Novello awards and see people such as Kate Bush—I was at university when she became very popular—and the enormously talented Sting receive awards.
The jubilee concert was mentioned and I understand that it has raised £150 million between the classical one on the Saturday and the popular one on the Monday. Rights have been sold all over the world for that absolutely enormous showcase for British talent. We have heard about Ozzy Osbourne, but of course several great British musicians have already been knighted, and Mick Jagger may be the next in line to get his

287WH
knighthood and hear the words "Arise, Sir Mick." He has made an enormous contribution to the music industry.
I have to declare an interest. I grew up with two brothers, one of whom played the guitar, and the other of whom played the drums. Despite that, I still appreciate music. The guitarist actually got a record into the shops in the 1960s as part of a group called the Outer Limits. People see how much the most famous musicians earn, and think, "Those musicians are OK, aren't they?" I am not sure if the hon. Member for North Tayside wants to intervene at this moment. The vast majority of people who play in clubs on a Saturday use the money that they earn to pay for fuel to get to some of the clubs that are many miles away. At times, they are a bit like a social service. They appreciate the music in its own right, while hoping that at some time in the future somebody will recognise their talents and they will do very well out of it.
It is important that we have mentioned the new technology today. When I was growing up, even CDs were not available. Now we have CD burners, the internet, Napster—well, not any more—and other look-alikes on the horizon. Who can say what will be developed during the next five to 10 years? Digital radio used not to be available, but is now becoming more popular in this country and throughout the world.
We have heard about some of the initiatives that the Government may take, such as putting a levy on blank video and audio tapes. There is, however, an opportunity, through the work of scientists and the industry, to use the technology that produced the opportunities for people to pirate music or access it for nothing to rectify that problem. There was a time when any software for computers could be downloaded from the internet, but Microsoft developed a technology that prevents the copying of particular pieces of software. As downloading times become faster and faster people will want the convenience of downloading music and the music industry will, I hope, be able to harness technology to allow them to do so. However, the industry must not lose out because people are not buying music in the traditional way in a shop or store. It needs to get money through subscription or some other means to allow it to make the profits that it needs to invest in new talent.
I offer my congratulations on the jubilee concerts and also congratulate the BBC on the proms, which it organises every year. They are an enormously successful showcase for classical music and are incredibly popular throughout the country.
Small music festivals provide an opportunity for both more and less well-known talent to have an airing. The Ribchester festival in my constituency starts on 26 June and finishes on 30 June. George Melly and John Chilton's Feet Warmers are opening the concert, and they will be followed by opera and quartets. It is superb that a small village is able to put on such a festival with the support of sponsors. We should not forget the enormous sponsorship required by music festivals. It is important that businesses of all sorts are able to create profits in one area and share their wealth with another, such as the arts, while taking the opportunity to grow.
288WH
I hope that the Minister will say something about schools and education. It is important that youngsters are given an opportunity to learn to play musical instruments, and that should not be pushed out of the curriculum because of the intense pressure on youngsters to concentrate on core subjects. It is important that we give talented youngsters the opportunity to learn to play musical instruments, as is the case with the Brit school.
A number of small and medium-sized enterprises rely on Britain having a healthy and vibrant music industry. I started by saying that the industry is seen as being hugely successful in this country, second only to that of the United States of America. That is not an excuse, however, for turning a blind eye, walking away and thinking that it does not need nurturing to ensure that it will prosper and flourish in the future. I hope that when he replies the Minister will be able to say how the Government will encourage the music industry to flourish in this country.
11.48 am
Siobhain McDonagh: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on securing it. I was afraid that we would all come along today and say exactly the same things, but it has been exciting to hear other Members' views about the diverse issues that face the music industry.
I should like to declare an interest in that I am the secretary of the all-party group on music, which was relaunched earlier this year to give MPs and peers an opportunity to become aware of the issues facing Britain's multi-billion pound music industry by meeting its representatives who include both performers and producers. This debate is just one example of the high profile that the industry rightly holds in the minds of politicians. As many hon. Members have said, Britain's recording industry accounts for about 15 per cent. of the global market and Britain's domestic market for music sales is the third largest in the world.
Since I took over the job of secretary of the all-party group on music, I have had the opportunity to meet a wide range of people. Outside politics, music is my greatest passion. A long-term constituent of mine in Mitcham and Morden told me that in the mid-90s he put up one of his most important clients for the night on the settee; the postman was given the surprise of his life the next morning when he bumped into Stevie Wonder leaving a small terraced house in Courtney road, Colliers Wood—who said that Mitcham and Morden in south-west London suburbia was boring?
Mr. Bryant: Stevie Wonder.
Siobhain McDonagh: No, I think that he came back.
My main concern is the lack of opportunities for new bands to make live music. Through my teenage years from the age of 17, a week had not ended properly if I had not had the opportunity to see a live band in some small pub or club not far from where I lived. Many of those venues have now gone, and people now in their late teens will not be able to see the equivalent of the Jam, or say that they saw them in a small pub in Croydon on the Sunday night that their first single hit

289WH
the charts. Many such stories have built my love for music, and I should like young people to be given the opportunity to attend concerts at little cost and to watch bands thrive and develop.
It is a tragedy for live music in this country that many venues have gone. It is also a tragedy for live music of the future—there are fewer places where bands can start out and learn the craft of live performance. It is not the fault of the Government's new deal for musicians, which has been welcomed by the Musicians Union, and which has given a hand-up to more than 9,000 young musicians; nor is it the fault of the union learning fund, which is a small grant scheme that was set up by the Government in 1998 to encourage unions to help their members develop their talents. The decline in small music venues is largely the fault of local authorities and their public entertainment licences, and all the Government's good work will be stymied without positive licensing reform.
For a nation that rightly takes pride in the global success of its music industry, it is strange that licensees commit a criminal offence if they allow three singers to perform in a pub, or in any other premises covered by the Licensing Act 1964. Even spontaneous singing—which I have been known to do, particularly in the Strangers Bar—is technically an offence. [Interruption.] Yes, my singing is an offence. Such activity is an offence unless a special permit called a public entertainment licence has first been obtained from the local authority. Last week's BBC Music Live community sing-a-long was therefore an act of mass civil disobedience for most of the pub customers who took part.
Without a public entertainment licence, premises may provide unlimited recorded sound, and radio, live satellite and terrestrial television broadcasts. The maximum penalty for unlicensed public entertainment however is a £20,000 fine and six months in prison—a bizarre state of affairs. The two-performer exemption from public entertainment licences is understandably derided by musicians who call it the two-in-a-bar rule. Only 5 per cent. of 111,000 liquor-licensed premises in England and Wales hold an annual public entertainment licence, which is why the word "rule" is more appropriate than "exemption." It means that a live gig tonight performed by more than two musicians would be illegal in more than 100,000 bars, pubs and other liquor-licensed premises.
The low take-up of public entertainment licences is largely due to rising costs and red tape. Home Office circular 13 published in April 2000 warned councils against excessive conditions and asked them to consider lowering fees for public entertainment licences. Few have taken any notice. Annual public entertainment licence revenue for local authorities in England and Wales rose by about 20 per cent. a year between 1998 and 2001; for the record, the figures are £11.005 million between 1998 and 1999 and £16.067 million between 2000 and 2001. That data comes from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. In fact, the totals are almost certainly higher, because a small percentage of councils do not provide CIPFA with such information.
To me, revenue from public entertainment licensing looks suspiciously like a music and dancing tax. Local authorities argue that public entertainment licence fees are justified on the polluter pays principle, but since
290WH
alcohol sales of some £30 billion a year generate some £12 billion in VAT and duty, perhaps some of the money should be available to local authorities to underwrite the legitimate costs associated with regulating music and dancing premises. Surely, that would be better than a locally set tax, which often bears no relation at all to the polluting capacity of the premises.
The two-in-a-bar restrictions on live performance are ludicrous by any standards. In Ireland, whose team has also had significant World cup success in the past few days and which many of us support, a pub without a live band is the exception. No entertainment licence is required in rural areas, although a permit costing £24 a year is needed in towns. In Scotland, most pubs can provide live bands before 11 pm without a public entertainment licence, and Scottish pubs—indeed, all workplaces—are regulated by UK-wide safety and noise legislation, which begs the question whether a public entertainment licence is the only way to address safety and noise concerns.
On the face of it, the rationale for public entertainment licensing is eminently reasonable. Public entertainment licences are supposed to ensure public safety and minimise noise nuisance, and prevent crime and disorder. However, if it is deemed safe for pubs without a public entertainment licence to entertain customers with live sport on widescreen television, as they are doing with the World cup, surely it is safe to provide a folk band, a jazz trio or, in the case of some restaurants, a string quartet.
It would be mistake to assume that noise from live music is a major problem for local authorities. According to the Noise Abatement Society, 81 per cent. of complaints are caused by noisy people in the streets outside premises. The remaining 19 per cent. of complaints relate to noisy neighbours, noisy machinery or loud recorded music escaping from bars and nightclubs. Loud amplified bands may be a problem, but there is effective legislation to address it, as the Scottish example shows. Licensing justices have the power to attach noise conditions on the grant of liquor licences. It seems that the power is not widely used, but it is there.
According to the Musicians Union, in Finland, Denmark and Germany there is no separate licensing requirement for live music. Its provision is assumed when the equivalent of a liquor licence is granted. As one would expect, the premises are subject to noise-limiting conditions, particularly if they are open after midnight. I understand that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has announced that the Government do not intend to require live television sport in pubs to be licensed under the proposed new alcohol and entertainment Bill. Perhaps the Minister would confirm that. Yet the Government propose that, in future, even one amplified guitarist in a bar will be illegal, unless such entertainment has been declared when applying for a premises licence and subsequently approved by the local authority.
I recognise that the Minister publicly acknowledged in his Department's press release of 12 April that simply abolishing the two-in-a-bar rule was not enough. Indeed, the licensing White Paper "Time for Reform" carried a risk assessment that musicians could lose work as a result. So how exactly do the Government expect that live music will benefit if the starting point for all

291WH
licensees becomes none in a bar? Sweeping away red tape and making licensing simpler and cheaper will undoubtedly benefit the licensed trade. The Government are to be congratulated on the scope of their proposed licensing reforms, but surely a thriving musical life at all levels in society is somewhat more important than the potential for 24-hour drinking.
Setting licence fees centrally may help, but only if the levels are low. The Government have an obligation to explain more clearly how their reforms will not just stop but reverse the decline of grass roots entertainment. Pop icons such as Elton John and Dave Stewart have recently complained about the lack of talent and depth in the contemporary pop scene. Composer and performer Big George Webley, who wrote the music for "Have I Got News For You" and won Sony Music broadcaster of the year last month, said:
"Over the past two decades this once great musical nation has lost its breeding ground for talent. Pre-packaged lightweight muzak fodder has replaced grass roots entertainment. If the Beatles, Queen or Dire Straits were starting their careers today, they would never get on stage, let alone make a record or get on the radio."
12 noon
Mr. Mark Oaten: When the title of this debate came up on the Order Paper, I thought that it would be fun and informative, and it certainly has been. We have had an excellent debate and I have learned a great deal about the music industry. I feel apologetic that I do not have a regional accent and only come from Hampshire. It is interesting that so many contributions have come from the Celtic fringes.
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). For a moment I thought that I might be responsible for some of his royalties—I must check my record collection, but we passed notes and I may have had the wrong band in mind earlier. He rightly said that this important industry is an incredible success story with a turnover of £4.6 billion, 10 or 15 per cent. of the world share, and employs more than 100,000 people in this country. We are rightly proud of an industry that I believe sets us apart from many other countries.
As we have heard, however, the industry faces important challenges. I disagree with several hon. Members—I spoke in advance of this debate to people in the industry whom I know, and the message that came across is that it is indeed successful. It has problems, but for goodness sake, let us not panic. Let us not have the Government ploughing in and over-interfering—many in the industry think that that would be the kiss of death.
What, then, should be done about the issues that have been raised? The most important problem, which was touched on by the hon. Members for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) and for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), is that of piracy. We must split that issue into the different forms that it takes, because different responses are required from the Government. The first and most difficult, which requires tough regulation and tough action, is organised criminal activity. Countries such as Mexico now have their own music awards for the best-selling artist, which is based on piracy sales. Clearly, the system has got completely out of hand. Unsurprisingly, the
292WH
artists are never there to receive the awards. The Government must take tough action to tackle that type of industry, which has many criminal undertones.
There are other forms of piracy, such as CD burning—sales of blank CDs have been soaring. CD burning is the kind of thing that people's mates do for them. As the hon. Member for Rhondda asked, do we really want to clamp down on individuals who do that? Another is e-piracy, which involves the internet. Again, I am concerned about over-regulation in that area. We know that it is phenomenally difficult to regulate the internet and that those involved in the industry say that they do not favour a heavy-handed approach. It is practically impossible to track down the source of the music, and although we may be able to regulate in this country, can one regulate if music on the internet is sourced from Spain, Italy or Australia? It is virtually impossible to tackle some of those issues.
Although about 17 per cent. of people who use the internet have admitted downloading and using music, I think that we should be relaxed about that, and accept that that is the new world that we are moving in. We should be relaxed about CD burning, but very tough indeed on organised piracy.
We know that piracy has an impact on the music industry. In 1999, if an album went into its second week its sales would dip by about 20 or 25 per cent. We know that sales are now dipping by about 40 per cent., which demonstrates that people are not going out to buy records in that second week. Things cannot have changed so much that all artists are producing bad records two or three years down the line.
Although there is clear evidence that piracy is having an impact, I would question how hard the Government's response should be. The Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) examines copyright issues. We should be exploring issues such as that rather than over-regulating the internet.
There are other reasons why such problems occur. Reference has been made to the high cost of CDs. We were promised that, with new technology, prices would fall. That has not happened, and the problem must be tackled. We cannot blame some of the problems of the music industry purely on piracy or the cost of CDs. Other issues are involved, such as trying to get products of our music industry into America. As has been said, for the first time in 38 years we do not have a record in America's top 40. Is it likely that a Government initiative, in line with the British Council, can solve that problem? I do not think that it can. The success of music is based on what happens on the street, not what happens in Downing street. A Government endorsement of a record would be the kiss of death. After all, the most successful popular music has been about rebellion, not Government endorsements.
I accept the concept of the embassy providing backup and support in America, but I would be worried if we were entering into a new Labour, cool Britannia phase trying to over-promote British records. That would be counter-productive. We must think about the quality of music. The best and most effective way to break into the American market is to have better records. The hon. Member for Rhondda referred to "Pop Idol". I also watched it and became interested in how the Hear'Say

293WH
band was developed. It has been successful in this country, but we will not break into the American market with artists like that. Robbie Williams is the sort of artist who could have broken into the American market—but there comes a point when such artists may not want to go to America. They do not want to start on the bottom rung, play at venues where no one knows who they are, and have to graft away to break into the industry.
David Cairns: I appreciate the financial imperative behind United Kingdom bands wanting to make it big in the American charts, but could the explanation not be that most of the music in the American charts is absolute rubbish, and our music is superior, but does not appeal to the mass market in the States? We should not necessarily beat ourselves up about that.
Mr. Oaten: The evidence from the charts shows that a lot of big American hits get to No. 1 and No. 2 over here, so British people do like American music.
As for other ways in which the music industry could develop, we must encourage new bands: those that start from the grass roots, from the streets, and are not a product of high-level marketing. The Government could become involved in that. For example, they have helped the film industry, especially by giving tax breaks to individuals who have invested in small film companies. Similarly, there may be a case for giving tax breaks to individuals who invest in smaller record labels.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) talked about ensuring that live venues go on being successful, so that artists can have an early opportunity to hold gigs. there is been much discussion about the "two-in-one-bar" law, and I hope that the Minister will mention that. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has tabled an early-day motion on the issue, and that has attracted 94 signatures.
Mr. David Heath: Since yesterday, my early-day motion has now attracted 133 signatures. There is enormous support for a change in the licensing law. The Minister unfairly castigated Somerset folk singers and, although he will become the subject of the first Somerset fatwa since Judge Jeffreys, I still believe that he wants a change in the law. There will be enormous disappointment throughout the country if there is not a licensing Bill in our next Session. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that suggestion away with him and tell the business managers that there is a need for a change to what he agrees is a daft law.
Mr. Oaten: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that the Minister will come out with a glowing endorsement of folk music when he responds to the debate. The law is illogical. The previous Speaker was fond of holding musical evenings and performances at Speaker's House. Did they have to be licensed?
I shall end by raising the issue of live music outdoors, such as pop festivals and concerts held at open air venues. The Homelands event is a very successful concert that is held in my constituency. It is organised by the Mean Fiddler, and about 40,000 people come to Winchester to attend it. Winchester is, perhaps, not
294WH
what one would think of as the normal kind of venue for such an event, but it has been extremely successful for the past four years.
However, for pop concerts there is a particular problem with ticket touts. I understand that ticket touting is illegal for football matches, for example, but not for pop concerts. I would be grateful if the Minister would consider that issue.
12.10 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on securing the debate. The House benefits greatly from his musical talents and experience, and the fact that he is here with us shows what a big country the UK is.
I turn to today's football match. As a Celt, I was delighted to see England qualify, but as my team, Scotland, is out of the World cup, I will have torn loyalties when my mother's home country of Denmark plays England in the next round—so that is one match that I might miss.
I welcome this opportunity to recognise the important contribution that the music industry makes to the UK economy, and to our cultural life. There has been much talk in the debate about the contribution that our musicians and creative artists make to the US, but nobody has yet mentioned that the economic downturn that the industry—especially its retail and distribution sectors—suffered after 11 September was particularly notable in the US market. That event has had a major impact; it is not that our music is bad, but the US market is particularly difficult to penetrate at present.
I also wish to praise the pop and classical concerts that were held for the golden jubilee, which were hosted by Buckingham palace and put together and broadcast by the BBC. As the hon. Member for North Tayside said, it is especially noteworthy that the Black Sabbath day came, because Ozzy Osbourne was invited. We should give special congratulations to those who organised that, and recognised heavy metal music in this way—[Interruption.] I cannot be the only person here who listened to Radio Luxembourg and Radio Caroline in my youth. The singles chart was extended to the top 20 in 1954. That was a particularly good year, and we have never looked back since.
I recognise the problems of piracy, which have been referred to by many hon. Members, in particular the hon. Member for North Tayside, who is closest to the industry. As recently as 15 May, I received a written answer from one of the Ministers who has managed to maintain her place at the Department of Trade and Industry after the reshuffle. It says:
"Accurate figures for losses due to internet piracy are difficult to gather and distinguish from other misuse of copyright material on the internet."—[Official Report, 15 May 2002; Vol. 388, c. 635W.]
I gather that for the year 2000, a £20 million loss was estimated for the music industry alone. That is very damaging to the industry in terms of lost revenue, drain on business and a brake on investment in new music talent, development and promotion.
I vigorously state that in no way would we, as the official Opposition, wish to be seen to be discriminating against young people in this debate. However, it

295WH
happens to be the case that young people have a special penchant for adapting new technologies in imaginative ways, and it is because of that that this loophole has been exploited.
Many young people enjoy enormous work opportunities in the creative industries—or in their retailing and distributive sectors—and I pay tribute to the work done by BARD, in its entertainment retailing yearbook of 2002, in recognising the unique opportunities that are offered to talented young people either as creative artists or in the retail and distribution sectors.
As for trading standards and the extra resources that are required, I seek a commitment from the Minister. We must see whether we can take some positive measures and provide trading standards departments with extra resources from the Government to enable them to do the work that they seek to do.
We robustly support the recent private Member's Bill, the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Bill, which enjoys cross-party—indeed, all-party—support. I learned on 8 May from the same Minister, in answer to a different question, that the Government
"will be strengthening copyright law relevant to online use and misuse of copyright material in regulations to implement the EC Directive on copyright".—[Official Report, 8 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 247W.]
That is in addition to the Government's support for the copyright Bill.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to update the House on when the Government expect to finalise the implementing of the measures, particularly the EC directive. He might also like to comment on whether the EU competition rules always make as positive a contribution to the music industry as the industry would like. I realise that he may be in some difficulties because most of the issues that we have raised relate to the Department of Trade and Industry, but I am sure that the two Departments often speak to each other.
I recognise, as have several other hon. Members, that the figures that we got this morning from the IFPI are horrendous. Internationally, piracy increased by 50 per cent. last year alone. The EC copyright directive extends copyright protection to sound recordings, particularly in an online environment. We need effective implementation, and we look to the Government to secure that for us.
The IFPI sets out the recording industry's four key priorities, which are: that copyright law be brought into line with international standards; that optical disc regulations to control pirate CD manufacturing be secured; that there be proactive and effective enforcement by police and customs; and that there be aggressive prosecution and deterrent sentencing of such crime under judicial systems. What is the Government's response to that? The Minister might not have had time to consider the matter, but I would welcome a written answer about those four priorities.
I was amused by many of the contributions, not least that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I shudder to confess that I am the proud
296WH
owner of a Spanish guitar, but I am not yet as fluent on it as I should hope to be. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for hosting the Radio 1 party two years ago, which was greatly enjoyed by all, and for which I say yet another big thank you to the BBC. She raised the serious matter of the decline of small music venues. All of us are deeply concerned about such subjects as they affect our constituencies. Bearing in mind where that most famous group, the Beatles, started from, we do not want to lose those facilities completely.
The British Phonograph Industry—BPI—has set out a shopping list of key issues for the British record industry. I should welcome the Minister's response on the subject. The BPI's No. 1 priority is copyright protection for sound recordings. The second is
"Promoting a legislative framework that encourages investment in new technology and encryption services".
The third is
"Supporting and promoting self regulation for content",
and the fourth is
"Promoting a level playing field for the US/European tax regimes".
Many who have contributed this morning would welcome a more level playing field in respect of tax, anti-trust and competition regimes on both sides of the pond.
The BPI goes on to ask for support for
"multi-platform delivery of public service broadcasts"
and
"Improving awareness of the role that intellectual property plays in enabling creative industry to flourish".
Finally, it asks for support and effort in fighting piracy and cyber crime, and concludes that the important progress on the adoption of the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Bill is most welcome.
It is important to recognise the phenomenal amount—the hon. Member for North Tayside said £4 billion—that the British music industry contributes to the national economy. The industry generates significant exports, with estimated overseas earnings of £1.3 billion, and provides 122,000 full-time jobs in the UK; 13 per cent. of the UK record industry's turnover is reinvested in artists and repertoire to discover new talent.
The Government have a pivotal role to play in delivering a regime that is light in touch and not over-regulatory, and will lead to an environment that enables business, culture and artistry to flourish. We are committed to that. Do the Government share that commitment?
12.19 pm
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): I add my congratulation to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on securing a debate on the music industry. He was right to say that it was long overdue. This place rarely debates successful industries; we usually debate failing industries. By the way, I hope that that is not a harbinger for the music industry; I do not think that it is.
I thank the hon. Gentleman not only for the debate, but for his work, with my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) and for Mitcham and Morden

297WH
(Siobhain McDonagh) and others, in setting up the all-party music group. I was privileged to attend the first meeting, which was a great occasion. I welcome that move to raise the profile of the music industry, which is arguably the most obvious manifestation of cultural life in this country. I also thank other hon. Members for contributing to the debate.
Music is rightly a very important part of British culture, and it has endless variety. I am dreadfully sorry that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) did not have the chance to stick the knife in a bit further on the question of folk music. When the Wurzels ambushed me subsequent to my outrageous comment, I was delighted when one of them whispered, "Oi married a girl from Pontypridd, you know." The cameras were all arrayed around us as I held up a copy of the Wurzels' Christmas CD, called "Come On Santa". Another member of the band then mentioned an icon of jazz—I am an unashamed jazz fan. He said that he believed that Acker Bilk was the brother-in-law of the great Adge Cutler, who was the leader of the Wurzels. That shows that music is an entirely integrated and wonderful form of cultural expression.
I hope that some of the predictions of gloom that we have heard—not this morning, I may add, because the debate has painted a positive picture—are ill founded. The UK record industry experienced a growth of 5.3 per cent. in 2001, which bucked the global slowdown. However, there are still problems, and I shall discuss those.
I agree entirely with the hon. Members who mentioned what a wonderful showcase the concert at Buckingham palace was. It was a tremendous advert for Britain. By the way, the tourism part of DCMS has managed to get some money out of the Treasury to sell Britain abroad. However, we could never have bought such a wonderful advert for this country as the incredible images that we saw last week. It was absolutely wonderful. However, I grew up thinking that rock music—I could not use the expression "pop music"; I was never interested in that—was about rebellion. Seeing knights up on the stage—well, I will not go into that. Ministers are not supposed to have opinions, by the way. If one expresses them, one gets in big trouble.
We are at an important point with regard to legislating on the music industry. Almost everyone who has spoken has said how desperately we need a new regulatory regime for venues—that is absolutely vital. I share the view of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) that the industry is successful largely because the Government have kept their sticky fingers out of it. I am not in favour of heavy-handed regulation or, God forbid, an initiative from the Government—we have had enough of those. However, I am keen for us to tackle the real problem of the diminishing number of venues, which I have seen in my own constituency. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) comes from Swansea, which had a wonderful music scene. It still does to some extent, but the number of venues is way, way down on what it used to be. I hope that we shall get this right. We have some good proposals to present.
I hope that the licensing Bill will feature in the Queen's Speech, but that entirely depends on whether adequate time will be available in the view of the Government's business managers. It is vital—and it is
298WH
not rocket science to reform that law. I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden that the last thing that I want is a reform that would drive groups out of pubs, which would be the worst of all worlds.
The "two-in-a-pub" rule is idiotic. Its origin lies in a different age. Just last week, I went with one of my brothers to a pub in Aberdare, which is not in my constituency, but is where I come from. We were totally deafened by one guy with two massive amplifiers, singing drivel. However, I shall not talk about that now.
Mr. Heath: There is a problem not only with performance venues—the Minister is right about what needs to be done to reverse that—but with practice and rehearsal venues. It is important for young people to have the opportunity to play without causing a nuisance to people, in a way that will take them off the streets and, perhaps, away from trouble, too.
Dr. Howells: Absolutely. We do not talk about that issue enough. The number of rehearsal venues is diminishing even faster than the number of live performance venues, partly because rehearsals often take place in the day. For those growing up in a small town and putting a band together, the opportunities to practise in the day with at least some volume are likely to be restricted.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley mentioned one reason for the current situation when he said that we have never taken the industry seriously enough. It is not regarded as mainstream. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) was right about the real integration between musicians, performers, singers, writers, music companies and retailers. She might have added those who run venues, such as pub landlords and dance hall owners, who are also extremely important. They constitute a network that is critical not only for the future of the music industry but for creativity in general.
Several hon. Members mentioned schools. The ability to learn music in schools is vital. I have gone on record before—and have got into trouble for it—as saying that I believe that successive Governments, including the one of which I am proud to be a part, have been far too utilitarian in their priorities for education. Education is not just about reading, writing and arithmetic, vital though those basic skills are. Some of our most important exports, among which we must include music, are based on skills that are not taught in that way. We need music teachers, including peripatetic ones, and we need instruments to be available for children. Most importantly, we need to understand the importance of music. It is not a peripheral but a central activity—and of course, we could spend the rest of the morning discussing the rest of the arts, too, in that regard.
The EC directive on copyright and related rights in the information society was formally adopted on 9 April last year. It needs to be transposed into the national laws of EU member states before 22 December 2002, and we are confident that we can do that. There will be an opportunity to debate many of the issues raised by hon. Members this morning while it is being implemented, when we consider the statutory instrument or other legislation.

GP Referral Procedures
12.30 pm
Jon Trickett: I welcome the opportunity to initiate the debate. I do not know if this is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's first Adjournment debate, but it must be among the first debates to which he has replied as a Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy)indicated assent.
Jon Trickett: It is his first. I congratulate him on his appointment, and I look forward to him engaging in the debate. I have no doubt that he has a long future as a Minister, and I hope that he can help in the matters that I intend to refer to this afternoon.
The nation is currently preoccupied, largely, by football. If we put that to one side for a moment, the national debate is about the national health service and health in general. Derek Wanless was asked to examine the health of the nation, the state of the health service and its future funding. The debate about the report focused largely on the pressures of expenditure, but is more significant than that. It also deals with supply and demand for the health service.
I want to talk about demand. I am afraid to say that Mr. Wanless described an unhealthy nation. He introduces the appalling concept of premature mortality and PYLL; the potential for years of life lost. We discovered that we live in an extremely unhealthy nation, where people die at a younger age than they should. We compare badly with countries in western Europe and elsewhere in the advanced industrial world. In the UK, women die at a younger age than almost anywhere else in the industrial world, which should trouble us all. The life expectancy for men is 25 per cent. lower in the UK than in Sweden.
Parliament and the nation focused on how we will fund the provision to take us up to the European average. How we can make the nation healthier so that there is less demand on our health service received less consideration. Mr. Wanless's interim report considered a range of issues. Paragraph 3.42 of his final report refers to expected scenarios for the next 20 years and the possibilities of continuing as we are, a mild improvement, or a vision of a much healthier nation. He also refers to the fact that not smoking, nutrition and physical activity can contribute to a healthier nation. He holds out the vision of enhanced life expectancy within 20 years, and of an improvement in the quality of all our lives by being healthier. It is clear in all the work done by specialists and non-specialists working in the health service that a more physically active population is key. Two thirds of our population may be following football as we speak, but they are non-participant observers. We want people to participate in sport and exercise to improve their general health, reducing the demand on the NHS and the taxpayer and generally promoting a much healthier and physically more active nation.
I admit to a genetic predisposition to cardiovascular problems. I come from a family who have had heart problems. I have high cholesterol and other factors that led me to the conclusion that I am in a high risk category. My GP came to that conclusion too, which
300WH
worried me rather more. My father had his first heart attack when he was 47. I was in my mid 20s. At that time, I still thought of myself as an athlete but I had become extremely sedentary. I was probably drinking too much and having far too many fry-ups and other unhealthy things.
I decided that I did not want to spend the rest of my life like my father, who has gone in and out of hospital with continuing heart problems for 28 years; he is now 75. First, I wanted a better quality of life and, secondly, I did not want to be a drain on the health service. I wanted to contribute in an economically useful way to the nation. Having said that, I ended up as a Member of Parliament, so I am not sure that I am doing that. I suppose that I am paying taxes and national insurance, which is a small contribution.
I decided to exercise and to change my diet. I have not—touch wood—been affected by the chronic problems facing my father and many others like him. Far too many lives have been wasted and lost through chronic heart disease, strokes and other problems. Also, I have had a wonderful life in terms of my sporting activity. I am proud of my sporting prowess but I will not share it with the House this afternoon. However, I believe that my personal experience can be extended to the nation as a whole.
When I arrived in Hemsworth, the health of my constituents was obviously very poor, compared even with inner-city Leeds where I had come from. I had travelled a few miles but the level of ill-health in the constituency was striking. The Government recently produced various indices of deprivation. We all know that there is a correlation between socio-economic factors, status and health. The differences between the social classes in our country, notwithstanding the fact that we are an unhealthy nation, are clearly shown by the massive propensity to ill-health and to long-term limiting illness in those lower socio-economic groups; what we used to call the working class.
The wilful destruction of the mining industry by a Government who attacked the communities whom I represent, together with the traumatic events surrounding the strike, led to enormous psychological disorder and stress in Hemsworth. In any event, there would have been a link between ill-health and the kind of industry on which my constituency depended; men were not designed to work underground and to breathe coal dust for generation after generation.
The long-term ill-effects of the mining industry—together with the way in which the industry collapsed and the long-term unemployment that, sadly, has continued well into the period of this Government—mean that my constituency has one of the most unhealthy populations anywhere. As I mentioned, the Government produced indices of deprivation, which show a particular cluster of health-related factors. Unsurprisingly, Hemsworth is one of the 25 most unhealthy constituencies. I have three wards where there are massive health problems and they come in the bottom 1 or 2 per cent.
I suppose that because of my personal interest in fitness and health and the characteristics of the community that I represent, I took a particular interest in health centres and health activities, especially the creation of sports and exercise facilities in the area. One

301WH
centre is in Hemsworth high school and another is in a small village called Hovercraft—sorry, Havercroft. That will give some fun to the Hansard writers. It is an isolated village with an extremely unhealthy population, some of whom are facing long-term unemployment. We could not fundamentally tackle the problems of deprivation, but we funded a new sports centre there and also exercise equipment in Hemsworth high school.
That was the start, I hoped, of engendering the feeling that promoting healthy lifestyles and activities was important. However, I was slightly disappointed at the take-up by the local population. Both centres are well used, but often not by the unhealthiest people. We should reflect on that problem.
Several barriers impede people from the sort of communities that I represent from frequenting sports centres. Both of the centres to which I referred, incidentally, are located within a single electoral ward; the 100th most unhealthy out of 8,500 wards in the country. Health problems there are both chronic and acute.
It was relatively easy to gain the capital to provide the facilities and equipment, but it was not easy to gain the revenue necessary for supporting the centres. Cultural barriers can be important. If someone feels unfit or obese, they are unlikely to enter the centres, which would reinforce their negative feelings. Another cultural barrier stems from the fact that GPs are often not trained to encourage exercise as a means of tackling ill-health. Other barriers stem from the absence of health and fitness providers in the centres with the requisite skills to deal with unhealthy or obese people who are perhaps at risk of cardiovascular problems. Finally, there are financial barriers, which stem from the pricing policy of some centres. Sadly, my constituency does not contain private sector providers—the money is not there—but even public sector providers have to charge fees, which can deter people from joining and participating in the centres.
My next step was to establish whether a local partnership would allow sports facilities to be opened up to the communities, and that was the context in which I first encountered the subject of this debate; GP referral programmes. I found that someone had already invented the wheel that I was trying to invent. Prompted by the excellent work of the Fitness Industry Association, the Government are taking an interesting step forward. I am grateful to Andree Dean, the FIA chairman, for the advice and information he provided.
Effectively, the scheme allows exercise on prescription. It allows GPs to allocate some NHS funding to local populations for preventive work. Engaging people in the facilities available in their communities and neighbourhoods should enable them gradually to adopt more healthy lifestyles.
It was wonderful to find that someone else had invented a wheel that I was trying to invent in my own community, and I am grateful to the FIA, the Department and everyone else involved. The scheme is at an early stage, but is working well. A register of exercise professionals has been established, and I understand that 13,000 people are already registered, which is an excellent step forward. It started only in January, so we have made great progress, but I must sound a note of caution. We need to ensure that the
302WH
register is extended and that the process does not exclude people who are involved in providing sport. Some people feel that this is the professionalising of sport. I think that sport and exercise need to be professional, but the register must operate openly and not be a barrier. I have spoken to the FIA and to the acting registrar, Cliff Collins, and I am confident that the register will operate as I have described; I see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary agrees.
There has to be a "but" somewhere in this good news story about the good work being done by the Government, and it is this; where is the GP referral programme in my constituency? There is the possibility of creating a coalition of providers that extends from health and primary care providers through the primary care trust to the health and exercise industry and sport in general. We have a wonderful vision of a healthier nation that costs the NHS less and enjoys a better quality of life. Admittedly, we are at an early stage, and I do not want to be critical, but the scheme has not yet been rolled out. Indeed, we do not know—unless the Under-Secretary can enlighten us—exactly where the scheme is working and where it is not working. It is patchy and fragmented.
My experience of public services, which goes back a long time, is that the middle classes tend to know how to manipulate the various programmes that we establish. The lower socio-economic groups are frequently excluded even from good ideas such as the one that we are discussing, but that must not happen. I fear that the exercise referral programme is being captured in middle-class areas, which is a way of putting revenue funding into the equipped provisions that I have described, thereby enabling them to operate. The programme is not reaching into the unhealthiest neighbourhoods. I may be wrong, but I think that we must establish exactly where the programme is working and ensure that it is rolled out as quickly as possible to the rest of the nation.
I shall conclude by talking about how we might profitably move forward. The scheme is excellent, but I would welcome confirmation from the Under-Secretary that the Government accept that there is a clear link between the benefits of exercise and health. It is important that the Government say that clearly, frequently and loudly.
We should perhaps ask the industry to provide us with the information that would allow the Government to ascertain how the scheme is used, how it is rolling out and how we can ensure that it reaches all neighbourhoods. Some form of general audit of provision and of where the lacunae are would be welcome, because we must find out which elements are missing and fill in the gaps.
As I have taken an interest in the issue, the FIA has said that it will help me to try to identify practitioners who will come into my constituency and provide facilities, and we will encourage GPs to be involved. However, that depended purely on the random fact that, as the local MP, I was interested in health and fitness. We should not leave these matters to individuals.
I would like the Government to ensure that PCTs understand the scheme, that money is available and that they facilitate GPs' involvement. That would require a large-scale programme, but an intermediate step may be to consider health action zones. These are located where

303WH
there are concentrations of poverty, deprivation and ill health. The first step may be to ensure that at least every health action zone area has a facility to provide the exercise referral programme. The Under-Secretary has powers and can use the national quality framework to ensure that the scheme rolls out. I hope that he will do so.
My final point is that a cultural shift is required to ensure that health and exercise professionals and the general population recognise that health and exercise go together. That can be done by conducting a long-term study that monitors the operation of the referral programme and studies people who are at risk to find out whether their health improves during a certain period. That information could come from the industry and the Government could monitor it, perhaps referring it to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which, in turn, could produce a learning report. That itself could be used as a propaganda weapon to encourage people and GPs to get involved.
There is much to say, but I have spoken for 20 minutes. I hope that the Under-Secretary has time to set the general scene as well as to reply to my particular points.
12.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for raising this important debate and for giving me the opportunity of my first Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall as a Minister. It is a momentous day on which to have the debate. This morning I visited probably the best football club in London—Tottenham Hotspur—with some local pupils. We were at its learning support centre to watch the England game and were all delighted that, despite the sweltering heat on the other side of the world, England got through to the second round. I was particularly pleased that young people from my constituency were getting such a positive message about sport.
Like many other hon. Members, I am both a barrister and politician. I have only nine minutes to address my hon. Friend's important points, so I hope that he will forgive me if I rattle on.
There is now substantial evidence to support the role of physical activity in promoting good health. Research has shown that physically inactive people have roughly double the risk of coronary heart disease, and it was instructive that my hon. Friend referred to his family experiences of that disease. Physical inactivity is also a risk factor for obesity, colon cancer, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and mental health problems. Those diseases have a significant human and economic cost.
My hon. Friend was right to refer to the Wanless report and its points about health inequalities and the need to move to a fitter society. We have seen a threefold increase in obesity in the past 20 years and, if the trend continues, more than a quarter of adults in England will be obese by 2010. A recent National Audit Office report outlined the significant costs of obesity to the NHS and the economy. In 1998, obesity accounted for 18 million days of sickness absence, 40,000 lost years of working
304WH
life and 30,000 deaths, of which 9,000 related to obesity, before state retirement age. In response to my hon. Friend's earlier point, I recognise that there is a problem. Both diet and physical activity play a role in obesity, and we are taking action to address both factors. We already have a comprehensive action programme to improve diet.
Physical activity can help in the prevention and management of obesity and other chronic diseases, but physical activity rates are low across the adult population. About six out of 10 men and seven out of 10 women are not active enough to benefit their health, while among children, four out of 10 boys and five out of 10 girls are not meeting the recommended one hour of exercise a day. My hon. Friend is right to refer to inequalities that exist in our community; these occur in parts of his constituency and in constituencies such as mine. Rates of inactivity are particularly high among older people, some ethnic minority communities and those living in rented council accommodation.
I accept my hon. Friend's point about the middle classes, but he will appreciate that, as the economy grows and people have more leisure time, it is important that that leisure time is used and accessed by everyone. Indeed, one of the second or third things that I said to my diary secretary on taking up my new role was that she had to ensure that I got to my gym early in the morning so that I did not pass out in the Chamber at some future date.
The NHS plan makes a clear commitment to local action to tackle physical inactivity. I hear my hon. Friend's point about GPs being equipped to refer people for exercise. That is in the NHS plan and we must ensure that we roll that out and communicate it to all our medical practitioners. That is also emphasised in the national service framework for coronary heart disease, along with the national service frameworks for older people, mental health, and diabetes.
The national service framework for coronary heart disease, in particular, contains a number of milestones to which physical activity is central. Standard 1 requires all NHS bodies to work closely with local authorities in developing a local programme of effective policies on physical activity, being overweight and obesity. The standards for primary care and cardiac rehabilitation also contain milestones that require action on physical activity.
That is where exercise referral schemes, as my hon. Friend pointed out, play an important role. Research has shown that referral programmes can be effective in behaviour change. The Department of Health funded two reviews by the former Health Education Authority that specifically considered the progress and effectiveness of exercise referral schemes. The research showed that better designed referral schemes could lead to small levels of increased participation in activity, but that practice across the country was highly variable.
To address that, the Department published a national quality assurance framework on exercise referral systems in April 2001 to improve standards of existing schemes and help the development of new ones. The framework focuses primarily on the most common model of exercise referral system, where a GP or practice nurse refers a patient to facilities such as leisure centres

305WH
or gyms for a supervised exercise programme, commonly called exercise referral schemes or exercise on prescription.
The document was sent to primary care trusts and leisure services in local authorities, and GPs were notified of the quality assurance framework through the GP bulletin, which is sent to all GPs in England. The guidelines were also promoted at two regional seminars for primary care and leisure professionals held last summer.
I fully recognise the importance of ensuring that fitness instructors have the appropriate training and competence to work with patients in a referral scheme. I therefore support the work of the Fitness Industry Association and the National Training Organisation for Sport, Recreation and Allied Occupations in this area. In particular, the development of the register of exercise professionals, launched last year, played an important role.
My hon. Friend says that he wants the programme to be rolled out across the country, but it is important to emphasise that the national service framework for coronary heart disease requires primary care trusts to develop local programmes and effective policies on physical activity. Referral programmes present only one option for local action to tackle physical inactivity. It is for local primary care trusts to reach their own view about how to promote exercise and make progress on this issue.

Transport (Oxfordshire)
1 pm
Mr. David Cameron: I am delighted to have this opportunity to debate issues that are discussed throughout my constituency, including overcrowded roads, the lack of proper rail services, the shortage of rural bus services, noise pollution and environmental blight from heavy traffic, and the poor state of repair of many of our roads.
Those topics are of great concern throughout Oxfordshire, and they are close to my heart, too, not least because I shall be supporting the two-wheeled fraternity on Friday, when I shall travel between Witney and Oxford on the back of a motorcycle. I own a moped, so I am not frightened. I am always impressed by the local branch of the Motorcycle Action Group, which always makes its case with great vigour, whether the issue is more motorcycle parking bays or changing laws on, for example, the use of bus lanes by motorcycles.
To turn to the issue at hand, some people may think that congestion is a problem for only our bigger cities and that Witney is a predominantly rural constituency. They would be wrong, however, and the journey to work or to school is little short of hellish for many of my constituents. The A40 between Witney and Oxford is particularly bad, but other routes are also congested.
I want the Under-Secretary to help our county in three major respects, but let me first set the scene. Almost 75 per cent. of Oxfordshire is designated as green belt, as an area of outstanding natural beauty or as an area of high landscape value. We value our environment and our countryside. Our population and economy have grown rapidly, and continue to do so. Between 1981 and 1996, the population increased by 11 per cent., and another 43,600 houses were built. Another 35,500 are on their way before 2011, with even more envisaged by 2016, as the Under-Secretary knows.
We are facing the problems of success, and many of the long-term answers to congestion must be found in the planning system. This is not part of the debate, but we simply cannot go on building so many houses in the south-east without ruining the environment in areas such as that which I represent. The sooner we end centrally driven targets for new homes and give local authorities powers, the better. Those authorities could then focus more on the twin aims of affordable housing and environmental protection. However, those are issues for another day.
We must tackle the transport problems that we suffer today, and railways are the number one problem. West Oxfordshire is poorly served. The Great Western main line is quite far to the south of the county, and the old line that connected Witney with Brize Norton and Fairford is a distant memory. Fortunately, we still have the Cotswold line. The part that serves my constituency runs from Oxford to Moreton-in-Marsh, via Hanborough, Charlbury and Kingham, with trains running direct to Paddington. It is a vital link to part of West Oxfordshire, and there should be plans to expand it. However, there was little to excite commuters and other rail users in the Government's much-vaunted 10-year plan, so perhaps I can make some suggestions.
The line has desperately limited capacity, because it is single track for much of the way between Oxford and Moreton-in-Marsh. If a train going one way is

307WH
late—I am afraid they often are—the knock-on effects and hold-ups can be disastrous. Dualling the line should be part of the Government's long-term plans.
Those stations that still serve rural communities need investment and, in particular, better platforms and more car parking space. The parking problems at Charlbury are particularly intense, with cars often parked on the road into the town.
The number of train services is not limited simply by the capacity of the track. Recently, Thames Trains had to cancel an afternoon service, which stopped at Finstock, Combe and Ascott-under-Wychwood, because it was—wait for it—too popular. The company could not replace the two-carriage train with a three-carriage train, because the platforms at the stations were too short. "Why not just open the doors adjacent to the platforms?" I hear hon. Members ask. The answer is that there is no selective door-opening facility and, under health and safety rules, passengers apparently cannot be trusted to know not to get out of the train when there is no platform next to the door.
The answer must be to extend the platforms and ensure that all new trains have selective door opening. The cost of extending the platforms has been estimated at £600,000. I have asked every available body to dispute that figure, but apparently the health and safety rules seem to be the cause of the expense. Perhaps the Under-Secretary could make some further inquiries to see what can be done. The franchises of Thames Trains and First Great Western both have only a few years left to run and those companies are, understandably, cautious about investing heavily. I see some merit—I am sure that the Under-Secretary will be able to comment on this—in encouraging them to bid jointly for one franchise, which would unite the Cotswold line and reduce the number of operators running services out of Paddington. That would end one source of fragmentation.
I also see merit—I am straying here into national policy—in handing responsibility for the track, stations and signalling to the same company. If we give the train operators responsibility for providing all the aspects required to deliver a good service, perhaps they will rise to the challenge. At the moment, we have a "BSE culture" and blame someone else when something goes wrong; "It was the signals", "No, it was the track", "No, it was the other operator" and so it goes on. Improving the Cotswold line can be only part of the solution because, however good we make it, the two biggest towns in west Oxfordshire, Witney and Carterton, which have a combined population of some 40,000, will still not be served by a railway.
The recent feasibility study on reopening the Witney to Oxford railway, with an extension to Carterton, was disappointing. It found that heavy rail would cost more than £100 million. Light rail is slightly more promising, at £79 million, whereas a guided bus or tram route would cost £75million. My plea to all concerned is to keep hope alive for the railway, whether light or heavy rail. Perhaps a tramway would help to improve matters, but I have yet to meet anyone who, if they could wave a magic wand and bring back the Witney railway, would not do so.
308WH
The second major problem, a consequence of economic success and the lack of a rail link, is the dreadful state of the A40 between Witney and Oxford. Witney is bypassed with a dual carriageway, but for the 10 miles between our county town and the city of Oxford, the traffic has to cope with a single carriageway and terrible congestion. In the morning and evening, commuters, those going to school and others are stuck in long jams. The journey can take well over an hour. The knock-on effects are also significant. The A4095, which passes through Long Hanborough and the picturesque village of Bladon—Churchill's burial place—is heavily congested, often with big lorries, and the environment suffers as a result. Additional use is also made of the A44, which cuts through villages such as Begbroke and Yarnton, but more on that later.
The problem of the A40 must be grasped. I am pleased that the bus lane proposal has been shelved for the moment. To many of my constituents, it seemed to be an urban solution to a rural problem. Little evidence was produced for how it would work and there was real concern that it would add to congestion, not reduce it. Comparisons were made, not surprisingly, with the famous Prescott bus lane on the M4, and, at a cost of £10 million, it would have provided very poor value for money. It is certain that we need a link from the A40 to the A34, so that some pressure is taken off the Oxford roundabouts. The situation at the Wolvercote roundabout is especially bad.
Dualling the A40 between Witney and Oxford may be part of the long-term solution, and I hope the Government will consider that as part of their roads programme. The guided bus or tramway proposal, using part of the old Witney to Oxford railway, may also help to tackle the problem of congestion. It would certainly be an improvement on the original proposal for a bus lane on the A40. I hope that the county council will make a speedy review of that option, and that the Government will stand ready to provide funding to ease that serious problem.
In any event, the A40 is the biggest single transport problem that we face. Perhaps, if he has some spare time, the Under-Secretary would like to come with me one morning, using whatever form of transport he prefers, and drive against the traffic from Oxford to Witney during the rush hour. Then we shall see how bad the problem is. In west Oxfordshire, we have some of the best and brightest businesses in the country, but the gridlock on our main road is like a hand pressed against their windpipes. Business in west Oxfordshire must be allowed to breathe.
The third problem that I should like to raise with the Minister is the environmental effect of traffic, especially heavy lorries, using minor roads and the A roads that pass through small towns and villages. The A roads have caused the problem. I mentioned the A44 going through Begbroke and Yarnton; it cuts those villages in two. There is no speed limit there apart from the national one, so crossing the road is hazardous.
For years, a great man called Ron Perry led the A44 action group with great force and vigour. Sadly, he died recently. I gather that a 50-mile an hour limit—something that he would have seen as just the start—is to be introduced. I pay tribute to the highways department at Oxfordshire county council for that. The department always responds promptly to letters. Better

309WH
still, after sixteen years of a hung council, we now have an effective administration at county hall, led by the Conservatives. More is being done under the energetic leadership on the transport front of councillor David Robertson, who is well aware of the problems that we face in the west of the county.
My reason for raising this matter is to ask what steps the Government propose to take to empower local authorities to do more and do it quickly. We are often told by county hall that something would be "unorthodox", "against guidelines" or "not usual practice." Does the Under-Secretary agree that it is not always necessary to have the same road policy in every part of the country? Many communities face the problem of heavy lorries using relatively small roads that pass through towns and villages.
I have mentioned the A4095. Two other examples are the A361, which passes through the middle of the beautiful town of Burford, the gateway to the Cotswolds, and the A415, which goes straight through the village of Standlake. In Burford, which must be familiar to many hon. Members, heavy lorries thunder down the high street and over a bridge that is more than 600 years old. I recently chaired a meeting of residents, county and district councillors and officials, the police, the town council and others. Residents are desperate for more to be done. Consider the lovely Windrush valley, in which Burford is set; the siting of a bypass either side of the town would in many ways be a tragedy. We must do what we can to deal with the problem of heavy lorries on the A361 so that such a step does not become necessary.
Recent planning decisions, like that to allow the expansion of the airfield at Rissington—the decision was appealed against unsuccessfully—have so far only managed to make matters worse. Residents in Standlake on the A415 have complained about walls shaking, pictures falling down and even lorries stopping to bend their wing mirrors inwards so that they can pass each other. They believe that those lorries should use the A34 and the A40 rather than that short cut. They, like those in many other communities, are asking for an HGV restriction.
Everyone accepts that heavy goods vehicles must be able to go about their business and everyone knows that A roads will always be used. The fact that the HGV restrictions cannot be used everywhere for fear of diverting lorries on to even more unsuitable roads is perhaps less well understood, but people want to see something done to ease the burden and they want to know that the Government are considering creative solutions. Can more be done to guide, to encourage and to exhort lorries and their companies to use more suitable routes? The county council is undertaking a review of the county's major routes. Can the Under-Secretary explain what steps the Government are taking to help in such situations? I want to leave him time to respond, although I may intervene to add some questions to his packed list.
I end with a series of pleas. The first is to the new Department for Transport, shorn of regionalism and other things and so able to focus purely on transport; work with the county to deal with our problems. Secondly, please make representations to ensure that the area cost adjustment for authorities in the south-east stays, or at least that a successor recognises the costs in
310WH
our area. I ask the Under-Secretary to consider the difficulties that local bus companies have in recruiting and retaining drivers. Costs in our part of the world are high.
Thirdly, it must be ensured that transport and planning march together rather than separately. Witney, the heart of my constituency, is still marked out as a growth town in the county structure plan. We are in danger of changing its nature as a pleasant market town for ever. Some will say that improvements to the A40 can come only if we are happy to have even more development. I say that improvements to the A40 are needed even if Witney is no longer to be considered a growth town. We need those improvements today to cope with the problems of today.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on securing this important debate on transport in Oxfordshire. I am glad to hear that his constituency suffers from the problems of success. It is wonderful to think that, throughout the country, economic activity has been considerably enhanced since the Government were elected, which has led to some of the problems of success, such as more people wanting to use public transport and the roads. I am glad to hear him endorse some of the success that we have so clearly brought to his constituency. I think that I am right in saying that it has the lowest employment in the whole country. Oh that you and I, Mr. O'Hara, could say that, although I think that unemployment in our constituencies has been considerably reduced as well.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether practice on roads policy should be the same throughout the country. On our trunk roads and those managed by the Highways Agency, there clearly has to be consistency. Local highway authorities have wide discretion as to how they run their roads. The other measure of the success of our economy is that we have put so much more money into local transport plans, so that authorities can attain their ambitions for their people.
I want to pick up on one of the latter points that the hon. Gentleman made, which was about lorries. Solutions can be reached locally, so local authorities need to consider difficulties to see whether they can resolve them. He will know that we generally have a policy of trying to move traffic from road to rail or even to water, which may not be appropriate in his constituency. Considerable funds are available for that. On those matters, it is often for the local highways authority to find local resolutions to problems where possible.
The hon. Gentleman spoke in detail about the transport problems in Oxfordshire, but it is important that we consider the positive side of transport in Oxfordshire as well. The county enjoys good road and rail links. The M40 passes through Oxfordshire, connecting it to the M25 and the midlands. I am familiar with that stretch of road, as I travel on it not infrequently. There is a network of strategic A roads, including the A34, which provides access to the coast and to Southampton, and the A40, which provides links to the west. Several major railway lines pass through the

311WH
county, including the First Great Western main line, the Birmingham-Didcot line, the Chiltern line and the Cotswold line. I have used some of those recently, to visit the Oxford area and others.
The county council has produced a strong local transport plan, which has been endorsed by all the district councils in the area. We have designated the county council as a centre of excellence for transport planning. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to endorse that. The authority also won the national transport award for bus policies in 2001 and is short-listed for the 2002 award for the local authority of the year. Much that goes on in Oxfordshire is positive. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not have time to mention it all, but I thought that the subject was worth mentioning.
Again, the hon. Gentleman did not have time to mention the extra funding that the Government made available to Oxfordshire county council. In 2001–02, we allocated over £18.5 million to the council for local transport schemes, which represented an increase of some £7 million compared with the previous year. One does not need much of a facility in arithmetic to realise that that is a substantial increase in percentage terms.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has some facility in arithmetic because he was formerly an adviser to the noble Lord Lamont, the former Chancellor. He must have assisted the Chancellor greatly in his deliberations. I thought that he might argue today that if VAT on fuel had been retained at 17.5 per cent, people would have paid £1 in every £8 extra on their fuel bills, which might have contributed to transport schemes. At any rate, we have found the extra money. For the current financial year, we have provided a further £18.6 million. It is the first time that a Government have provided funding consistently and predictably over a period of at least five years, so that highways authorities such as Oxfordshire can plan ahead, rather than having to chop and change from year to year, as was necessary in the past.
I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is a cyclist and that, last year, he completed a sponsored cycle ride to all 85 parishes in the Witney constituency, covering 220 miles in five days. He will be aware that cycling is a key component of the transport strategy in Oxfordshire. The census tells us that the county has above-average cycle use in the journey to work. One might expect that for the city of Oxford itself, but it is also the case in Abingdon, Didcot and Witney. Leisure cycling is well supported, with three national cycling network routes converging on Oxford. There is also the Oxfordshire cycleway, which offers a quiet circular route along rural roads.
The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the elements of the Oxford transport strategy, which is a groundbreaking approach to urban transport that has succeeded in increasing bus use by 50 per cent. since 1991. Air quality has improved in the centre of Oxford, which was a considerable problem, and the pedestrianised streets are much more pleasant for shoppers.
The county and city councils have ambitious plans for the future and want improved public transport for Oxford. I would be happy to accompany the hon.
312WH
Gentleman down the A40; he suggested using a motorbike or a car, but if a bus were available, I should be happy to travel on it with him to see what progress it made at busy times. The councils are introducing a system of premium routes for quality bus corridors around the city and working on the concept of the guided transit express or GTE. If approved, that system would provide a network of public transport routes within the city, linking park and ride sites with outlying towns such as Witney. That would bring enormous benefits for the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the county and district councils are working to review the Witney integrated transport strategy. A draft revised strategy is expected to be published for consultation in the autumn, and work has already begun on some measures. The hon. Gentleman can expect to see several new pedestrian crossings, as well as the Shores Green to Newland cycle route and Cogges footpath and cycleways improvements. There will also be improvements to roundabouts for cyclists and pedestrians and traffic calming on Moor avenue.
The hon. Gentleman has recently become a father and I congratulate him on the birth of his son, Ivan. I am surprised to see him here today, because I thought he would be busy changing nappies and doing all the other things that new fathers must do these days. In the near future, he will have to think about journeys to school; I can assure him that that creeps up very rapidly. The Government are determined that travel to school should be safe and sustainable. The daily school run in the family car may be seen as the safest option, but it does not teach children road sense. It creates considerable congestion at certain times of day and does not have the health benefits of cycling and walking. The school run also adds enormously not just to congestion, but to pollution. We believe that children and parents deserve the chance to choose more sustainable modes of transport where practicable. Local transport plans provide the opportunity for Witney and other towns in Oxfordshire to look at improved facilities to solve some of the problems of congestion to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Cameron: I am glad that the Under-Secretary's reply shows that his Department is not following the rules on not digging up information on the Member concerned. His contribution is colourful and I thank him for that.
If Oxfordshire county council decides that the answer to the pressing problem of the A40 is a guided tramway system using part of the old railway, will the Government support that and help to fund it? Do they share my view that the problems of the A40 between Witney and Oxford are a major transport issue that needs attention to prevent our county from choking?
Mr. Jamieson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department has not been digging up information about him or anyone else. My knowledge of him is just part of my interest in new Members and their background.
Any local authority scheme faces hurdles and must be shown to be feasible, after which appropriate funding can be applied for, but the initiative must come from the highways authority; in this case, Oxfordshire.

313WH
The hon. Gentleman referred to railways and the 10-year plan. We all agree that our railways have suffered from massive under-investment for a very long time and we are now seeing, for the first time, a substantial increase in real-terms investment in our railways. However, I must tell him, as I must tell my constituents, who are less well served with road and rail services, that we cannot do everything with the limited funds available. He listed some improvements that could be made—for example, at railway stations—and some of them could be tackled through rail passenger partnership funding. It is for the highways authority to work with the SRA on schemes for better linkages with other public transport, to improve parking, to make stations more attractive for passengers and so on. Matters such as these can be discussed urgently by the hon. Gentleman and by the highways authority.
The hon. Gentleman suggested a vertically integrated train system. It is a pity that his advice was not given in the mid-1990s when the rail system was privatised and broken up. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the "Prescott lane" on the M4 and was a little churlish. The lane was controversial initially, but the reports that have passed my desk since have shown that it has improved the flow of traffic—[Interruption.] I The hon. Gentleman may scoff, but if the statistics show that it has improved the flow of traffic—I often use that stretch of road myself—we must accept that.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other points and it will be difficult to cover them all in the time available. However, I can tell him that the local highways authority has received substantial extra funds. Perhaps he ought to see what schemes the authority can work on to improve his constituency. If there are matters that are my Department's responsibility that we have not had time to cover today, I should be happy to cover them in correspondence.

Standards of Conduct (County Councillors)
1.30 pm
Gillian Merron: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in Parliament a matter that is of great importance and relevance to my constituents, in view of recent events at Lincolnshire county council where the question of standards of conduct of county council members has become the focus of public debate.
In securing this Adjournment debate, I am pleased to give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary his first opportunity to respond in his new role. In wishing him well in his new ministerial responsibilities, I hope that restoring public confidence in local democracy in Lincolnshire will be an early hallmark of a long and successful ministerial career.
As clearly stated in the public interest report into Lincolnshire county council, to which I will refer in some detail, a member of a local authority occupies a position of trust. They are individuals entrusted by Parliament and the electorate with making decisions and deploying resources contributed by others to their best effect. As a person holding such a position of public trust, a member of a local authority has an obligation to act lawfully, carefully, reasonably and with due regard to the interests of those required to fund the authority's activities. That trust imposes a duty on a member to ensure that, as far as they reasonably can, the local authority acts reasonably and complies with the law.
The vast majority of councillors comply with those expectations. They work hard for their constituents and deserve both recognition and appreciation. I also want to pay tribute to the officers and staff of Lincolnshire county council, who work diligently to serve my constituents, whose quality of life is linked closely to the services that they receive. I have long pressed the case for the public interest report into allegations of wrongdoing at Lincolnshire county council to be made public, and I am glad to say that KPMG, the council's independent auditors, agreed to make its findings public.
There has been widespread and deep concern about the disturbing nature of the published findings, and in particular the auditor's severe criticism of the unacceptable standard of conduct of the Conservative leader of Lincolnshire county council, councillor Jim Speechley. However, the open availability of the findings of an investigation of considerable public interest is only one part of the equation. Decisive action to right the wrongs of guilty councillors must also be taken and it is that for which I look on behalf of my constituents, because it is still wanting in Lincolnshire.
As the Conservative group and its leader have failed to follow the correct course, action needs to be taken. If questions exist about the conduct of county councillors, they must be made accountable to those who voted for them. The public interest report is damning, and I should like to highlight some of its main points. The auditor made it clear that
"it would be wrong to see this report as a condemnation of the overall workings of this authority."
However, he remained concerned that
"left unchecked the dynamics set out in the report will destabilise the Council and damage its reputation."

315WH
It is also important to note that
"the matters reported on are not isolated incidents".
The ball started rolling when Councillor Rob Parker, whose persistence is to be commended, wrote to the district auditor about his concerns that a payment had been proposed to a local company, QV Foods. In addition, the chief executive had raised his concerns about a number of other matters with the auditor, who found that
"in light of the seriousness of the issues raised…it was necessary…to commence an investigation".
Under the heading,
"Improper pressure and misuse of power in staffing matters"
he said:
"With regard to councillor Speechley I have come across examples of behaviour, which can only be categorised as both improper pressure, and misuse of power. This is most evident in his involvement in staffing matters."
He also found that other members were similarly lobbying or seeking to exert pressure with regard to personnel matters, and concluded that Councillor Speechley continues to be overly powerful in Lincolnshire county council.
Those points are illustrated by the case of former chief executive Jill Barrow, who received £160,000 of severance pay, and former director of education, Norman Riches, who received £250,000 of severance pay. Both cases arose from a misuse of severance powers. Negotiations were conducted as if the council was entitled, when making severance payments, to take into account simply what needed to be paid in order to get rid of the chief officers, and to get them to agree to quit; a particular desire driven by Councillor Speechley and the then deputy leader, Councillor Mawby, regardless of whether particular payments were lawful.
A further example of abuse of power relates to the then director of highways and planning who was instructed to appoint an individual to a particular post, or find that his own position would be in jeopardy. Interestingly, Councillor Speechley told the auditor he could not remember meetings, nor any threats to dismiss the director. Even more interesting is how such memory lapses from the leader are peppered throughout the report.
The auditor, having seen a note of the relevant meeting prepared by the then chief solicitor to the council, concluded that Jim Speechley did indeed threaten to dismiss the director, which was improper and unlawful. The auditor comments:
"Cllr Speechley had no authority or justification for acting as he did."
He goes on to say that councillors present at the meeting
"ought to have disagreed with Cllr Speechley's conduct there and then, or at the very least, disassociated themselves from his comments. Their silence whilst Cllr Speechley spoke will have lent support to his words. I find Cllr Speechley's threat to be totally unacceptable behaviour which fell below the standard that is expected of local government councillors."
A further section of the report concerns the grading of the principal officer with responsibility for the offices of the leader and chairman of the council. The auditor concluded that Councillor Speechley and the then
316WH
deputy leader sought to interfere and improperly influenced the outcome of the principal officer's regrading claim, such that she was awarded a higher salary than she was properly due. In his conclusions on improper pressure and misuse of power, the auditor says
"certain majority group councillors, in particular Cllr Speechley and former Cllr Mawby have stepped beyond the proper bounds of conduct for members in staffing matters".
However, a further illegal payment has come to light of £150,000, which came in the form of a grant to QV Foods. Shortly after a site visit by Councillors Speechley, Croft and Taylor, there was a meeting between those councillors, the owner of QV Foods, the then deputy leader Councillor Mawby and the then director of highways and planning. At that meeting, the owner of QV Foods was told that the policy committee would be asked to agree to a payment of £150,000 towards the cost of a road improvement.
Warning was given by a DTI official who wrote to the council, stating that the proposed payment would be in breach of state aid rules, would be deemed unlawful and would be liable to repayment. Nevertheless, that payment went ahead. The public interest report says:
"The payments to QV Foods were unlawful…The whole exercise was no more than a device in order to circumvent the State Aid rules…The payments were unlawful both in terms of domestic and European Law."
In the same vein, certain majority group councillors let officers know that they preferred certain matters not to be aired in council, committee or sub-committee.
"The PIR notes that as a result officers relied upon the former Chief Solicitor's delegated authority when they ought to have advised members that the matter did need to go before Council, Committee or Sub Committee."
That gives a flavour, albeit rather distasteful, of the standards of conduct of the leader and some other councillors at Lincolnshire county council. In the wake of the public interest report, a number of things have happened. First, the county council set up a standards committee. At the time, it was the only county council that decided to set up its standards committee without any representation from the opposition groups. However, I am pleased to say that, because of external pressure, including pressure from the Under-Secretary, the council reviewed its original decision to appoint a one-party standards committee and has now put that right.
An action plan in response to the public interest report has been drawn up, and credit must go to the officers and councillors who seek to be positive in such a difficult environment. The matter is not just one of individuals but the culture, the very essence of which needs to be changed.
Councillor Jim Speechley has been re-elected as leader by the Conservative group, although a recorded vote at the full council meeting showed that 11 Conservatives were not in agreement with the action. It is that that has most shocked and outraged my constituents, and rightly so. I am repeatedly asked how such a thing could happen. The crux of the question about county councillors' standards of conduct is how the leader of a council can be found guilty by the council's independent auditor of involvement in the illegal use of council taxpayers' money, of bullying and of systematic abuse of power, but still remain in post, not only as a councillor but as leader, a post that is reaffirmed by his political party.

317WH
Political parties should put their own houses in order. We all have a responsibility to police the conduct of our elected representatives and to take action if that falls short of expectations. Not only has the Conservative group on Lincolnshire county council failed to grasp the nettle—albeit that there are many dissenting voices—so has the Leader of the Opposition. On a visit to Lincolnshire earlier this year, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be very happy to see the results of the investigation and act upon them. However, he has had access to the public interest report, and we are now told that the matter is best dealt with locally.
Finally, to add confusion to inaction, the office of the Leader of the Opposition has advised that the party chairman, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), was having discussions with Councillor Speechley, but both parties say that no such thing is happening.
Unison has strongly advised its members not to attend any meetings with Councillor Jim Speechley unless accompanied. It is a sad day when a union believes that it has to do that. As leader, Councillor Jim Speechley has personally appointed the members of the executive who will run the council and has appointed each of the 19 special interest members. There has been no apology, no recognition of unacceptable conduct and no change at the top; just a wider and deeper hole of political management into which decent standards can fall.
I applaud the action that the Government have already taken to improve standards of conduct for county councillors: a code of conduct, which must be observed and signed up to; a standards board, which can oversee the implementation of the new ethical framework; and acceptance of the Nolan committee's proposals—most notably, a new criminal offence of misuse of public office, which I urge the Under-Secretary to introduce as a matter of urgency. That robust framework will help restore public confidence in local democracy and help protect and promote the role of councillors.
This is a time of tremendous change, and I am pleased that we can and will look forward to better things in Lincolnshire. However, I look to the Under-Secretary on this point; because the events outlined in the public interest report into Lincolnshire county council predate the new regulations, they do not apply. Therefore, they are of little comfort or use to my constituents, who have been taken for a ride by unscrupulous county councillors who should hang their heads in shame, and not deny, defend and reinforce their own positions.
It will take a long time for Lincolnshire county council to regain the public's trust, and it has now become clear that that will happen only with external intervention. Council tax payers, service users and staff need to be reassured that the conduct of county councillors is decent, legal and in the interests of the people of Lincolnshire. I urge the Under-Secretary to do all in his power to ensure that that happens.
1.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on securing the debate and providing the opportunity to debate standards of conduct in local government, especially county councils.
318WH
I start by setting out strongly my belief that the vast majority of members of local authorities observe the highest standards of conduct. We are privileged to have such a large body of men and women who are willing to devote time, energy and enthusiasm to the service of their communities. All hon. Members, not just those who have served on local councils, will be aware of the commitment and the high standards displayed by council members in every part of the country.
The strength of local democracy, the delivery of effective local services and the vitality of local communities depend heavily on the commitment and the willingness to serve shown by elected members, who speak up for their communities in council debates, take tough decisions on local priorities and the allocation of large budgets and lead partnerships to tackle many of the country's most difficult social problems. We should not take that commitment for granted; we are lucky to have high standards of probity, accountability and propriety in this country.
However, we cannot disguise the fact that failings sometimes occur. There have indeed been cases, albeit rare, in which elected members have fallen short of the conduct expected of them and it is all the more serious that such misconduct has an impact that goes far beyond the damage done to the particular local authority in which it takes place. Misconduct by councillors, when it occurs, harms the community they are elected to serve and the wider reputation of local government in the rest of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln referred in great detail to some extremely serious matters relating to the auditor's report in Lincolnshire. I appreciate her concerns about the county council. I echo hon. Members' feelings about the need to identify and challenge poor performance in local government.
The auditor for Lincolnshire county council recently issued a public interest report in respect of the council, which identified a breakdown in corporate governance at the authority and the failure of legal and ethical safeguards. In the auditor's view, that led to unlawful payments being made to council staff and to a private company. The auditor made a number of recommendations to the council to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place for the future.
I understand that the council accepted that it acted unlawfully in various areas. A committee of the council has recommended the setting up of a framework of measures to address the auditor's concerns, which we welcome. The auditor's role is to consider the adequacy of the council's response to his report, and to take decisions on follow-up action. Such action might include issuing a further report on the council's position.
Auditors are independent officers, appointed by the Audit Commission. The issuing of a public interest report, as in this case, is a matter for the auditor. It is then for the council to consider action in the light of the recommendations made. The Government expect all public servants, whether they are officers or elected, to uphold the highest standards of integrity in carrying out their duties.

319WH
Although I have no remit to intervene in the auditor's role in this case, I fully recognise the concerns expressed in the debate on the need for action to be taken when poor performance by authorities has been identified. Authorities who do not uphold high standards of integrity let down the people they are supposed to represent and to serve. In the case of Lincolnshire, the auditor has put the ball firmly back in the council's court. It is now for the council to demonstrate to local people that it is prepared to take vigorous action to address the concerns identified. The auditor, and the Government, will look closely at the council's response. The council accepts that it acted illegally, which should serve as the starting point for its action.
The auditor will base his decision on the next steps to take on the willingness shown by the council to tackle the problems, and on any evidence of progress in putting an action plan in place. The Audit Commission may take into account the auditor's assessments of such authorities when it carries out its comprehensive performance assessments. The assessment process for Lincolnshire will begin in July. Information from the assessments will identify councils that are failing and provide a vehicle by which action can be monitored and shortcomings addressed. Where a council is identified as failing and there is little or no prospect of improvement, the Government will not hesitate to apply intervention measures if necessary. We are determined to tackle poor performance by authorities, and are prepared to intervene in cases where intervention is needed.
I want to highlight measures that the Government took before my appointment to improve the new ethical framework that applies to county councils and local governments. Promoting high standards of conduct in local government is an important objective for the Government. If we are to re-invigorate local democracy and enable councils to provide the local leadership that communities need to deliver the services they want, we must establish a high degree of trust in local councils.
The White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People", was published in July 1998. It proposed a new framework to support high standards of ethical behaviour. The new framework is an integral part of the modernisation agenda, and is no less important than the need to modernise constitutions or to provide the right mechanisms to support service delivery. It must provide a robust, efficient, fair and effective means of investigating misconduct allegations and dealing with any councillors found to have misbehaved. It must also demonstrate clearly to the public that misconduct will not be tolerated, that the highest standards are expected and that investigations will be thorough, consistent and not influenced in any way by party politics.
The Local Government Act 2000 put the framework into effect. Two of the most significant provisions of that Act are the introduction of new codes of conduct and the creation of the Standards Board for England. I will return to those provisions in a moment. In accordance with the Act and following consultation, the Government made an order in April last year that sets out 10 general principles that should underpin the conduct of members of local authorities: selflessness; honesty and integrity; objectivity; accountability;
320WH
openness; personal judgement; respect for others; the duty to uphold the law; stewardship; and leadership. Those principles summarise what is expected from local councillors, and provide a yardstick against which their conduct can be measured.
In November last year, again following significant consultation, the Government laid before Parliament a set of model codes of conduct which draw on those principles and lay down more specific requirements. They build on earlier national codes of conduct and include some familiar provisions. They require, for example, the registration and declaration of interests. They also provide a more sensible and simple framework for handling personal interests, which should ensure that councillors can take part in more frequent discussions in which they have expertise but no prejudicial interests.
The codes have been generally welcomed, especially by counties and other larger authorities. There have been some complaints from smaller parish and town councils, especially about the registration requirements that are being introduced to parishes for the first time. I am confident that many of the concerns, especially those based on exaggerated press reporting about the detail required, will be eased as councillors grow familiar with the new codes. It is important to mention that within two months of the adoption of a new code of conduct by an authority, its members must make a written declaration that they will observe it. Failure to do so will mean that they cease to be councillors.
I understand the concerns expressed today about the need to take decisive action where the conduct of elected members does not meet the highest standards. The Government have recognised the need for more robust and effective mechanisms to allow cases of misconduct to be investigated and dealt with. We have put in place the Standards Board and other elements of the new ethical framework, which will ensure that complaints can be investigated independently and thoroughly. In the most serious cases of misconduct, the adjudication panel that has also been established will be able to disqualify members from holding office for up to five years. I am confident that the new framework will provide a sufficiently rigorous mechanism to address the general concerns that have been raised today.
From 5 May 2002, the provisions of the new codes have applied to all councillors. Any allegations that the code has been breached can be reported to the Standards Board for England, which decides whether to investigate. The board, under the chairmanship of Tony Holland, to whom I pay tribute, includes members with considerable expertise and experience of local government and of wider ethical matters. Since the creation of the board last year, a good deal of work has been undertaken to appoint ethical standards officers who will be responsible for investigating cases, and to set up systems needed to support their work. I know that the board has already received a small number of allegations and is conducting investigations; I am confident that its procedures will be efficient and rigorous.
In addition to its responsibilities for investigating misconduct allegations, the Standards Board has the wider role of promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct in local government. Last month, the board held a successful first assembly of standards committees

321WH
in Birmingham, attended by around 1,000 members, officers and others. I have no doubt that the board will prove to be a strong force for promoting greater confidence in local democracy. It is worth noting that councils, other than parish councils, are also obliged in law to establish their own local standards committees that will take responsibility for standards issues in local authorities.
As we conclude this very welcome debate, it is worth emphasising once again that the new ethical framework was not introduced by the Government because of any systematic corruption in local government or widespread failings in the behaviour of elected councillors. The reverse is the case; we believe that the vast majority of local councillors are fundamentally honest, selfless and committed to the service of their communities. The framework is necessary because we
322WH
need to convince others of that fact. In particular, we must demonstrate to local communities that their councillors have signed up to the highest standards of conduct and that the machinery is in place to deal with any shortcomings. The old conduct framework had too few effective means of dealing with acts of misconduct that were not necessarily criminal or likely to involve financial loss, but which were nevertheless damaging to the standing of local government.
It is regrettable that genuine cases of misconduct arise. However, the new framework with the Standards Board at its heart will be well placed to handle such cases, and to demonstrate the priority given—in local and central Government—to tackling misconduct.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Two o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Accommodation Review
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what the cost to public funds is of the accommodation review being undertaken by HOK International Ltd.; and for what reason the review is not being undertaken in-house. [59780]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The cost of the accommodation review is £169,700. HOK International Ltd. is assisting the Serjeant at Arms and a project team representing all Departments of the House to carry out the review of the House of Commons estate on behalf of the Board of Management. The consultancy was let to bring in expertise and resources not available in-house. The aim of the review is to identify options and to make recommendations that will assist the House in forming its accommodation strategy over the period 2003–08.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Sir George Young
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the resources available to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. [61775]
  1248W
  Mr. Kirkwood
  The House's Internal Review Service (IRS) has now reported to the Commission. The principal findings are:that the Parliamentary Commissioner's present time commitment of three days a week should he sufficient to cope with current and expected future need;
  that the temporary office support post should be made permanent;
  that there should be a new post of investigative support officer to assist the Commissioner with detailed day-to-day work. This would also enable the Registrar of Members' Interests to concentrate on, and help the Commissioner with, the preventive, educational and advice aspects of the work.

  At its last meeting the Commission discussed the report and its findings with the chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and with the Parliamentary Commissioner, who expressed themselves content with the additional resources proposed. Following that meeting, copies of the report were given to members of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. They, too, indicated that they were content with what was proposed. The Commission has therefore directed that the report's recommendations should be implemented.

  Following implementation, the staff of the Commissioner's office will be: the Commissioner, the registrar, the assistant registrar, the investigative support officer, the Commissioner's personal assistant, and a general office assistant.

  The report recommends that the IRS should conduct a verification review in 12 months' time. The Commission will take any action necessary as a result of that review, but in any event remains committed to providing whatever resources, both in terms of staff and days worked, that may be required.

  I am placing a copy of the review manager's report in the Library and on the parliamentary website at www.parliament.uk. I am also arranging for a copy to be sent to the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Peace Process
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his assessment is of levels of bipartisan support for the peace process. [57735]

  Dr. John Reid
  We believe that all those with the interests of Northern Ireland at heart should come together in support of the peace process and the continuing implementation of the Belfast Agreement. The backing we receive here is essential to our efforts to sustain and carry forward the process.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the new criminal injuries compensation scheme for Northern Ireland. [57736]

  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to improve the criminal injuries compensation scheme for Northern Ireland. [57751]

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the new criminal injuries compensation scheme for Northern Ireland. [57753]

  Mr. Browne
  The scheme, introduced on 1 May, put in place many of the recommendations of the independent review of compensation carried out by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield. It is similar to arrangements in the rest of the UK, and is designed to provide innocent and deserving victims of crime with a quicker and easier way to obtain compensation for their injuries. The tariff amounts of compensation for pain and suffering have been set at existing average levels within Northern Ireland. Additional payments can be made for pecuniary loss and other expenses. Many improvements to the eligibility criteria will ensure that compensation is widely available to those who have suffered at the hands of violent criminals.

  Bloomfield Report
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Government have taken to implement the recommendations of the Bloomfield report. [57737]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government have made substantial progress towards implementation of the Bloomfield report. We have established the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund, which we continue to support financially; the family trauma centre in Belfast; and a new Northern Ireland Centre for Trauma and Transformation which will be based in Omagh. We provide core funding to victims' groups; we fund the Legacy Project, based in Warrington; and we part-fund the implementation of the Devolved Administration's Victims' Strategy. We have revised the criminal injuries compensation scheme and took steps to facilitate the recovery of the 'Disappeared.'

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent assessment is of the prospects for further decommissioning of weapons by Loyalist terrorists. [57739]

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his latest assessment is of the prospects of decommissioning of weapons by loyalist terrorists. [57759]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Government have consistently called for decommissioning from all paramilitary organisations. We have had two acts of decommissioning from the IRA. That must be the start of a process. It is imperative that we now see reciprocation from loyalists, and all groups dismantling all the apparatus of terror.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on prospects for further decommissioning of IRA weapons. [57746]

  Dr. John Reid
  The second act of decommissioning, reported on by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning on 8 April 2002, indicates the IRA's commitment to the process. The commission is continuing its contact with the IRA representative to facilitate the ultimate decommissioning of all IRA arms. However, this progress needs to be part of an ongoing process and indeed must involve all paramilitary groups. All paramilitary groups must end all forms of terrorist activity and dismantle the apparatus of terrorism.

  Integration
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent measures the Government have taken in Northern Ireland to assist the integration of the Catholic and Protestant communities. [57740]

  Mr. Browne
  We are committed to upholding the principles of partnership, equality and mutual respect, which are cornerstones of the Belfast Agreement. Through working towards full implementation of the Agreement, the Government continue to promote inclusivity at all levels.

  Terrorist Disbandment
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the progress towards the disbandment of the Provisional IRA and other terrorist groups in Northern Ireland. [57741]

  Jane Kennedy
  We need to see the dismantling of all the apparatus of terror, and the decommissioning of weapons and mindsets. We need to complete the transition away from violence. The IRA has embarked upon a process of decommissioning: it is imperative that we now see reciprocation from loyalists, and the standing down and disbandment of all paramilitary organisations.

  Provisional IRA
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by month since January the shooting incidents attributed to the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland. [57742]

  Jane Kennedy
  The table provides details of the shooting incidents attributed to Republican groups. Since 1 January to 30 April 2002 there have been 34 shooting incidents attributed to Republicans. It is not possible to attribute these incidents to any specific paramilitary organisation.

  Shooting incidents 1 January to 30 April 2002, by DCU

  DCU

  Details of incident

  4 January

  Lisburn

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  5 January

  Belfast West

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  6 January

  Fermanagh

  Shots heard—5 x bursts of 5 rounds each were fired

  7 January

  Ballymena

  Three shots were fired at a house

  12 January

  Belfast North

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  13 January

  Belfast West

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  16 January

  Belfast East

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  17 January

  Newry and Mourne

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  18 January

  Lisburn

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  18 January

  Craigavon

  Shots fired at a lorry driver

  21 January

  Downpatrick

  Two shots fired into a bar

  23 January

  Belfast West

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  23 January

  Belfast West

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  27 January

  Lisburn

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  31 January

  Belfast South

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  11 February

  Coleraine

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  17 February

  Belfast North

  Shots fired in street

  18 February

  Belfast West

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  20 February

  Belfast North

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  21 February

  Downpatrick

  Shots fired at vehicle—one person killed

  26 February

  Craigavon

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  28 February

  Belfast North

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  2 March

  Belfast North

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  3 March

  Downpatrick

  Shot fired during an armed robbery

  9 March

  Belfast West

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  15 March

  Newry and Mourne

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  20 March

  Armagh

  Eight shots fired at house/vehicle

  23 March

  Fermanagh

  Shots fired at police station

  26 March

  Lisburn

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  6 April

  Lisburn

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  7 April

  Belfast North

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  12 April

  Lisburn

  Paramilitary-style shooting

  17 April

  Dungannon and South Tyrone

  Fatal shooting

  18 April

  Belfast North

  Shots fired

  Paramilitary Crime
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the criminal activities of the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. [57743]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Organised Crime Task Force, which I chair, has identified that the legacy of terrorism remains a significant influence in Northern Ireland. Of the 76 organised criminal enterprises that we have identified operating in Northern Ireland, nearly half are either associated with, or controlled by loyalist or republican paramilitary organisations. The insidious nature of some local problems—notably extortion—can be traced directly to terrorism. In addition, some of the more important criminals derive their status and influence from their current or historic paramilitary links.
  1252W

  Shooting incidents attributed to Republicans, 1 January to 30 April 2002

  Number of incidents

  January

  15

  February

  7

  March

  7

  April

  5

  Total

  34

  Note:

  These figures may be subject to minor amendment.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evidence he has collated of recent breaches of the ceasefire and Belfast Agreement by Republican paramilitaries; and if he will make a statement. [57738]

  Jane Kennedy
  We keep the ceasefires of all paramilitary organisations under constant review. The Acting Chief Constable's security assessment is that there is no indication that the IRA is intending to recommence its campaign. However, a ceasefire is no longer enough. If there is to be confidence in this process then we need to see a whole-hearted commitment to exclusively peaceful means and a clear demonstration that the war is over.

  Organised Crime Task Force
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the work being done by the Organised Crime Task Force for the next 12 months. [57744]

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the work of the Organised Crime Task Force to date. [57752]

  Jane Kennedy
  This year, as last year, the priority areas for concerted multi-agency effort are extortion, drugs, oils-related fraud, tobacco and alcohol duty evasion and money laundering. In addition, we have added two new strategic priority areas: the trade in counterfeit goods and armed robbery. The Organised Crime Task Force has published a range of performance indicators in its year two strategy document, which will be used to judge performance in 12 months time.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the work of the Organised Crime Task Force over the past 12 months. [57748]

  Jane Kennedy
  A year on from the publication of the Task Force's first "Threat Assessment and Strategy", we have seen some truly remarkable successes against organised criminals in Northern Ireland. During the past 12 months, 57 criminal networks have been subject to detailed law enforcement investigation, 43 have had members arrested for a wide range of serious offences and 24 networks have had members successfully prosecuted. As a result of concerted law enforcement activity during the past year, 42 organised crime networks have been disrupted or dismantled.

  Colombia
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet representatives of the US State Department to discuss IRA involvement in the terrorist campaign in Colombia. [57747]

  Jane Kennedy
  I meet and speak to the ambassador in the US State Department, Dr Haass, regularly. We discuss a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Johnny Adair
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what conditions have been attached to the release from prison of Mr. Johnny Adair. [57749]

  Jane Kennedy
  Mr. Adair was released from prison on 15 May in accordance with the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995.

  As with any prisoner released under this Act, if it appears to the Secretary of State that Mr. Adair's continued liberty would present a risk to the safety of others or he was likely to commit further offences, he can be recalled to prison to serve the period between half and two-thirds point of his sentence without recourse to the courts.

  Furthermore, and again as with any prisoner under the Treatment of Offenders (NI) Order 1976, if he is convicted of a non-scheduled offence in Northern Ireland before 15 May 2010—the date on which he would have
  1254W
  been released if no remission had been granted, a court may order his return to prison to serve out the remainder of his sentence.

  If he is convicted of a scheduled offence for which he receives a custodial sentence, then the court must order his return to prison to serve what remains of his sentence.

  Community Security
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Government are taking to improve community security in Northern Ireland. [57750]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government published a draft community safety strategy for consultation on 10 April 2002. The strategy sets out a broad framework for action at a local level to address local concerns about crime, the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour. It will require close co-operation from a wide range of agencies in both the devolved and non devolved administrations.

  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Government are taking to enhance crime prevention and community safety in Northern Ireland. [57757]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government are taking forward a number of crime prevention campaigns in Northern Ireland with appropriate partners. In addition, a draft community safety strategy was published for consultation on 10 April 2002. The strategy sets out a broad framework for action at a local level to address local concerns about crime, the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the relationship between community safety partnerships and district policing partnerships. [57758]

  Mr. Browne
  District Policing Partnerships and Community Safety Partnerships will serve different purposes—the first is accountability based, and the second service delivery. DPPs are made up of elected representatives and independent members. CSP members will be drawn from organisations with responsibility for service delivery. The police will be the common denominator, and close links will be important, with opportunities for the DPP to contribute to the CSP.

  Criminal Justice Review
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in implementing the Criminal Justice Review; and if he will make a statement. [57754]

  Mr. Browne
  The Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill which paves the way for implementing many, though not all, of the accepted criminal justice review recommendations is currently under consideration by Grand Committee in the House of Lords, having successfully completed its Commons stages. Other recommendations are being taken forward administratively. Subject to royal assent, it is intended to publish a revised Implementation Plan which will set out progress made in respect of each recommendation and indicate timescales for their implementation.

  Proceeds of Crime Bill
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the impact in Northern Ireland of the Proceeds of Crime Bill. [57755]

  Mr. Browne
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell).

  Security Situation
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in the Province. [57756]

  Jane Kennedy
  There is a significant threat from dissident Republican paramilitaries and from disaffected elements within Localism who are intent in continuing with their campaign to disrupt the peace process. Tensions between the two communities in north and east Belfast have erupted yet again in more street violence. This violence is totally unacceptable and must be brought to an end. The appearance of gunmen firing at rioters and the security forces is also a worrying development. We will continue to monitor closely the ceasefires of all the paramilitary organisations and will take appropriate action if considered necessary.

  Policing
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prospects for the future of policing in Northern Ireland. [57734]

  Jane Kennedy
  We have laid firm foundations for a new beginning to policing. We have a Policing Board with cross-community participation and broad powers to hold police to account.

  I warmly welcome the appointment of Hugh Orde as the new chief constable. He is adistinguished senior police officer who brings with him invaluable experience for both Northern Ireland and the Metropolitan Police.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Commission
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is on the proposal by the President of the European Commission for the Commission to be given powers to issue binding instructions to Governments that deviate from the policy guidelines adopted by euro zone members and to be the sole representative of the EU in international economic and financial meetings. [60583]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government do not agree with this proposal.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is on the proposals of the President of the European Commission to give the Commission powers to recommend action on national budget deficits that could only be overturned by a unanimous vote of all EU Governments; when he was first informed of this proposal; and if he will make a statement. [60580]
  1256W
  The Prime Minister
  The Government do not agree with this proposal. The European Commission's communication "A Project for the European Union" was released on 22 May 2002, and I was informed after its release.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he was consulted before the President of the European Commission's proposals for additional economic powers to be given to the Commission were publicised; and if he will make a statement. [60587]

  The Prime Minister
  I was not consulted before the publication of the European Commission's Communication "A Project for the European Union" on 22 May 2002.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is on the proposal by the President of the European Commission for the national veto on taxation matters to be abolished; and if he will make a statement. [60584]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's position is that unanimity should be retained for decisions on taxation.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times in the last three years he has discussed Gibraltar with the Spanish Prime Minister. [60791]

  The Prime Minister
  I talk to the Spanish Prime Minister frequently on a range of EU and other foreign policy issues. We most recently discussed Gibraltar during Prime Minister Aznar's visit to London on 20 May.

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to lay the Intelligence and Security Committee's annual report before Parliament. [61926]

  The Prime Minister
  I am grateful to the Intelligence and Security Committee for their valuable work and their latest annual report. Following consultation with the Intelligence and Security Committee over matters which could not be published without prejudicing the discharge of the function and operation of the Intelligence and Security agencies, I will lay the report before the House tomorrow. Copies will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Government will respond formally to the report shortly.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Youth Participation
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements the Government are making to publish Departments' action plans for the implementation of the core principles for involving children and young people. [61139]

  Mr. Denham
  In line with the commitment set out in "Learning to Listen—Core Principles for the Involvement of Children and Young People in Government", the following Departments are today publishing their action plans:
  1257W

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Ministry of Defence

  Department for Education and Skills

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Department of Health

  HM Treasury

  Home Office

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  These will be placed on the Children and Young People's Unit website, www.cypu.gov.uk, and copies will be placed in the Library.

  The Children and Young People's Unit will be reviewing progress against action plans in an annual report.

  Sick Leave (Teachers)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary school teachers and (b) secondary school teachers took sickness absence in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001, broken down by (1) full-time and (2) part-time teachers. [60527]

  Mr. Miliband
  In the calendar years 1999, 2000 and 2001 (provisional), the numbers of full-time and part-time teachers in the English maintained schools sector taking sickness absence1 were as follows:

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1999

  234,520

  30,130

  2000

  238,820

  34,450

  2001

  246,300

  37,300

  These figures cannot be broken down by phase.
  1 Sickness absence on working days, whether paid absence or not, of teachers with permanent contracts or contracts of over one month, including teachers without QTS. The numbers of teachers taking sick leave includes an individual teacher only once however many periods of sickness absence they have had.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many days(a) primary school teachers and (b) secondary school teachers took in sickness absence in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001, broken down by (1) full-time and (2) part-time teachers. [60528]

  Mr. Miliband
  In the calendar years 1999, 2000 and 2001 (provisional), the numbers of days of sickness absence' taken by full-time and part-time teachers in the English maintained schools sector were as follows:

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1999

  2,249,150

  254,180

  2000

  2,392,400

  301,970

  2001

  2,461,000

  338.900

  These figures cannot be broken down by phase.
  1 Sickness absence on working days, whether paid absence or not, of teachers with permanent contracts or contracts of over one month, including teachers without QTS. The number of days taken as sick leave includes all periods of sick leave.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on Sure Start projects in Barnet. [57890]

  Ms Blears
  Barnet does not at present have a Sure Start programme operating in the borough. However, the borough has been invited to consider setting up a programme as part of the sixth wave of Sure Start announced on 14 May 2002.

  Literacy/Numeracy Strategies
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research she has commissioned into the effectiveness of the national literacy and numeracy strategies; and if she will make a statement. [60244]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The university of Toronto is independently evaluating the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. Last year they produced the following report:
  Watching and Learning 2, OISE/UT Evaluation of the Implementation of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies, Second Annual Report, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto (September 2001).
  They reported that
  "the Strategies have influenced virtually all schools in England, moving literacy and numeracy to top priority in classrooms across the country."

  Ofsted is also evaluating the literacy and numeracy strategies through its regular inspections of schools and in two nationally representative samples of primary schools.

  Grammar School Ballots
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list, for each of the last three years, the total payments made by her Department to electoral reform services for the purpose of(a) establishing the number of parents forming the electorate in area grammar school ballots and (b) establishing the list of primary schools whose parents form the electorate in feeder school grammar school ballots. [59244]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  £

  Petition year

  (a) Establishing number of parents forming electorate in area grammar school ballots1

  (b) Establishing the list of primary schools whose parents form the electorate in feeder school grammar school ballots1

  1999–2000

  171,396

  13

  2000–2001

  82,982

  11

  2001–20022

  389,516

  14

  1 To nearest pound

  2 To date

DEFENCE

  1901 Census
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the information memorandum sent to potential bidders for QinetiQ refers to QinetiQ's contract with the Public Record Office for the 1901 Census website; and if he will make a statement. [57797]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 475W.

  Nuclear Decommissioning
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many nuclear facilities, storage areas, fixed equipment and reactors(a) have been in the last 30 years and (b) are planned to be decommissioned by his Department; and in each case, what the cost was. [60394]

  Dr. Moonie
  Data on how many nuclear facilities, storage areas, fixed equipment and reactors decommissioned over the past 30 years within the Ministry of Defence is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, expenditure from 1997–98 was provided to my hon. Friend on 5 March 2002,Official Report, columns 162–63W.

  As at 31 March 2001 (the latest available published figures), the MOD's nuclear liabilities amounted to £3,574,809,000 (representing the liabilities discounted at 6 per cent. and expressed in 2000–01 money values) or £16,039,639,000 (undiscounted). A more detailed breakdown is not available in the form requested.

  Farnborough Airshow
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support his Department is giving to the organisers of the Farnborough Airshow taking place in July; and if his Department is providing assistance to enable overseas visitors to attend it. [60616]

  Dr. Moonie
  In support of the Government's commitment to a strong United Kingdom defence industry, the Ministry of Defence undertakes a broad range of activities in support of The Society of British Aerospace Companies organisation of this prestigious show to help ensure its continued position as the world's premier business aerospace exhibition. Normal marketing support to United Kingdom exhibitors is provided by the Defence Export Services Organisation, and other assistance includes helping the organisers ensure the maximum exposure of United Kingdom products to potential customers by supporting official inward visits.

  United Kingdom Hydrographic Office
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the Quinquennial Review of the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office; and if he will make a statement. [61910]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am pleased to announce today the outcome of the first stage of the Quinquennial Review of the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO).
  1260W
  Phase 1 of the review, announced on 9 May 2001, was headed by Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, then Deputy CINCFleet. A steering group directed the work of the review team. It had an independent chairperson and comprised representatives of the Royal Navy, the UKHO, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Meteorological Office, HM Treasury, Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence's business improvement team.

  The UKHO was established as a Defence support agency of the MOD in 1990, and has operated as a Trading Fund since 1996.

  Evidence was taken from a wide range of stakeholders and customers, including the Royal Navy, commercial customers, other Government Departments, port authorities and other hydrographic offices, as well as from staff.

  Phase 1 of the review recommends that the UKHO should seek to maintain its position as the leading hydrographic office internationally, and should focus on meeting UK defence and Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) obligations. It should continue as a trading fund for the immediate future, but its future status needs to ensure that it is best placed to maintain its self-financing structure in the digital era. While the strong national interest of the UKHO's work is deemed consistent with continued Government ownership and responsibility, the UKHO is encouraged to seek partnerships with the private sector to help it to better exploit both current and new wider markets.

  I have accepted the Phase 1 report, in particular the recommendation that the UKHO should aim in the medium term to convert to a wholly owned, Government-owned, company if certain conditions relating to its future role in the digital era are met. Accordingly, I have asked the chief executive to report to the Hydrographic Office Ministerial Advisory Board in two years time, to allow the board to review progress towards viability as a Government-owned company in the digital era, covering both income and cost base, and the protection of data supply. I have placed copies of a summary of the report in the Library of the House.

  Phase 2 of the Quinquennial Review will cover the implementation of the recommendations of Phase 1, and review efficiency measures. It will also cover the strategy for addressing the requirements of other Government Departments, and governance and scrutiny issues.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he plans to the role of the reserves in home defence and security. [61911]

  Mr. Hoon
  The work to date on the New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review indicates that there is scope for an additional role for the reserves in home defence and security tasks, which would draw on their strengths and skills in the response to a crisis and which the reserves would themselves welcome. To explain our concept and to seek views upon it, the Ministry of Defence has today issued a discussion document entitled "The Role of the Reserves in Home Defence and Security". Copies of the document have been placed in the Library of the House. It makes proposals for providing a significant
  1261W
  enhancement to the support which the Department and armed forces can provide to the civil authorities in such circumstances in three areas:
  by the formation of reaction forces on a regional basis, comprising an average of 500 reserve personnel who volunteer for the role and who would be available to be deployed in a crisis;
  by formalising the role of 2 Signals Brigade, and its predominantly Territorial Army subordinate units, in supporting those personnel deploying in response to a crisis, and enhancing its communications equipment accordingly;
  by using reserve personnel to improve our contingency planning, and the machinery by which the civil authorities can gain access to support from the armed forces in a crisis.

  This is a significant development for our reserve forces, and an important new challenge for them. We will take account of the views of the reserves and their employers on the discussion document in finalising our proposals. At that stage, we will also take a final view on the implications for the size and shape of our reserve forces.

  Disposal Services Agency
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Disposal Services Agency for financial year 2002–03. [61912]

  Dr. Moonie
  The agency was originally launched as the Disposal Sales Agency in October 1994, and was re-launched in November 2000 as the Disposal Services Agency. The agency provides much more than a sales function for surplus Ministry of Defence equipment and stores. It provides a total disposal solution by acting as a broker and adding value through expert advice across the public sector. The agency is therefore operating very much in line with the Government's aim of more joined-up delivery.

  The chief executive of the agency has been set the following key targets for the financial year 2002–03.

  Key target 1
  To achieve a disposal sales gross cash receipt of £25 million from the sales of surplus Government owned equipment and stores. This figure reflects the expected surplus equipment disposal programme.
  Key target 2
  To meet the key performance indicators as agreed in the Customer Supplier Agreement with the Defence Logistics Organisation.
  Key target 3
  To maintain and where necessary improve by at least 2 percentage points on the customer satisfaction (baseline) rates as recorded in the 2002 customer survey.
  Key target 4
  To secure £355,000 sales per person employed for commercial activities.

TRANSPORT

  Transport Projects
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the major transport investment projects that have been given final go-ahead by his Department since 7 June 2001. [59359]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.
  1262W
  The following projects were fully accepted in the period:
  Heathrow Airport Terminal Five
  Extensions to the Heathrow Express and the Piccadilly Line to Heathrow Airport Terminal Five
  Oldham Retaining Walls
  A689 Sedgefield to Wynyard improvements (Durham) Barnsley Coalfields Link Road Phases 2 and 3
  A2 Bean-Cobham Widening Phase 1.

  24 major local transport schemes have been provisionally accepted, conditional on statutory procedures which are essential to the scheme, or where the scheme is dependent on a contribution from a third party.

  Four schemes have been added to the targeted programme of improvements—these are still subject to statutory procedures.

  Railways
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what legal powers he will hold to require Network Rail to change the nature of the use of sub-contractors for network maintenance. [59332]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The management of maintenance contracts would be a matter for Network Rail, if it succeeds Railtrack as network operator. The guidelines issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 31 October 2001 specify that bidders should demonstrate proposals for focused and effective contract management. Network Rail has said it plans to improve relations with maintenance organisations through longer contracts, better alignment of incentives and by awarding contracts on the basis of best value assessments—not necessarily the lowest price.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for railways regulation. [62144]

  Mr. Darling
  As the Government announced in October 2001, they have been considering whether the railways regulatory framework continues to be fit for purpose given the changing circumstances faced by the UK rail industry. The Government's considerations have been guided by a number of key overarching principles:Providing sufficient comfort and protection to operators and lenders through independent economic regulation and in order to regulate monopoly/monopsony elements and to secure private investment in the railways at an efficient cost;
  Ensuring that public expenditure on the railways delivers the Government's objectives and achieves value for money;
  Ensuring that the level of public expenditure on the railways respects and reflects the Government's overall spending priorities, including the 10 Year Plan;
  Keeping the burden of regulation to the minimum level necessary; and
  Ensuring a stable, well led industry with clarity of roles.

  Having reviewed the current regulatory regime, the Government propose to build on the existing board structure of the ORR by establishing a statutory regulatory board. This is in line with Government policy on independent regulatory authorities, is consistent with the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force, and has been done in the case of the regulation of the gas

  1263W
  and electricity industries (Utilities Act 2000) and postal services (Postal Services Act 2000) and is in the course of being done for the Office of Fair Trading (Enterprise Bill) and the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors (Communications Bill).

  The regulator's duties include requirements to have regard to the SRA's strategies and budget. In view of the importance the Government attach to continued close working between the SRA and the regulator on these matters, I intend to issue directions to the SRA and guidance to the regulator on how I expect these requirements to be reflected in any future review of the network operator's revenue requirements.

  The Government will need to continue to keep the effectiveness of the regime under review as the rail sector develops. The implementation of EU Directives already requires the Government to review the regulatory framework and adjust it in accordance with the Directives as necessary (the implementation of the First Railway Package of Directives is due by March 2003).

  In making any further changes to the regulatory regime, the Government will continue to have regard to all of the principles set out above, treating the first one on independent economic regulation as an essential continuing requirement. Should the Government conclude that any change is required, they would consult key stakeholders on proposals in the normal way before bringing forward appropriate legislation.

  Rail Links
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent investigations he has carried out into the(a) feasibility and (b) utility of constructing combinations of single and double lines of rail track adjacent to motorways and trunk highways. [59872]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  None.

  Bridge Tolls
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total revenue was from bridge tolls for each toll bridge in England in each of the last five years. [61098]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The majority of statutory tolled bridges in England are either privately owned or operated by a local authority and are not legally obliged to send regular accounts to the Secretary of State. As such the information requested is not held by the Department.

  Fire Statistics
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) fire stations, (b) full time fire-fighters and (c) part time fire-fighters there are in each fire authority. [60445]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the number of fire stations in each fire authority in England and Wales at 1 January for each year from 1997 to 2002 was given in my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member on 19 March 2002, Official Report, columns 239–42W.
  1264W
  The number of firefighters in each fire authority area in England and Wales at 31 March 2001, the most recent date for which figures are available, is shown in the table:

  Number of wholetime and retained firefighters in post in England and Wales at 31 March 2001

  Authority

  Wholetime1

  Retained2

  Avon

  667

  160

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  330

  115

  Buckinghamshire

  292

  152

  Cambridgeshire

  276

  295

  Cheshire

  631

  146

  Cleveland

  601

  62

  Cornwall

  185

  407

  County Durham and Darlington

  405

  119

  Cumbria

  274

  370

  Derbyshire

  465

  231

  Devon

  570

  648

  Dorset

  300

  288

  East Sussex

  425

  201

  Essex

  936

  373

  Gloucestershire

  232

  257

  Greater Manchester

  2,090

  26

  Hampshire

  784

  546

  Hereford and Worcester

  355

  294

  Hertfordshire

  565

  212

  Humberside

  725

  276

  Isle of Wight

  61

  152

  Isles of Scilly

  9

  34

  Kent

  944

  494

  Lancashire

  1,010

  285

  Leicestershire

  498

  144

  Lincolnshire

  189

  413

  London

  5,693

  0

  Merseyside

  1,369

  0

  Mid and West Wales

  502

  660

  Norfolk

  310

  424

  North Wales

  283

  483

  North Yorkshire

  352

  331

  Northamptonshire

  296

  182

  Northumberland

  206

  152

  Nottinghamshire

  581

  202

  Oxfordshire

  230

  237

  Royal Berkshire

  406

  122

  Shropshire

  200

  249

  Somerset

  179

  351

  South Wales

  968

  252

  South Yorkshire

  920

  39

  Staffordshire

  473

  304

  Suffolk

  247

  352

  Surrey

  713

  103

  Tyne and Wear

  1,010

  18

  Warwickshire

  286

  149

  West Midlands

  2,031

  8

  West Sussex

  397

  272

  West Yorkshire

  1,683

  166

  Wiltshire

  222

  272

  1 In full time equivalents

  2 In 24 hour units of cover

  Source:

  Authority annual returns to HM Fire Service Inspectorate

  Regeneration
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what central government-sponsored programmes are under way to support physical regeneration projects. [59825]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.
  1265W
  Central government-sponsored programmes in support of physical regeneration are primarily implemented through the Regional Development Agencies, the London Development Agency and English Partnerships. For the RDAs and the LDA all funding is directed through the Single Programme. Details of English Partnerships' programmes are set out each year in the Department's annual report.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much investment has been committed to physical regeneration projects in(a) the last five years and (b) the next five years. [59826]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  During the past five years the Government's physical regeneration expenditure programme has been undertaken principally through the Regional Development Agencies (RDA), the London Development Agency (LDA) and the Urban Regeneration Agency (URA)(part of English Partnerships).

  (a) Gross cash investment on physical regeneration projects in each of the past five years has been as follows:

  £ million

  RDAs/LDA (excluding PIP)1

  Urban Regeneration Agency

  1997–98

  —

  359

  1998–99

  —

  463

  1999–2000

  108

  322

  2000–01

  2182

  247

  2001–02

  3—

  10

  1 RDAs/LDA figures are gross expenditure in cash terms on the Land and Property Programme. They exclude Partnership Investment Programme (PIP) expenditure for 1999–2000 and 2000–01, which is included within the URA figures for those two years.

  2 RDA receipts for this year included £28 million of European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

  3 The Land and Property outturn figure for 2001–02 has not yet been finalised. However, including PIP expenditure and £20 million of ERDF, it is estimated to be approximately £400 million gross in cash terms.

  (b) From 2002–03 onwards, the RDAs operate under a Single Programme. Funding for physical regeneration by the RDAs and the LDA cannot therefore be disaggregated from this offices' total contribution to the Single Programme.

  Contribution to RDAs/LDA

  £ million

  2002–03

  1,278

  2003–04

  1,425

  The URA forecasts its investment on physical regeneration projects at approximately £130 million in both 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  The level of physical regeneration expenditure by the RDAs, LDA and the URA in the subsequent two years will be determined by the context of the Spending Review and, in the URA's case, also by the outcome of the present quinquennial review of English Partnerships' future role.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the future training requirements in the oil and gas sector. [57307]

  Mr. Wilson
  An updated review of skills in this sector—funded by DTI, Scottish Enterprise, Aberdeen city council and the new Sector Skills Council COGENT—is due to be published in July this year.

  Redundant Oil Installations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what international agreements to which the United Kingdom is party govern the long-term liability issues of contamination, accidents and maintenance of redundant oil installations that are left in place. [58347]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Oslo and Paris Convention of 1992 (OSPAR) provides for the protection of the Marine Environment of the NE Atlantic. Under the convention the UK has adopted OSPAR Decision 98/3 which provides a regime for the decommissioning of oil and gas installations and effectively prohibits sea disposal. There is a presumption that installations on the UK continental shelf will be brought back to shore for reuse, recycling or final disposal on land. However, the OSPAR Decision recognises that there may be difficulty in removing the 'footings' of large steel jackets weighing more than 10,000 tonnes and in removing concrete installations. As a result derogations may be granted in these cases if the internationally agreed assessment and consultation process shows that leaving such installations wholly or partly in place is justifiable. If a derogation is granted, the permit will specify who will be liable for the remains and require suitable monitoring and management measures to prevent or mitigate any adverse consequences to both the environment and other users of the sea.

  In the UK, to ensure the orderly decommissioning of all installations, including those subject to derogation from the OSPAR Decision, the decommissioning of each installation is addressed within a decommissioning programme. The programme assesses the potential decommissioning solutions and determines the most appropriate disposal option by balancing safety, the environment, impact on other users of the sea, technical feasibility and economics. The programme must be approved by the Secretary of State under the Petroleum Act 1998.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [58988]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows.
  1267W

  Percentage of:

  Ordinary written questions answered within five sitting days

  Named day written questions answered on that day

  June 2001

  100

  56

  July 2001

  94

  47

  October 2001

  88

  46

  November 2001

  67

  35

  December 2001

  70

  20

  January 2002

  84

  34

  February 2002

  74

  47

  March 2002

  71

  29

  April 2002

  87

  61

  May 2002

  57

  33

  Compensation Applications
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, columns 698–99W, on compensation applications, if she will provide a breakdown of the top 100 companies and organisations and the amounts paid to those lawyers dealing with vibration white finger and carpal tunnel syndrome. [60803]

  Mr. Wilson
  In the time given, the Department cannot provide the costs paid to the top 100 solicitors/organisations. The following table updates the details of costs paid to the 10 solicitors/organisations who represent the largest number of vibration white finger claims in ascending order of total claims intimated.

  Solicitor/organisations

  Costs paid (£ million)

  1. Thompsons

  6.3

  2. Browell Smith and Co.

  4.8

  3. UDM

  4.0

  4. Raleys

  3.5

  5. Hugh James Ford Simey

  3.5

  6. Graysons

  2.3

  7. Watson Burton

  2.2

  8. Moss

  1.6

  9. Towells

  1.5

  10. AMS Law

  1.2

  Legal Costs
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, columns 797–98W, on legal costs, if she will provide a breakdown of the top 100 companies and organisations and the amounts paid to those lawyers dealing with bronchitis and emphysema. [60802]

  Mr. Wilson
  In the time given, the Department cannot provide the costs paid to the top 100 solicitors/organisations. The following table updates the details of costs paid to the 10 solicitors/organisations who represent the largest number of respiratory disease claims in ascending order of total claims intimated.

  Solicitors/organisations

  Costs paid (£ million)

  1. Thompsons

  19.2

  2. Hugh James Ford Simey

  10.7

  3. Raleys

  5.2

  4. Browell Smith and Co.

  4.1

  1268W

  Solicitors/organisations

  Costs paid (£ million)

  5. UDM

  3.5

  6. Irwin Mitchells

  2.7

  7. Towells

  2.5

  8. Graysons

  2.3

  9. Watson Burton

  1.8

  10. O. H. Parsons

  1.3

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are(a) in place and (b) under discussion in her Department in order to ensure compliance with the WEEE directive. [60753]

  Mr. Wilson
  The WEEE directive is still in draft. The conciliation process is about to commence and the final text should be finalised this autumn. This will allow detailed implementation plans to commence. A formal consultation was completed in December 2000, on the original Commission draft, and there has been constant discussion with all stakeholders since. Informal retailer, local authority and small business focus groups have already been established to consider compliance options, with more planned. A series of formal consultations are planned early next year.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to remove the lower rate of the minimum wage. [60533]

  Alan Johnson
  We have no such plans. I announced new terms of reference for the Low Pay Commission today and will of course carefully consider any recommendations made on this issue in their next report.

  European Structural Fund
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the financial contribution into the United Kingdom's economy has been in each of the last five years from the European Structural Fund. [60710]

  Alan Johnson
  The total European Union Structural Funds allocations to the United Kingdom for the periods 1994–99 and 2000–06 are euro 12,590 and euro 16,640 million, equivalent to £8,380 and £10,799 million at 2000 prices. The table breaks these totals into the yearly sums. These figures include the European Social Fund allocation.

  Euro million

  £ million

  1997

  2,552

  1,668

  1998

  2,569

  1,679

  1999

  2,673

  1,748

  2000

  2,496

  1,621

  2001

  2,471

  1,595

  The figures in the table are allocations rather than receipts. Some receipts are not recorded centrally and, in any case, receipts in any one year will include reimbursement of some claims submitted in respect of previous years. Similarly some claims submitted during the year in question will not be paid in that year.

  Newspaper Distribution Monopolies
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when she last met the National Federation of Retail Newsagents to discuss wholesaler monopolies of newspaper and magazine distribution; [60496]

  (2) if she will meet the chief executive of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents to discuss the wholesaler monopolies of newspaper and magazine distribution. [60497]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My right hon. Friend and other DTI Ministers have not met the National Federation of Retail Newsagents recently.

  Responsibility for monitoring the newspaper and magazine distribution market and investigating allegations of anti-competitive behaviour lies with the Director General of Fair Trading. The Office of Fair Trading is currently reviewing the Code of Practice on the supply of national newspapers, introduced following the 1993 monopoly report on newspaper distribution in England and Wales. It is also examining other issues affecting the industry including exclusive distribution and carriage charges.

  BNFL
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list, for each of the last three years, each political donation made by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and each of its subsidiaries; what budget has been allocated by BNFL and its subsidiaries for political donations in 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [59241]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 11 June 20021: This is a matter for the company. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many renewable energy projects attracted financial support from the Export Credits Guarantee Department in each of the last three years; what the level of financial support was for each project; and what percentage these represent of the total(a) number and (b) value of ECGD funded projects. [57609]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD has not provided new financial support for any renewable energy project during the last three years. During this period, however, additional insurance has been extended in respect of projects for which financial support had been underwritten earlier. Details of insurance provided by ECGD are not disclosed as this is treated as commercial in confidence.

  Low Pay Commission
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Low Pay Commission has been given new terms of reference. [61929]

  Ms Hewitt
  We have today given the Low Pay Commission new terms of reference. The Government have asked the commission to continue to monitor and evaluate the impact of the minimum wage and to make recommendations, if appropriate, for changes to the levels of the main and development rates. The commission has 1270W
  been asked to report to the Government by the end of February 2003. Copies of the terms of reference have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  I am pleased to announce that we have also recently made two appointments to the Low Pay Commission. The new chair of the commission is Adair Turner, vice chairman of Merrill Lynch Europe and the new employer member is Angie Risley from Whitbread Group plc.

  Broadband
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the roll out of broadband connectivity in Northern Ireland. [57731]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are committed to making the UK broadband market more extensive and competitive. The Government work with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive to support the development of the market. As part of the £30 million UK broadband fund, Northern Ireland will be receiving £1.46 million, which will be used to fund a number of initiatives announced on 19 March 2002.

  The Northern Ireland Executive has recognised the development of a leading-edge telecommunications infrastructure as central to the development of the Northern Ireland economy. It has launched a number of initiatives such as the SME Broadband Satellite pilot programme to encourage companies to embrace broadband.

  The Northern Ireland Executive will in due course issue a call for expressions of interest in potential flagship projects.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Angola
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part his Department played in brokering the ceasefire between the Government of Angola and the UNITA rebels signed in April; and if he will make a statement. [58912]

  Mr. MacShane
  Prior to the ceasefire in Angola, Her Majesty's Government operated a two-track policy towards Angola which was to support the existing sanctions regime against UNITA, as a means of pressing them towards dialogue; while working on the Angolan Government to improve their humanitarian performance, tackle corruption and create some genuine democratic space for possible dialogue. We worked with the Government of Angola, our EU colleagues and the United Nations with the aim of encouraging transparent dialogue between all parties to the conflict.

  We welcome and support the current cease-fire and moves towards peace in Angola. The signature of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Chiefs of Staff of Angolan armed forces and UNITA on 4 April is an important step on the path to securing peace and stability. The agreement should be the start of a sustainable process through negotiation and dialogue.

  1271W
  Both sides now need to make firm commitments towards the implementation of a transparent and inclusive political process.

  Press Releases
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many press releases have been issued by his Department in each month of 2002. [59499]

  Mr. Straw
  The number of press bulletins issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the period specified is:

  Number

  January

  40

  February

  37

  March

  39

  April

  45

  May

  49

  June

  1

  The figures include a daily bulletin of ministerial engagements and announcements and other press releases. The daily bulletin may contain a number of announcements. All Foreign Office press releases, including statements and speeches by Ministers, can be read on our website at www.fco.gov.uk.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [59498]

  Mr. Straw
  The number of press bulletins issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the period specified is:

  Number

  1997

  May

  59

  June

  49

  July

  48

  August

  29

  September

  51

  October

  55

  November

  45

  December

  45

  1998

  January

  38

  February

  33

  March

  58

  April

  35

  May

  34

  June

  27

  July

  37

  August

  29

  September

  31

  October

  37

  November

  27

  December

  28

  1999

  January

  47

  February

  53

  March

  65

  April

  76

  May

  51

  June

  59

  1272W

  Number

  July

  59

  August

  29

  September

  39

  October

  48

  November

  40

  December

  29

  2000

  January

  32

  February

  29

  March

  41

  April

  32

  May

  36

  June

  39

  July

  42

  August

  24

  September

  54

  October

  46

  November

  36

  December

  33

  2001

  January

  29

  February

  28

  March

  39

  April

  30

  May

  24

  June

  31

  July

  30

  August

  9

  September

  35

  October

  34

  November

  39

  December

  35

  The figures include a daily bulletin of ministerial engagements and announcements and other press releases. The daily bulletin may contain a number of announcements. All Foreign Office press releases, including statements and speeches by Ministers, can be read on our website at www.fco.gov.uk.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people his Department employs in its regulatory impact unit; and if he will make a statement. [59874]

  Mr. Straw
  As a non-regulatory Department, the FCO does not have a dedicated regulatory impact unit. Issues relating to regulatory impact are dealt with by a member of FCO staff as part of his overall duties.

  Hawk Jets
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will be raising the UK's sale of Hawk jets to India during his forthcoming visit to the region. [60419]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had not planned to discuss the possible sale of Hawk jets to India during his visit to the region, and did not himself raise it. The subject was, however, mentioned by the Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes at his meeting with my right hon. Friend, and a brief discussion on the issue followed.

  Liberia (Arms)
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of Liberia's use of revenue generated by its shipping register to purchase arms in breach of the UN embargo. [60169]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The report of the UN Expert Panel published in October 2001 found that in 2000 revenue from the Liberian Shipping Registries Incorporated (LISCR) (which manages Liberia's shipping registry on behalf of the Government of Liberia) was diverted to purchase arms in breach of UN sanctions. Since then LISCR has taken action to prevent this reoccurring. LISCR channels shipping registry funds to Liberia's Bureau of Maritime Affairs which the panel described in April 2002 as 'little more than a cash extraction operation and cover from which to fund and organise off-budget expenditures including for sanctions-busting'. The Expert Panel report published in April 2002 expressed continued concern at the use made by the Bureau of Maritime Affairs of Liberia's shipping registry funds.

  President Taylor's involvement in weapons trafficking and his support for armed groups continue to threaten regional peace and stability. The UK therefore welcomes the provisions contained in UN Security Council resolution 1408 (2002) that call on Liberia to establish transparent and internationally verifiable audit regimes to ensure that revenue derived from the Liberia shipping registry is used for legitimate social, humanitarian and development purposes, not sanction-busting.

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met members of the Turkish Government; what issues were discussed on their progress towards possible membership of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [60707]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State most recently met Foreign Minister Cem on 14 May in Reykjavik, during the NATO Foreign Ministers' meeting. They discussed European Defence, the transfer to Turkey of the ISAF lead and Cyprus.

  British Citizens (EU Prisons)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens spent more than seven days in prison in each EU country, in each year since 1997; and how many were subsequently acquitted. [60386]

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  All British Embassies and High Commissions keep records of those British prisoners who have asked the local authorities to inform the British Mission of their detention. These records show how long a prisoner was detained and whether he/she was later acquitted. However the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not collate statistics in the format requested, and so to provide this information would incur disproportionate costs.
  1274W
  The FCO maintains quarterly records of the number of British nationals serving custodial sentences in prisons overseas and I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting on 7 May 2002, Official Report, column 456–458W.

  East Timor
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet representatives of the Chinese Government; and if he will raise the case of Ngawang Sandrol at that meeting. [59782]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, hopes to meet Chinese Ministers later in the year. We raise human rights issues, including Tibet, with the Chinese at every suitable occasion and will continue to do so.

  Ngawang Sangdrol is one 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.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the UK's diplomatic staffing will be in East Timor. [60484]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British Office in East Timor was up-graded to an Embassy at Independence on 20 May 2002. There are two diplomatic staff in Dili.

  Middle East
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what involvement the UK Government will have in the preparations for peace talks in the Middle East. [60481]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and a member of the EU, the UK is actively involved in international efforts to revitalise the Middle East Peace Process in order to achieve a just and lasting peace.

  A revitalised peace process must lead to the establishment of two viable, secure, territorially sovereign and democratic states of Israel and Palestine, mutually recognised and committed to peaceful coexistence within agreed borders. It should address key issues, particularly in respect of Jerusalem, settlements and refugees. It should also secure a comprehensive peace that includes full peace treaties between Israel, Lebanon and Syria. Only genuine commitment by the parties to such an agenda can break the current cycle of violence and reprisal.

  Achieving these goals will require a continuous process that includes confidence building measures and timelines; ensures parallel movement on the political, security and economic tracks; and is based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338 and 1397.

  We expect to take this forward at the G8 Foreign Minister's meeting, 12–13 June, and in our consultations with other involved countries in coming weeks.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards restoring democracy in Zimbabwe. [60246]

  Mr. MacShane
  There is now a strong international consensus opposed to the actions of the Zimbabwe regime. We will work to strengthen that consensus, while supporting credible regional efforts (in particular the joint initiative of South Africa and Nigeria) to restore democratic legitimacy to Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the adherence of the Zimbabwean Government to the constitution in respect of(a) section 18(1) on the protection of the law and (b) section 18(9) on entitlement to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent court. [60184]

  Mr. MacShane
  It would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual constitutional clauses in isolation. But we have made clear on numerous occasions our deep concern at the Zimbabwean authorities' campaign to undermine the rule of law in Zimbabwe, and its persistent failure to protect and enforce the Zimbabwean people's rights under the country's Constitution.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures have been taken to ensure that those who commit violations of human rights in Zimbabwe are brought to international justice; and if he will make a statement. [60407]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK Government and its EU and other international partners will continue to focus international attention on abuses of human rights in Zimbabwe.

  The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) will come into force on 1 July 2002. The Court will not have retrospective jurisdiction over crimes alleged to have been committed before that date.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to prevent President Mugabe from buying(a) arms and (b) anti-riot gear for the internal security purposes. [60195]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK imposed an arms embargo on Zimbabwe in May 2000. This is implemented by prohibiting the export of goods and technology on the Military List which forms Part III of Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended.

  In addition, on 18 February 2002 the European Union agreed a Council Common Position (2002/145/CFSP) imposing targeted sanctions including a full arms embargo, and an embargo on the sale or supply to Zimbabwe of equipment which might be used for internal repression.

  The embargo on the sale or supply to Zimbabwe of equipment which might be used for internal repression is implemented in the Community by Council Regulation 310–2002 and prohibits the export to Zimbabwe from the Community of equipment listed in Annex II of the regulation. This includes, 'anti-riot helmets', 'anti-riot shields', 'body armour, other than those manufactured to
  1276W
  military standards or specifications', portable devices designed or modified for the purpose of riot control or self-protection by the administration of an incapacitating substance (such as tear gas or pepper sprays)'.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates the Government have made of the number of economic refugees from Zimbabwe in(a) South Africa, (b) Zambia, (c) Botswana, (d) Mozambique, (e) Madagascar and (f) the United Kingdom. [60189]

  Mr. MacShane
  The South African authorities estimate that there are up to two million Zimbabweans resident in South Africa, the majority being in the north of the country.

  No reliable figures are available on the total number of Zimbabweans in Zambia, Botswana, Mozambique, or Madagascar.

  As the United Kingdom does not require Zimbabweans to obtain entry visas, it is not possible to estimate the size of the resident Zimbabwean community in the UK. Last year, however, the Home Office received 2,085 applications for asylum from Zimbabweans.

  Lakshmi Mittal
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 255W, on meetings with Embassy staff, what the benefit to the United Kingdom, in foreign policy terms, was of the Lakshmi Mittal Romanian steel contract. [60551]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 February 2002, Official Report, columns 610–12W.

  Chagos Islands
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much revenue has been generated by the sale of licences to fishing boats fishing in Chagos Island waters in the last 12 month period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [57249]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]: Revenue generated by the sale of licences for fishing in BIOT waters during 2001–02 was £800,892. This figure has yet to be audited.

  Honduras
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place between his officials and representatives of the Government of Honduras in respect of the number of murders of street children; and if he will make a statement. [59243]

  Mr. MacShane
  We regularly raise our concerns over the distressing plight of street children in Honduras in the framework of our bilateral relations and in international fora. In May 2002, an official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office while in Honduras, raised the issue of human rights with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and visited a juvenile rehabilitation centre in Tegucigalpa.
  1277W
  EU Ambassadors in Tegucigalpa recently invited the new Human Rights Commissioner to attend a meeting where the plight of street children in Honduras was discussed.

  The Honduras Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), a good example of a British Government poverty reduction strategy for developing countries, is designed to integrate actions and commitments to tackle child poverty. Through the PRSP, HMG is committed to strengthening the role of the Honduran Institute for Children and the Family especially in assisting vulnerable children and adolescents; and to helping implement Honduras' National Plan for the Gradual and Progressive Eradication of Child Labour.

  Civil Service Recruitment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 22 April,Official Report, column 230W, on Civil Service recruitment, if he will place in the Library a copy of the questionnaire sent to staff requesting information about education details. [60665]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Yes.

  Migrant Workers
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the(a) activities and (b) budget of the Administrative Commission of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers. [57899]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Administrative Commission on social security for migrant workers is set up under Articles 80 and 81 of EEC Regulation 1408–71, which lays down the rules for co-ordination of member states' social security schemes for workers who move within the European Economic Area. The Administrative Commission's main function is to deal with administrative questions and questions of interpretation of the provisions of Regulation 1408–71. This enables consistency in implementation across the member states. Among its other tasks are the fostering and development of cooperation between member states in social security matters. It may also submit proposals for revising the Regulation.

  The Administrative Commission is currently considering a number of items: the proposed European health card; implications arising from decisions of the European Court of Justice; the EU-Switzerland agreement; changes to forms used by member states where a claim for a benefit involves more than one state; matters relating to the electronic issue of documents; proposals for amending the EC regulation on the co-ordination of social security benefits and applications from candidate countries to list certain benefits in the annexes to that regulation.

  The budget of the Administrative Commission for the current year is 1.600,000 euros which includes the technical assistance and translation costs.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Street Children
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects are supported by her Department designed to improve conditions for street children in Central American countries; and if she will make a statement. [59242]

  Clare Short
  A list of projects funded through DFID's Small Grants Scheme and Joint Funding Scheme has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out the inherent rights and entitlements needed to guarantee a child's right to survival, development and an adequate standard of living. It is crucial that development strategies in all counties address issues of child poverty and secure child entitlements.

  Examples of our work in this area include implementation of the Honduras Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), which is a good example of a government poverty reduction strategy, which integrates actions and commitments to tackle child poverty. Through the PRSP the Government has committed to strengthen the role of the Honduran Institute for Children and the Family especially to assist vulnerable children and adolescents; and to implement the National Plan for the Gradual and Progressive Eradication of Child Labour.

  The European Commission is also funding projects in Central America with NGOs. In Honduras they are strengthening public agencies working with children at risk, training judges, police and community workers and NGOs working with children. In Nicaragua and Guatemala there are projects addressing the sexual exploitation of children. These programmes total 3.8 million euros (£2.4 million) of which the UK share is approximately 608,000 euros (£400,00).

  Saudi Arabia and Kuwait
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid her Department has given to(a) Saudi Arabia and (b) Kuwait in the past 10 years. [60631]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Grants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which organisations which were in receipt of a grant from her in 1997–98 no longer are; what the annual saving is; which organisations and outside bodies which were not in receipt of a grant in 1997–98 now are; and what the annual cost is. [61399]

  Clare Short
  It would involve disproportionate cost to provide a full answer to this question.

  Child Labour
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her assessment is of the scale of child labour; and what steps she plans to take in relation to it. [61925]
  1279W
  Clare Short
  The most recent report form the International Labour Organisation estimates that there are 246 million working children. 179 million of them are engaged in the worst forms of child labour that endanger their physical, mental or moral well-being.

  The Government will continue to support partners that tackle child labour internationally, nationally and locally, and to promote policies that support poverty elimination and social justice for children. My Department has recently published a paper, "Liberating Children—combating hidden and harmful child labour", which looks at why there are so many children in harmful work, and suggests how everyone—governments, international organisations, business and civil society—has a part to play in tackling this persistent problem.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many criminal offences have been(a) created and (b) abolished by her Department since 1997. [55435]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA came into being on the 8 June 2001. Since that date over 295 Statutory Instruments emanating from the Department have come into force. A comprehensive and exhaustive list of new and abolished offences could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Some new offences have been created, some offences have been repealed and some re-enacted; most offences relate to breach of the regulations or obstruction of officers enforcing the regulations. Many of the provisions related to foot-and-mouth controls and extended offences to geographical areas covered by the controls.

  I can however provide the following information about the following measures creating such offences which have come into force since 8 June 2001:
  The Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Control of Vaccination)(England) Regulations 2001 SI No. 2375 prohibit vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease except by licence
  The Processed Animal Protein (England) Regulations 2001 SI No. 2376 restrict the feeding of processed animal protein to farmed animals
  The TSE Regulations 2002 SI No. 843 provide for the administration and enforcement of measures to deal with transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in all susceptible animals
  The Products of Animal Origin (Third Country Imports)(England) Order 2002 SI No. 1227 restrict the importation of products of animal origin
  The Plant Health (Phytophera ramorum)(England) Order 2002 SI No. 1299 implement measures to deal with the fungus named in the Order.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Committee (and working party on irregularities) 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 1280W
  under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55658]

  Mr. Morley
  The Committee was set up under Council Regulation 17/64 EEC on the conditions for granting aid from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. Provisions which currently define the role of the Committee, confer powers on the Commission and establish rules for consultation and adoption of legislation are contained in Articles 11 to 15 of Council Regulation 1258/99 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.

  The Committee has both voting and non-voting functions. The procedures for adoption of legislation by the Committee are set out in Article 13 of Regulation 1258/99. This is a management committee procedure (variant IIa). The voting procedure is applied to regulations made under Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation 1258/99 (essentially concerned with accreditation of paying agencies and submission of annual CAP accounts). In addition, a number of other regulations require the FEOGA Committee to express an opinion via Article 13 procedures, in particular on measures adopted under the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS), some horizontal regulations, e.g. on calculating the costs of financing intervention measures, and certain commodity regime provisions which involve the grant of aid from FEOGA funds (in the latter case the sectoral management committee normally sit as a joint management committee with the FEOGA Committee).

  The FEOGA Committee may also be consulted in circumstances set down in Article 14 of Reg 1258–99. This provides for the Fund Committee to be consulted:
  in cases where provision is made for it to be consulted;
  for the assessment of the Fund's credits to be entered in the Commission's estimate for the coming financial year and, if necessary, on additional estimates;
  on draft proposals from the Commission to the Council concerning the application of Regulation 1258–99 and on draft reports on the Fund to be submitted to the Council.

  The Committee may also examine any other question referred to it by its Chairman either on his own initiative or at the request of a representative of a Member State. It should be informed regularly of the activities of the Fund. Consultation is required by Article 6 of the Regulation (essentially concerning payment of monthly advances from the Fund and decisions on clearance of annual CAP accounts). Consultation does not involve a vote.

  The Committee has met 12 times over the past 12 months. The costs of travel and subsistence for two officers was about £13,344. Items currently under its consideration are the budget of the Common Agricultural Policy, and the clearance of accounts 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 (COM (2001) 783 Final).

  1281W
  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 Standing Forestry 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. [55660]

  Mr. Morley
  The Standing Forestry Committee was established by European Council Decision (89/367/EEC) made on 29 May 1989. Its mandate is to provide for closer co-operation in the forestry sector between Member States and the European Commission and thereby support forestry measures initiated under the Community agricultural structure and rural development policy. Recently the mandate has been extended in practice to provide support under Community environmental policy.

  In the last 12 months the Committee met 6 times. The Forestry Commission represents the UK. The annual cost of the Commission's involvement varies, depending on the number of meetings. In the last 12 months the cost was £2,250.

  The Committee is currently considering new legislation to monitor and assess the impacts of natural and manmade impacts on the health of forests, audit guidance on monitoring payments for forestry measures and new legislation on evaluation of forestry in rural development. 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 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 Joint Meetings of Management and/or Regulatory Committees dealing with agrimonetary questions 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. [55663]
  1282W
  Mr. Morley
  This committee oversees the agrimonetary compensation regulations. It has met twice over the last 12 months. The UK was represented by one official. The cost of travel and subsistence was about £1,024. There are no items currently under consideration.

  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 agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) farmyard and (b) feral (i) cats and (ii) dogs have been tested in TB endemic areas by constituency in the last 30 years; and what proportion of these turned out to he TB reactors. [55811]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is not available in the format requested. However since 1970 a total of 150 cats and 96 dogs have been tested for TB. Of those, 16 cats and one dog tested positive. The statistics gathered do not differentiate between feral and household cats.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she routinely tests free-roaming farm animals when a TB breakdown occurs. [55845]

  Mr. Morley
  In addition to cattle, DEFRA will undertake testing of goat herds co-located with a cattle herd that has had confirmed TB reactors. Testing of any co-located farmed deer in the same circumstances is strongly advised but is not carried out as a routine.

  Law Enforcement Agencies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities designated with legislation there are within the responsibility of her Department; and what complaints procedure is available for each. [57102]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which was created on the 8 June 2001, is responsible for prosecuting offences in relation to the core Departmental functions administered by various Inspectorates or Services including; the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate, the Veterinary Field Service, the Egg Marketing Inspectorate, the Horticulture Marketing Inspectorate, the Plant Health Safety Inspectorate and the British Cattle Movement Service. It is also responsible for prosecuting offences alleged by the Forestry Commission. Each of the bodies has an established procedure for

  1283W
  dealing with complaints. The procedure generally has three stages. Firstly the complaint is considered by managers within the Inspectorate or Service; secondly, if the complaint is not resolved it may be referred to the Departmental Complaints Adjudicator for investigation; and thirdly, if the complaint still remains unresolved the complainant may then write to their Member of Parliament and ask for the matter to be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  DEFRA is also responsible for prosecuting offences in relation to six executive agencies; the Rural Payments Agency (RPA), the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD). Complaints about the agencies referred to above are initially considered by managers within each agency and ultimately by the Chief Executive of the Agency. If the complaint remains unresolved the complainant may then write to their Member of Parliament and ask for the matter to be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Broadband
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to offer assistance to small businesses in rural areas to enable them to access broadband communications as they become available. [57213]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for e-Commerce and Competitiveness, the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander), on 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 631W. Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry and DEFRA with Regional Development Agencies and others are keen to assist in meeting the needs of rural economies.

  Canoeing
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason the Angling and Canoeing Liaison Group of the Environment Agency's meeting on Wednesday 8 May to discuss access for canoeists was cancelled; and if she will make a statement. [58369]

  Alun Michael
  The cancellation of the Angling and Canoe Access Group meeting on 8 May 2002 was due to the high number of apologies for absence sent prior to the meeting.

  Given that Government will respond shortly to the University of Brighton research, "Water-based sport and recreation: the facts", the meeting is being rescheduled to allow consideration of this important research.

  Rural Development Regulations
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions her Department has had with the European Commission regarding changing rural development regulations to allow(a) member states and (b) regions within them, to vary the application of voluntary
  1284W
  modulation; and what analysis her Department has carried out to ascertain the impact of regionalisation of modulation. [59704]

  Mr. Morley
  Discussions have taken place between my Department and the European Commission in preparation for the Mid-term Review of CAP. They have included possible changes to the Rural Development Regulation and horizontal measures legislation in relation to modulation and the potential for different rates of modulation in different areas. We will consider carefully the impact of possible different rates of modulation together with other potential changes to the legislation. We will, of course, consult stakeholders on any new options that emerge from the MTR before taking any decisions on implementation.

  Imported Meat and Poultry
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will list the(a) meat and poultry products imported into the United Kingdom and (b) country of origin of products subsequently found to be unsuitable for human consumption in the United Kingdom in the last three years. [60330]

  Mr. Morley
  Tables detailing the list of meat and poultry products imported into the United Kingdom and the countries from which consignments have been rejected have been placed in the Library of the House. The table of rejected consignments covering all rejections made by UK Border Inspection Posts from 1999 to 2001 has also been placed in the Library of the House; however, details of the reason for rejection are not held centrally.

  Noxious Weeds Act
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many prosecutions there have been under the Noxious Weeds Act 1959 since 1972; and what assessment she has made of the Act's effectiveness. [57250]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]: Records of enforcement activity under the Weeds Act 1959 going back to 1972 are not readily available. However, it is rarely necessary to invoke the formal powers of the Act and I can confirm that there have been no prosecutions in the last five years.

  The fact that there have not been prosecutions does not mean the Act has been ineffective. The Act puts the onus on landowners to control the spread of injurious weeds from their land. DEFRA investigates each complaint about injurious weeds on its merits, but gives priority to complaints where there is a threat to farmland, farming activities and on farm diversified equine activities. Once DEFRA officials have made the occupier of land aware of the presence of injurious weeds, the matter can usually be resolved satisfactorily through co-operation and advice, without taking statutory action.

  Review of London Markets
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Review of London Markets. [61923]
  1285W
  Mr. Morley
  In its report on New Covent Garden Market published last year the House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture recommended a review of the provision of wholesale markets in London.

  In response to this recommendation and in conjunction with the Corporation of London, which owns three of the four major wholesale markets in central London, we have commissioned Mr. Nicholas Saphir to undertake a review. Mr. Saphir is an adviser to several large food and farming companies in the United States, South America and Europe and has wide experience of the operation of the food chain in England. We have asked him to produce an initial report by the end of September.

  The terms of reference of the review are as follows:

  To consider:
  whether the existing London wholesale market facilities are well adapted to the needs of the business communities and users which they serve;
  the effect on the operation of the markets of the legislation which governs them;
  the potential impact of product diversification and changing demand for the services provided by wholesale markets; and
  the scope for developing a co-ordinated strategy for the future management of the markets;
  and to make such recommendations to the Secretary of State and the Corporation of London as the reviewer considers appropriate, after having regard to the practicality and legal and financial implications of implementing them.

  Mr. Saphir may be contacted at the following address:

  Review of London Markets

  Room 106

  Eastbury House

  30–34 Albert Embankment

  London

  SE1 7TL.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Operational Units
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General, pursuant to her answer of 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1330W, what (a) educational, (b) technical and (c) professional qualifications are required for the business managers who head each operational unit. [60207]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: Area Business Manager posts do not require the post holder to have specific educational, technical or professional qualifications. Recruitment to these posts is done on the basis of a person specification, which sets out in detail the key competencies for the post. Candidates are required to state clearly evidence which demonstrates their achievement of each competency, and applications are judged on merit.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many(a) performance reviews and (b) case specific reviews were undertaken in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02, broken down by prosecuting authority. [59347]
  1286W
  The Solicitor-General
  The CPS prosecutes around 1,350,000 cases a year in the magistrates courts and 115,000 in the Crown Court. Cases are subject to continuous review by prosecutors and mechanisms are in place to monitor CPS area performance quarterly. HMCPSI also undertakes inspections of CPS areas. Since the current cycle of inspections began in 1999, HMCPSI has published 39 area inspections reports.

  All cases with an adverse outcome are subject to specific review by a senior prosecutor in the area concerned to ascertain reasons and accountability for the outcome. They number around 1,700 a year in the magistrates courts and 15,000 a year in the Crown Court.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General if each CPS region has recently received a modern IT infrastructure; what the cost of the infrastructure was per CPS region as a percentage of the total revenue budget; what the total revenue budget is in each case; and if these systems are compatible with other systems in the criminal justice system. [59345]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Connect 42 project provided over 5,300 staff across all of the 42 CPS areas with a common IT infrastructure with modern office automation. The project ran from 1999 and concluded in March 2002, on time and within budget.

  The costs of the Connect 42 infrastructure were met from a centrally held HQ budget that was partly funded from the Capital Modernisation Fund. The cost of the infrastructure per CPS area as a percentage of the total 1999–2002 revenue budget and the total gross revenue budget was:

  Connect 42:

  Total revenue budget £ million (1999–2002)

  Expenditure (£ million)

  As percentage of total area budget

  42 areas

  869.5

  19.87

  2.3

  Avon and Somerset

  20.0

  0.3

  1.5

  Bedfordshire

  8.2

  0.2

  2.1

  Cambridgeshire

  10.1

  0.2

  2.0

  Cheshire

  14.4

  0.4

  2.6

  Cleveland

  10.4

  0.3

  3.0

  Cumbria

  8.4

  0.3

  3.3

  Derbyshire

  12.1

  0.3

  2.6

  Devon and Cornwall

  17.4

  0.4

  2.2

  Dorset

  8.0

  0.2

  2.0

  Durham

  8.6

  0.2

  2.6

  Dyfed Powys

  8.0

  0.2

  2.5

  Essex

  21.3

  0.3

  1.3

  Area

  Gloucestershire

  7.1

  0.2

  2.1

  Greater Manchester

  56.0

  1.2

  2.2

  Gwent

  10.7

  0.3

  2.4

  Hampshire

  28.5

  0.5

  1.7

  Hertfordshire

  13.0

  0.3

  1.9

  Humberside

  11.9

  0.3

  2.3

  Kent

  23.1

  0.4

  1.8

  Lancashire

  26.8

  0.7

  2.5

  Leicestershire

  13.3

  0.4

  2.7

  Lincolnshire

  7.9

  0.2

  2.3

  Merseyside

  13.1

  0.8

  2.5

  London

  165.1

  3.1

  1.8

  Norfolk

  9.3

  0.3

  2.9

  Northamptonshire

  8.3

  0.2

  2.7

  Northumbria

  27.2

  0.9

  3.3

  North Wales

  10.0

  0.3

  2.9

  North Yorkshire

  10.3

  0.3

  2.5

  Nottinghamshire

  19.5

  0.5

  2.6

  South Wales

  28.0

  0.6

  2.3

  South Yorkshire

  18.7

  0.5

  2.4

  Staffordshire

  14.5

  0.4

  3.0

  Suffolk

  8.8

  0.3

  2.7

  1287W

  Connect 42:

  Total revenue budget £ million (1999–2002)

  Expenditure (£ million)

  As percentage of total area budget

  Surrey

  11.3

  0.4

  3.3

  Sussex

  18.9

  0.4

  2.0

  Thames Valley

  21.8

  0.6

  2.7

  Warwickshire

  4.9

  0.1

  2.5

  West Mercia

  14.2

  0.4

  2.9

  West Midlands

  52.9

  1.2

  2.2

  West Yorkshire

  42.4

  1.1

  2.6

  Wiltshire

  7.2

  0.2

  2.4

  The Connect 42 infrastructure provides a secure e-mail facility that is compatible with other government departments through the Government Secure Intranet (GSI) and with the police through the police network, the Criminal Justice eXtranet (CJX).

  The CPS is therefore making its full contribution to the target set out in the "The Way Ahead" for all criminal justice professionals to be able to e-mail each other securely.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General which CPS regions are piloting the recommendations of Sir Robin Auld that the CPS should take over responsibility from the police for determining the charge from the outset of the case. [59343]

  The Solicitor-General
  A six-month pilot to identify the practical implications of implementing the recommendation that the CPS should take over the decision to charge from the police was established in mid-February in Kent (Medway division), Essex (the whole county), Wrexham (North Wales), Halifax (West Yorkshire) and Bath (Avon and Somerset). Two busy charging centres in Bristol were added to the pilot in April. A paper explaining the pilot in more detail is available from the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General if Her Majesty's CPS Inspectorate has assessed the consistency of approach between each CPS area in respect of the(a) scrutiny and (b) credibility checks undertaken by the staff of the CPS in relation to (i) all cases and (ii) historical sex abuse cases. [59336]

  The Solicitor-General
  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) assesses the quality of decision making in each area on the basis of a sample of randomly selected files. Inspectors assess the extent to which prosecutors take all decisions in accordance with the principles set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) promulgated by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 10, Prosecution of Offices Act 1985. First, there must be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. Secondly, once the case has passed the evidential test, the circumstances must be such that a prosecution would be in the public interest. Area inspections reveal that a very high level of compliance is attained, that is 98.3 per cent. and 99.81 per cent. respectively up to the end of March 2002. Assessments of decisions made in child abuse cases are broadly similar.

  In the joint inspection conducted by HMCPSI and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary into the investigation and prosecution of cases involving allegations of rape (the Rape Report), published in April 2002, there were insufficient numbers of historic sex
  1288W
  abuse cases to render comparisons meaningful. Inspectors found that most decisions were in accordance with the Code, but were not satisfied that all rape cases were being reviewed consistently. Inspectors recommended that in future all rape cases be allocated to specialist lawyers and I informed the House on 25 April 2002 about the action to be taken by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in response to this. Furthermore, the inspectors recommended that the CPS updates, revises and widens its guidance to prosecutors on the review and handling of cases involving allegations of rape and that legal training on sexual offences be updated in the near future and undertaken by all appropriate lawyers and caseworkers. These recommendations, when addressed, will help ensure a consistent approach to the review and assessment of credibility in all rape cases, including historic sex abuse cases.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made in discussions with the European Commission about the extent of the UK's legal obligations under European regulations on winter fuel payments; and if he will make a statement. [53502]

  Mr. McCartney
  We are unable to say when discussions will conclude.

  New Deal
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the new deal on long-term unemployment. [59649]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since 1997, the number of people unemployed for one year or more has been cut by nearly three quarters. The new deals have played an important part in this success.

  By the end of March 2002, the new deal for young people had helped over 360,000 young people off benefit and into work. Independent research by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research found that the number of young people unemployed for six months or more would be twice as high without the new deal. It also found that the new deal had increased youth employment and had a positive knock-on effect on employment among other age groups.

  New deal 25 plus has helped over 100,000 long-term unemployed people into work. In April 2001, we launched an enhanced new deal 25 plus programme, providing a more flexible, more individually-tailored service for long-term unemployed people. Since then, the number of people aged 25 and over unemployed for 18 months or more has fallen by almost 30 per cent.

  Rents
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 24 April 2002,Official Report, column 340W, on single room rent, if he

  1289W
  will place in the Library a copy of the recent research by the Rent Service showing the average single room rent increases for the UK. [59321]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The research carried out by the Rent Service was an internal statistical analysis intended to inform the wider development of housing benefit policy. The Rent Service was not asked for and did not produce a formal report of their analysis.

  Scottish Executive
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether a Scottish Executive Minister will be a member of the UK delegation to the Employment and Social Policy European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 3 June; and what information is being provided by his Department to the Scottish Executive in connection with pre-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [60278]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  No Scottish Executive Minister attended the Employment and Social Policy Council meeting on 3 June 2002.

  It is the responsibility of the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the Scottish Executive's involvement in preparations for EU Council meetings. These arrangements are a matter for the Committee and the Scottish Executive. The Department provides information to Scottish Executive officials as part of that process.

  Agency Start-up Costs
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of creating(a) Jobcentre Plus and (b) the Pension Service; and if he will make a statement. [47630]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus as an organisation came into being on 1 April 2002, replacing the Employment Service and the working age parts of the Benefits Agency. In 56 pathfinder offices across Great Britain it is already helping people get and keep work through providing integrated work-focused services to customers and employers. This new service will be introduced across the whole network over the next few years and at the same time the IT systems which support the business will be improved. The cost of this investment in a modernised, work-focused service will be funded over the next two years from the Employment Opportunities Fund which was established in Spending Review 2000, and thereafter from the outcome of the Spending Review 2002 process. The discussions about the spending review will continue until it concludes in the summer.

  The Pension Service also came into being on 1 April 2002, replacing the pension elements of the Benefits Agency. Like Jobcentre Plus it has been established as part of a wider agenda for modernising the delivery of benefits around the needs of customer groups. The investment needed to move towards single transaction technology and planned new services to increase efficiency and accuracy is being funded from the Welfare Modernisation Fund, but as with Jobcentre Plus final figures are dependent on the outcome of Spending Review 2002.

  Departmental Underspends
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the(a) capital and (b) revenue underspend in his Department is expected to be in the financial year 2001–02. [47796]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Departmental expenditure figures for 2001–02 are not yet finalised. The last forecast position was published in the Budget report on 17 April.

TREASURY

  Ministerial Accommodation
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what publicly owned accommodation is made available to him in his official role; how many nights he 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. [55090]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: I refer to the answers given by the Prime Minister on 28 February 2002, Official Report, column 1443W and by the Deputy Prime Minister on 21 January 2002, Official Report, column 91W. Expenditure on the flat at 10 Downing Street during 2001–02 was £410. Information on the number of nights spent in residence in the accommodation by my right hon. Friend is not available.

  Work-related Illness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [56088]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: HM Treasury does not maintain records, which enable ill-health retirements to be separately identified as work related. For HM Treasury one member of staff retired with a medical certificate issued by the civil service pension scheme medical adviser in the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002.

  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 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.

  National Insurance (NHS)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what cash increase in NI will be applicable to(a) NHS house officers, (b) NHS nurse consultants, (c) NHS senior house officers, (d) NHS specialist registrars and (e) NHS consultants. [59409]
  1291W
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The Budget 2002 changes in national insurance contributions (NICs) will help to fund improvements to public services and a real terms increase in spending on health over the next five years of 40 per cent.

  Estimates for the increase in 2003–04 in employee NICs by grade for England are shown in the table. I regret that reliable estimates for the United Kingdom would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  £ million

  House officers

  1

  Nurse consultants

  Less than 1

  Senior house officers

  5

  Registrar group1

  5

  Consultants

  17

  1 Higher specialist training grades were restructured in the mid-1990s, with registrar and senior registrar grades being replaced by a combined specialist registrar grades. The published work force data do not allow us to distinguish between specialist registrars and the few remaining staff on the older grades. The figures have therefore been grouped together and are referred to as the registrar group.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will raise the threshold at which inheritance tax is paid; and if he will make a statement. [60114]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: My right hon. Friend has increased the threshold in his Budget this year.

  Lakshmi Mittal
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer given by the Foreign Secretary of 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 255W, on meetings with Embassy staff, what the economic benefit to the United Kingdom was of the Lakshmi Mittal Romanian steel contract. [60553]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 14 February 2002, Official Report, col. 612W.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will target Inland Revenue employment status teams to monitor the employment status of workers in the construction industry. [60633]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer to my previous answer, of 16 May 2002,Official Report, column 804W). The Inland Revenue already centrally directs the minimum level of employer compliance resource to be deployed on employment status reviews, including for the construction industry.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are(a) in place and (b) under discussion in his Department in order to ensure compliance with the WEE Directive. [60735]
  1292W
  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer the Minister for Energy and Construction is giving him today.

  State Pensions
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 22 April 2002,Official Report, column 92W, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Davidson), on state pensions, if he will disaggregate the value of unfunded public pension liabilities by scheme; what assessment he has made of the reasons for the changes in the values of unfunded public pension liabilities in recent years; and if he will make a statement. [60807]

  Mr. Boateng
  The £350 billion Government Actuary's Department estimate for accrued unfunded public service pension schemes liabilities as at 31 March 2001 comprises the following:

  £98 billion for England and Wales teachers,

  £75 billion for England and Wales NHS,

  £59 billion UK civil service scheme,

  £51 billion Armed Forces,

  £35 billion GB police and fire,

  £10 billion Scottish teachers,

  £6 billion Scottish NHS,

  £16 billion for other schemes such as the Northern Irish public service schemes, overseas pensions, NDPB schemes etc.

  The increase in the value of these unfunded liabilities in recent years is due to a variety of factors, the main ones being: increases in prices and salaries, a growth in the number of public servants and reassessments of mortality rates.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letters of 23 January and 15 April from the hon. Member for Huntingdon concerning compensation for tax on further distributions to be made by the Thalidomide Trust. [60712]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Shortly.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's support for the manufacturing industry in Greater London. [60709]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have put in place an ambitious programme of micro-economic reforms to raise UK productivity growth. Many of these measures will help manufacturers throughout the UK improve their productivity performance. For instance, manufacturers will benefit from the extension of the R&D tax credit to all firms as announced in Budget 2002, following the introduction of an R&D tax credit for small firms. Manufacturers will he the main beneficiaries of this initiative, as they undertake 80 per cent. of the UK's commercial R&D.

  Manufacturing industry in London also benefits from a range of DTI programmes to encourage investment, to promote enterprise, innovation, and knowledge transfer, to raise skills, and to provide an effective and competitive framework. Information on these is available from the

  1293W
  DTI. The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) have recognized manufacturing as a priority in every region. The introduction of the Single Pot funding arrangement in April 2002 has given the RDAs unprecedented flexibility in the use of their resources. The London Development Agency (LDA) operates a number of schemes to support manufacturers in Greater London. Information on these initiatives is available from the LDA.

  Oil Industry
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the new supplementary tax on North sea oil profits announced in the Budget on oil industry employment in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK. [R] [60590]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government made a full analysis of the regime. The changes to the North sea taxation regime will ensure a regime that raises a fair share of revenue and encourages long-term investment, establishing a more secure basis on which companies can plan for the future.

  Marriage and Birth Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the average birth weight was of children of(a) married couples, (b) cohabitees and (c) single mothers in each of the last five years; [60841]

  (2) what the infant mortality rate is among children of (a) married couples, (b) cohabitees and (c) single mothers. [60840]

  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. Andrew Turner, dated 12 June 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions asking what the average birthweight and infant mortality rates are amongst children of (a) married couples, (b) cohabitees and (c) single mothers in each of the last five years. I am replying in his absence. (60840, 60841)
  Information on cohabitation is not collected directly at birth or death registration. However, for births outside marriage some information is available to infer living arrangements. The information available is shown in the tables below.

  Average birthweight by live births by type of birth registration in England and Wales, 1996–2000

  Average birthweight (grams)

  Type of birth registration

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  All live births1

  3,325

  3,322

  3,325

  3,321

  3,327

  Inside marriage

  3,356

  3,354

  3,355

  3,350

  3,357

  Outside marriage

  Joint registration, same address

  3,298

  3,298

  3,307

  3,308

  3,313

  Joint registration, different address

  3,231

  3,234

  3,231

  3,232

  3,237

  Sole registration

  3,219

  3,211

  3,214

  3,213

  3,213

  1 with stated birthweight

  Infant mortality rate1 by type of birth registration in England and Wales, 1996–2000

  Type of birth registration

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  All

  6.0

  5.9

  5.6

  5.7

  5.5

  Inside marriage

  5.3

  5.2

  4.9

  4.9

  4.8

  Outside marriage

  7.1

  6.9

  6.8

  6.9

  6.6

  1294W

  Infant mortality rate1 by type of birth registration in England and Wales, 1996–2000

  Type of birth registration

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Joint registration/same address

  6.6

  6.5

  5.9

  6.3

  5.9

  Joint registration/different address

  8.7

  7.4

  8.8

  8.2

  8.0

  Sole registration

  7.1

  7.6

  7.6

  7.6

  7.7

  1 per 1,000 live births

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many were divorced in the most recent year for which information is available, broken down by year of latest marriage. [60838]

  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. Andrew Turner, dated 12 June 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question concerning how many were divorced in the most recent year for which information is available broken down by year of latest marriage. I am replying in his absence. (60838)
  The attached table provides the information for those divorced in 2000.

  Divorces in 2000 by year of marriage

  England and Wales

  Year of marriage

  Number of Divorces1

  Total all years

  141,135

  2000

  10

  1999

  813

  1998

  5,644

  1997

  7,650

  1996

  8,550

  1995

  8,676

  1994

  8,449

  1993

  7,912

  1992

  7,636

  1991

  6,771

  1990

  6,620

  1989

  6,389

  1988

  5,697

  1987

  5,297

  1986

  4,698

  1985

  4,306

  1984

  3,889

  1983

  3,641

  1982

  3,338

  1981

  3,260

  1980

  3,228

  1979

  2,924

  1978

  2,721

  1977

  2,387

  1976

  2,181

  1975

  2,232

  1974

  1,946

  1973

  1,892

  1972

  1,767

  1971

  1,582

  1970

  1,498

  1969

  1,235

  1968

  1,103

  1967

  882

  1966

  726

  1965

  630

  1295W

  Divorces in 2000 by year of marriage

  England and Wales

  Year of marriage

  Number of Divorces1

  1964

  504

  1963

  416

  1962

  384

  1961

  290

  1960

  276

  1959

  208

  1958

  198

  1957

  147

  1956

  117

  1955

  98

  1954

  67

  1953

  63

  1952

  32

  1951

  37

  1950

  27

  1949

  21

  1948

  13

  1947

  15

  1946

  12

  1945

  12

  Before 1945

  17

  Not stated

  1

  1 The term divorce here includes both decrees absolute and decrees of nullity

  Source:

  ONS

  Social Care
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 May 2002,Official Report, column 807W, on social care, if he will make a statement on the recommendation of the Wanless report on a study of the trends affecting social care. [60819]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor's Budget statement of 17 April 2002 addressed the recommendations of the Wanless report.

  Mortgage Companies
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to put a duty of care on mortgage companies to repay funds to people who have had their properties repossessed and sold where there is a surplus arising on that sale. [60875]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are giving responsibility for regulating mortgage lenders to the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The FSA will be consulting in due course about its rules including in relation to the issue of repossessions.

  Family Incomes (South-west)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) of 9 May 2002,Official Report, columns 342–43W, on family income (south-west), how many families will be eligible for the child tax credit in each region of the United Kingdom. [58785]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the number of families with children expected to benefit from the child tax credit directly or via IS/JSA in 2003–04 by Government office region are shown in the table.
  1296W

  Government office region

  Number of families expected to benefit from the child tax credit

  North-east

  290,000

  North-west and Merseyside

  750,000

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  540,000

  East Midlands

  380,000

  West Midlands

  500,000

  Eastern

  460,000

  London

  700,000

  South-east

  670,000

  South-west

  470,000

  Wales

  320,000

  Scotland

  430,000

  Northern Ireland

  220,000

  Total

  5,750,000

  The estimates given are based on the IGoTM tax benefit model for the UK, based on the Family Resources Survey (1999–2000) uprated to 2003–04 prices. The estimates are based on the number of families with children whose household income makes them likely to benefit from the child tax credit and do not take into account the way in which the new tax credits will respond to changes in income or other circumstances, described in detail in "The Child and Working Tax Credit" (HMT. 2001). Figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000 and the total may not sum because of rounding.

  European Council Decisions
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement in response to the four points identified by the Council Recommendation 2002/178/EC on the implementation of member states' employment policies, pertaining to the United Kingdom. [57904]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  The four points relating to the UK raise issues concerning: national social partnership on productivity, skills and work organisation; reducing the gender pay gap and improving child care provision; active labour market policies for unemployed adults; and work based training to address skill gaps and improve skills.

  The recommendations to the UK have been fully addressed in the 2002 Employment Action Plan which is being supplied to the Library and put on the Internet. The Government's response highlights developments since the 2001 Plan, including: work of the CBI and TUC under the Productivity Challenge; the Kingsmill report on closing the gender pay gap; the increasing focus on wider disadvantage; and the Performance Innovation Unit report on work force development.

CABINET OFFICE

  Refurbishment (22 Whitehall)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the letter CL/02/035437 of 7 May, when he expects to report to the House on his investigation of the circumstances surrounding the procurement of timber for the refurbishment of 22 Whitehall; and if he will make a statement. [60798]
  1297W
  Mr. Alexander
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 11 June 2002,Official Report, column 1188W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government White Paper
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on his plans to legislate following the publication of the Local government White Paper, 'Strong Local Leadership-Quality Public Services'. [61490]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services" set out a vision for local government by proposing to give councils new freedoms to respond to the needs of their local communities and establish a new partnership between central and local government to deliver high quality services. We have already made substantial progress in implementing these proposals, today we are taking a further significant step forward by publishing for consultation a draft Local Government Bill which will give effect to those measures which require new primary legislation.

  The consultation period will run until 23 August. The draft Bill, together with explanatory notes and regulatory impact assessments has been published on the website for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Copies of all the consultation material have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Fire standard spending assessment

  £ million

  Authority1

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Avon

  23.406

  24.405

  25.425

  26.725

  28.013

  30.025

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  11.307

  12.038

  12.570

  13.083

  13.896

  14.552

  Buckinghamshire

  13.407

  14.192

  14.845

  15.201

  16.362

  16.992

  Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

  13.649

  14.814

  15.610

  16.237

  16.948

  17.573

  Cheshire

  21.037

  22.250

  22.710

  23.211

  24.548

  25.331

  Cleveland

  20.132

  21.049

  21.648

  22.229

  23.194

  24.262

  Cornwall

  11.268

  11.958

  12.441

  12.831

  13.620

  14.071

  County Durham and Darlington

  13.997

  14.647

  15.125

  15.664

  16.211

  16.418

  Cumbria

  11.472

  12.128

  12.667

  12.824

  13.335

  13.879

  Derbyshire

  21.441

  22.472

  23.911

  24.417

  25.133

  25.743

  Devon

  24.148

  25.752

  26.309

  27.485

  28.692

  29.960

  Dorset

  14.387

  15.100

  15.872

  16.378

  17.049

  17.638

  East Sussex

  17.562

  18.652

  19.521

  20.405

  21.646

  22.503

  Essex

  35.109

  36.834

  38.299

  39.465

  42.306

  43.821

  Gloucestershire

  10.821

  11.155

  11.621

  12.125

  12.283

  12.813

  Greater Manchester

  73.155

  77.032

  78.833

  81.320

  84.681

  86.602

  Hampshire

  33.126

  35.320

  36.637

  38.329

  40.381

  42.486

  Hereford and Worcester

  12.828

  13.339

  14.411

  14.915

  15.257

  16.004

  Hertfordshire

  22.015

  23.206

  23.679

  25.747

  26.760

  27.827

  Humberside

  24.033

  24.629

  25.759

  26.516

  27.463

  28.070

  Isle of Wight

  3.118

  3.395

  3.586

  3.784

  3.968

  4.148

  Isles of Scilly

  0.289

  0.297

  0.310

  0.321

  0.337

  0.355

  Kent and Medway Towns

  33.180

  35.364

  36.557

  38.282

  40.619

  42.299

  Lancashire

  35.903

  37.389

  38.785

  40.076

  41.137

  43.295

  Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland

  19.342

  20.168

  20.709

  21.383

  22.288

  23.069

  Lincolnshire

  11.202

  11.706

  12.097

  12.472

  13.012

  13.812

  London

  248.164

  260.636

  270.513

  282.240

  302.402

  319.085

  Merseyside

  48.400

  50.167

  51.829

  52.549

  53.886

  54.810

  Norfolk

  14.856

  15.365

  16.177

  16.739

  17.205

  18.003

  North Yorkshire

  14.322

  15.299

  16.221

  16.747

  17.664

  18.991

  Northamptonshire

  11.854

  12.554

  13.083

  13.283

  14.114

  14.628

  Northumberland

  7.785

  8.062

  8.506

  8.756

  9.218

  9.456

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the grants paid through single regeneration budget. V on the Isle of Wight, stating for each the(a) recipient organisation, (b) amount, (c) date of payments, (d) objectives and (e) performance against measurable performance indicators. [60154]

  Mr. McNulty
  Single Regeneration Budget V is administered through the Isle of Wight Economic Partnership. Information on recipient organisations, amounts, objectives and outputs to date are contained in the "Island Inclusive SRB5 Delivery Plan 2002/2003", copies of which have been placed in the House.

  With regard to date of payments, these are made to the recipient organisations quarterly in arrears in August, November, February and April each year.

  Fire Service Funding
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funding was made available to fire authorities to assist them to provide fire safety advice to the public in the last 12 months. [60444]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Responsibility for the provision of fire services, including fire safety matters, rests locally with fire authorities. It is up to the authorities to set budgets in the light of their statutory obligations and local priorities.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funding was granted to the Fire Service, broken down by authority, in each of the last six years. [60438]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Fire Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) figures for England by fire authority, for the six years ending 2002–03, are shown in the table:
  1299W

  Fire standard spending assessment

  £ million

  Authority1

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Nottinghamshire and City of Nottingham

  22.959

  24.314

  24.903

  25.505

  26.537

  27.041

  Oxfordshire

  12.402

  13.159

  13.546

  14.197

  15.113

  15.917

  Royal Berkshire

  17.299

  18.434

  18.883

  19.660

  20.969

  22.019

  Shropshire

  8.034

  8.187

  8.478

  8.851

  9.267

  9.498

  Somerset

  9.091

  9.551

  10.212

  10.491

  11.112

  11.485

  South Yorkshire

  32.311

  34.064

  35.690

  36.434

  37.478

  38.745

  Staffordshire Fire Authority

  21.122

  21.989

  22.468

  23.262

  23.876

  24.425

  Suffolk

  12.029

  12.620

  13.455

  13.897

  14.511

  15.030

  Surrey

  23.328

  24.347

  25.276

  26.183

  27.941

  29.136

  Tyne and Wear

  35.678

  36.288

  36.872

  37.829

  39.511

  40.655

  Warwickshire

  10.345

  11.077

  11.294

  11.669

  12.126

  12.492

  West Midlands

  72.317

  75.664

  78.374

  80.706

  83.342

  86.082

  West Sussex

  15.855

  17.162

  17.202

  18.631

  19.628

  20.600

  West Yorkshire

  57.304

  59.609

  61.269

  62.259

  65.253

  66.250

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  10.457

  11.041

  11.810

  12.087

  12.711

  13.109

  1 Current name of fire authority. A number of authorities were affected by local government reorganisation on 1 April 1997 and 1998 and (London) 3 July 2000.

  Note:

  In the case of combined fire authorities, for example, Kent and Medway Towns, the lire SSA is allocated to the constituent local unitary authorities.

  Fires
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of primary fires were(a) in road vehicles, (b) in dwellings, (c) in other buildings, (d) outdoor fires, (e) in private garages and sheds, (f) in retail distribution premises, (g) in industrial and transport premises and (h) in none of the above in the last 12 months. [60447]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The most recent data available refer to 2000, and are contained in the table.

  United Kingdom 2000

  Primary fires1,2

  Location

  Number

  Percentage

  Road vehicles

  94,827

  43

  Dwellings

  70,897

  32

  Other buildings

  22,440

  10

  Outdoor fires3

  12,064

  5

  Private garages and sheds

  7,868

  4

  Retail distribution premises

  5,367

  2

  Industrial and transport premises

  4,705

  2

  None of the above4

  1,367

  1

  All primary fires

  219,535

  100

  1 Including additional "late" call and heat and smoke damage incidents

  2 Figures are based on weighted sample data. Due to rounding data may not sum to 100 per cent. Data for 2000 are provisional.

  3 Other primary fires, excluding road vehicle fires and all outdoor secondary fires.

  4 This category comprises agricultural buildings.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of house fires in each of the last six years were in(a) owner occupied housing and (b) rented housing. [60440]

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

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost to business resulting from fire-related damage in each of the last six years. [60435]
  1300W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The most recent data on the cost of fire are for 1999. The DTLR Costs of Fire model estimates that in that year the direct cost to business of commercial building fires in England and Wales was £620 million.

  This figure only relates to the direct cost of commercial fires due to property damage (£580 million) and loss of business (£40 million).

  The full cost breakdown for commercial fires includes the costs to business of anticipating fires (e.g. fire protection), costs to local authority fire brigades in attending incidents, and costs to society in terms of deaths and injuries sustained as a result of commercial fires.

  The full cost breakdown for commercial building fires is shown in the following table.

  England and Wales 1999

  £ million

  Cost component for commercial building fires:

  Cost

  Costs in anticipation of fires:

  Fire protection

  1,600

  Fire safety

  20

  Insurance administration

  350

  Costs as a consequence of fires:

  Property losses

  580

  Loss to business

  40

  Fatalities

  10

  Injuries

  40

  Fire service response costs

  250

  Total

  2,890

  Data are not available for previous years. Earlier estimates, produced by the Home Office and non-Government organisations, were based on different methodologies and are therefore not comparable to the figures shown in the table.

  Regional Government
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what are the(a) powers and (b) responsibilities, of (i) the

  1301W
  Government offices and (ii) regional chambers of the regions, with regard to (a) sustainable development and (b) social inclusion. [60420]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government offices for the regions bring together the activities and interests of many Government Departments. They deliver the policies and programmes of these Departments as well as promoting a coherent regional approach to cross-cutting activities, including sustainable development and social inclusion. Government office responsibilities are set out in the corporate plan for the RCU/GO network.

  Under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, the regional chambers have no statutory functions other than that each RDA, in preparing its regional economic strategy, must have regard to its chamber's views. That was put into effect by a ministerial direction under section 8(2)(a) of the Act. However, chambers have, in agreement with other regional partners taken on a range of other functions. In particular a number of chambers have taken on responsibility for producing the regional sustainable development framework, and regional planning guidance.

  The regional governance White Paper 'Your Region, Your Choice' contains proposals to enhance the role of both the regional chambers and Government offices. These include providing direct funding to chambers for the purpose of regional planning, central Government support for the chamber in integrating regional strategies, and enhancing the responsibilities of Government offices in a wide range of areas.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) guidelines and (b) requirements are placed on (i) regional chambers and (ii) Government offices of the regions, with regard to their allocation of Government money to their different areas of responsibility; and if he will place copies in the Library. [60421]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In respect of the regional chambers, a three year funding programme of £15 million commenced in the financial year 2001–02. The Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions issued guidance on the allocation process for the funding in July 2001. This contained guidelines as to the types of projects that might be funded and how the bidding process would work. This was updated and re-issued in February 2002. Each chamber is issued with a grant agreement letter, setting out the requirements and limitations under which the funding is provided. I am placing a copy of the most recent guidance in the Library.

  Sponsor Departments have transferred resources to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of the running costs for the RCU/GO network. The Regional Co-ordination Unit allocates these resources to individual Government offices for the regions each year.

  My Department and other sponsor Departments delegate funds directly to the Government offices in respect of programmes they deliver on our behalf.

  Programme and running costs funds are allocated and managed in accordance with the principals of Government Accounting, appropriate departmental guidance and other
  1302W
  guidance specific to individual programmes. The activities and objectives that Government offices undertake in behalf of sponsor Departments with the resources allocated are set out in the corporate plan for the RCU/GO network.

  Social Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions of 16 May 2002,Official Report, column 800W, on social housing, what other information his Department has collated on the range of initiatives, apart from the cash incentive scheme and home buy, local authorities and registered social landlords in London offer to encourage tenants to relinquish a tenancy. [60883]

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

  Housing Licensing Scheme
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made on the introduction of mandatory licensing schemes for houses in multiple occupancy, as stated in the Housing Green Paper 'Quality and Choice: a decent home for all'; and what such licences will specify. [60632]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government are committed to introducing a national licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) and we consulted on our proposals in 1999. We remain committed in legislating for this at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Our proposals on HMOs are targeted at combating the significant threat to occupants' health and welfare that exist in this part of the private rented sector. The licensing scheme will aim to ensure that a building in multiple occupation meets acceptable physical standards, that those involved in its management are competent and otherwise fit for such a role and the management arrangements in the property are satisfactory. To that end licences will only be granted to persons who are deemed "fit and proper" and will require such persons to ensure the property meets minimum physical fitness and safety standards, is not overcrowded and is managed effectively for the protection of the occupiers' health, safety and welfare.

  Departmental Grants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which organisations which were in receipt of a grant from him in 1997–98 no longer are; what the annual saving is; which organisations which were not in receipt of a grant in 1997–98 now are; and what the annual cost is. [61398]

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

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  OFCOM
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of 15 May, ref 56031, when it was decided to propose the Contents Board in the draft Bill. [57846]

  Dr. Howells
  The proposals for the Content Board were one of the many matters which had been under consideration following the publication of the communications White Paper in December 2000. The hon. Member will be aware that the draft Communications Bill giving details of the Content Board was published on 7 May.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has for Northern Ireland to be represented on the main OFCOM board. [59113]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: Members of the main board of OFCOM will be appointed for the range of expertise and experience they can provide rather than to represent specific interests. However, the Draft Communications Bill proposes that, in carrying out their functions, each member of the main OFCOM board will have an obligation to take account of the different interests of the different parts of the UK. The Draft Bill also proposes that there be specific representation for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the Content Board and Consumers Panel.

  Overseas Visitors (Scotland)
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 987W, how many overseas visitors came to Scotland in each year since 1998. [60801]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of visits was as follows:

  Year

  Visits from overseas (million)

  1998

  1.95

  1999

  1.86

  2000

  1.69

  2001

  1.59

  Television Licence Fee
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 518W, on the television licence fee, which organisations and people will be part of the review process of future funding arrangements; how the Government will ensure that public service broadcasting is protected under the Royal Charter Review Process; and if she will exempt those aged 65 years and over from paying the licence fee. [60800]

  Dr. Howells
  As the BBC's charter is due to expire in 2006, we expect the charter review process to begin in 2004. It is too soon to consider how we will conduct the review, but we will want the process to provide an opportunity to consider the BBC's relationship with Government, its role within the overall broadcasting 1304W
  ecology and the arrangements for funding the Corporation. We will, of course, seek to consult as widely as possible during the course of the review. There are no plans to exempt people aged 65 years and over from paying the licence fee.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Policies (Stalybridge and Hyde)
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what impact his Department's policies have had on the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency since 1997. [54332]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in the Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 2001–02 is due to be published shortly.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency or the immediate locality.

  Crime and Reduction

  A number of programmes have been set up to reduce crime reduction, which I have highlighted.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) projects have been funded in and around Tameside, reducing burglary initiatives funded scheme in and around Ashton under Lyme including alley gating, property making, Home Watch and crime booklets. 22 street wardens provided and established in the constituency.

  Safer community's initiatives launched in 2002–03 and allocated £105,158 to assist in crime reduction.

  Communities Against Drugs 2002–03 programmes, which will intervene with street crime: these will consist of a targeted offender scheme (Operation Rhodes), mobile CCTV system, truancy sweeps, appointment of anti-social behaviour officer.

  Neighbourhood renewal, £3,015 million has been allocated in and around Tameside from 2001–04. These initiatives will intervene with street crime helping to re-establish a just, safe and tolerant society.

  Police

  Stalybridge and Hyde is in the Thameside division of Greater Manchester Police. I understand that Thameside division had 389 police officers on 31 March 2002, 36 more than in March 1997.

  Youth Crime

  The Youth Offending Team (YOT) which covers Halton and Warrington has been established since April 2000 and is funded by the Youth Justice Board. It has been allocated estimated funds for the team £292,481 for

  1305W
  the forthcoming financial year. The YOT have put in place a full range of youth justice service which have been outlined in the Crime and Disorder Act.

  The Cheshire area pledged a reduction in the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders. The figures recorded are used to monitor the Governments' pledge to halve the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in England and Wales from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days. Persistent young offenders who are as categorised as in between the ages 10 to 17-years-old who have been sentenced by any criminal court in the United Kingdom on three or more separate occasions for one or more recordable offence and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has information laid against them for a further recordable offence.

  Within the Halton and Warrington schemes set up for adolescents who are given the opportunity to attend swimming activities which are run in February, Easter and the Whitsun and Summer holidays.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will have a greater impact on the residents of Stalybridge and Hyde to a greater extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established:
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce the volume of crack cocaine entering the United Kingdom from(a) Jamaica and (b) other countries; and if he will make a statement. [56538]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: Crack itself is not usually imported but made in the United Kingdom from cocaine.

  Our strategy for combating cocaine trafficking is to disrupt the flow of cocaine as near as possible to the source of supply and the main transit areas. We do this by working closely with the Governments and law enforcement agencies of the countries concerned, including Jamaica, and by strengthening their own counter-narcotics capability with the provision of training, specialised equipment and expertise. My right hon. Friend the then Financial Secretary (Mr. Boateng) recently announced agreement with Jamaica to operate IONSCAN equipment at both Kingston and Montego Bay Airports.

  Anti-crime Agencies
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the merger of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise investigation teams into drug and migrant trafficking with NCIS and NCS to create a new organisation relating to international and national organised crime. [58358]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There are no present plans to merge Customs and Excise investigative teams with those from the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) and the National Crime Squad (NCS).
  1306W
  Customs, NCIS and NCS work closely together to tackle organised crime threats including drug trafficking and people smuggling. We have established multi-agency working groups to co-ordinate the response to key threats, including the Concerted Interagency Drug Action Group (CIDA) for class A drug trafficking and REFLEX for organised immigration crime, which involve key law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will merge NCIS and the NCS. [58356]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There are no present plans to merge the National Criminal Intelligence Service with the National Crime Squad.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many instances in the last 12 months the Metropolitan police have been requested to attend the administrative removal of failed asylum seekers in London. [58919]

  Beverley Hughes
  This information is not routinely collected and could be obtained only by examining individual case records at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been in National Asylum Support Service accommodation in each of the last 12 months. [58916]

  Beverley Hughes
  Figures are only available on a quarterly basis.

  The following table shows the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) who are being supported in National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation as at the end of each of the last five quarters.

  Asylum seekers (including dependants) supported in NASS accommodation

  As at end:

  Number

  March 2001

  19,540

  June 2001

  26,500

  September 2001

  32,890

  December 2001

  40,320

  March 2002

  45,640

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. Figures exclude cases where the asylum seekers support has been ceased.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS is published quarterly and is available on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ rds/immigrationl.html.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if asylum seekers who appeal against a decision to refuse support will receive support pending the outcome of any appeal of this decision. [59997]
  1307W
  Beverley Hughes
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) may only provide or arrange for the provision of support for asylum seekers or their dependants who appear to the Secretary of State to be destitute or likely to become so within 14 days.

  Where support is provided, it may be terminated early if the asylum seeker has failed to comply with a condition on which support was granted.

  Where NASS refuses an application for support or terminated the grant of support early, there is a right of appeal against that decision. There is no right to receive support while an appeal against refusal or early termination of support is outstanding.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if asylum-seeking families with dependant children may have their support removed if they fail to report as required. [59993]

  Beverley Hughes
  The nationality, immigration and asylum Bill contains a provision to withdraw support from those who fail, without reasonable cause, to report as required. This provision applies to asylum-seeking families with dependant children in the same way as it does for others. Asylum seekers accepting an offer of support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) will be fully informed of the need to comply with a requirement to report and that support may be terminated if they do not do so.

  Data Protection Act
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times the revised certificate he signed last December with respect to section 28 of the Data Protection Act 1998 has been used by the Security Service in relation to its functions; and if he will make a statement. [59261]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The revised certificate has been relied upon 45 times in relation to subject access requests to the Security Service under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many subject access requests have been received by the Security Service since the right of access afforded by the Data Protection Act 1998 came into effect; how many of these requests were from data subjects who were not employed or contracted to the service; and what requests for access have resulted in personal data being obtained by data subjects. [59263]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Security Service has received 102 requests for subject access under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 since it came into effect.

  None were by individuals employed by or contracted to the Security Service.

  In 14 subject access cases the Security Service has disclosed personal data.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if organisations which choose to disclose personal data to the Security Service in a way which is subject to Section 28 of the Data Protection Act 1998 are given a copy of the revised certificate signed by him last December; and if he will make a statement. [59262]
  1308W
  Mr. Blunkett
  If an organisation asked about the national security exemption in respect of the disclosing of personal data to the Security Service, the Service would explain the operation of section 28 of the Act which, depending on the circumstances, may include providing a copy of the revised certificate.

  Crime Initiatives
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the future structure of(a) drug action teams and (b) crime and disorder partnerships in areas with two-tier local authorities. [59088]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  In view of the close links between drugs and crime, we believe that there are clear benefits to bringing together the work of Drug Action Teams and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. These include reducing the burdens on agencies in terms of representation; simplifying the Home Office lines of accountability for community safety issues; giving the delivery of the National Drugs Strategy a statutory mechanism; and ensuring more effective targeting of resources.

  However, we do not intend to be prescriptive about the structure of any new partnership. That is why we are consulting Drugs Action Teams (DATs), Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) and other stakeholders on how to deliver the new partnership, seeking examples of good practice where they exist to be replicated around the country. Guidance for the new partnerships will be ready for dissemination in September 2002 and, through our regional offices, we will be working with partnerships to identify the best fit for their particular area.

  Immigration Service
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans Her Majesty's Immigration Service has for equalities training for teams engaged in administrative removals. [58920]

  Beverley Hughes
  All immigration officers on general enforcement duties, whether recruited directly or from those already serving at ports of entry, will have received, as part of basic induction training, sessions on the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000. They will also have received sessions on asylum, including the screening of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) video; professional standards; equal opportunities legislation and diversity issues; and the handling of complaints made by members of the public.

  In addition, immigration officers selected for arrest teams, in other words, to conduct arrests in the community without police assistance, undergo a police-led training course which is pass or fail, and which includes mandatory sessions on community relations and diversity issues.

  We have judged introduction of arrest teams in London a success, and they are being extended nationwide; however, the issue of equal opportunities, community relations and diversity training is regarded as highly important and so the form and content are being kept under close review.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many staff will be employed at asylum accommodation centres; and if he will list the numbers of(a) teachers, (b) health care staff and (c) social workers within the total; [59075]

  (2) what incentive payments he is planning to make to staff employed at asylum accommodation centres; [59074]

  (3) what arrangements he is planning for the housing of the staff who will be employed at asylum accommodation centres. [59073]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) gave to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 896W, regarding staff numbers.

  The numbers of teachers, health care staff and social workers have not yet been set. We expect that most of the work force to be employed in accommodation centres will be drawn from the existing local population, whose school-age children will already be in a local school.

  No decisions have been made on remuneration arrangements for staff employed at accommodation centres.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library(a) tender documentation and (b) other information given to potential contractors for asylum accommodation centres, including a note of the verbal briefing provided. [60291]

  Beverley Hughes
  Documentation from the Bidders' Conference held on 30 April will be placed in the Library.

  Animal Experiments
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much Government funding is allocated to research into alternatives to animal testing with regard to medical experiments. [59880]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) gave to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Christopher Chope) on 7 March 2002,Official Report, column 518W.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the testing of cosmetics on animals. [59882]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government secured a voluntary ban on testing cosmetic finished products and ingredients on animals in the United Kingdom in November 1997 and this position will be maintained. It was pursued because we believe that there is inadequate justification for using animals given the benefits of these products and the alternative tests available. The European Cosmetics Directive defines cosmetics to include not only vanity products but also other products such as toothpaste, baby care products and suncream.

  We are committed to putting an end to testing cosmetics on animals across Europe and have led the way and worked hard for many years to try and achieve such a ban. We strongly support the 7th Amendment to the Cosmetics
  1310W
  Directive, which will introduce a testing ban in the European Union and will extend across Europe what has been almost solely a United Kingdom ban. It will replace the marketing ban envisaged in the 6th Amendment.

  In some countries, notably the United States, as indeed currently in other European Union countries, there are mandatory tests which must be carried out on animals as a means of demonstrating a cosmetic's safety for use on humans. We believe that a testing ban in the European Union would strengthen our negotiating position in any subsequent World Trade Organisation (WTO) discussions and enable the pursuance of an improved level of animal welfare within the European Union while ensuring full compliance with WTO rules. The Department of Trade and Industry lead in this area.

  Through our contributions to the European Union, we support the work of the European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), whose role is to co-ordinate the independent evaluation of the relevance and reliability of tests and validation studies, so that cosmetics products, as well as medicines, vaccines, other biologicals, medical devices, household products and agricultural products, can be manufactured, transported and used more economically and more safely while the current reliance on animal test procedures is progressively reduced.

  We also support the Test Guidelines Programme of the Organisation of Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD) which should enable alternative methods to be accepted internationally and with minimum delay.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are in place in relation to Government monitoring of animal testing in medical experiments. [59881]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The use of animals in experiments and other scientific procedures is strictly regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which is widely regarded as the most rigorous piece of legislation of its type in the world. It offers a high level of protection to animals while recognising the need to use animals in research. It also requires the latest ideas and technology to be taken into account when deciding whether the use of animals is justified.

  All such procedures, whether for medical experiments or for other purposes, are licensed and tightly controlled under the 1986 Act. Applications for licences and certificates are assessed by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate, who are all highly qualified and experienced in medicine or veterinary science. They have very high professional standards directed at ensuring that animals are protected within the terms of the Act and the conditions of the licences.

  Inspectors maintain programmes of visits to establishments to check that the terms and conditions of the licences and certificates are being complied with. All designated establishments are visited regularly, the number of visits to each establishment varying according to its size and the type of work being conducted at any particular time. Two thirds of all visits are without notice. Visits by appointment are usually made to conduct interviews with staff, to discuss new work proposals and

  1311W
  ongoing work, to examine records of work, to investigate non-compliance or to view premises being considered for designation.

  In deciding whether to grant a licence for any regulated procedure, the 1986 Act requires that the likely benefits of the programme be weighed against the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned (the cost/benefit assessment) and that there are no alternatives which either replace animal use entirely, reduce the number of animals needed or refine the procedures to minimise suffering (the 3Rs). We must also be satisfied that the procedures are likely to achieve the stated objectives.

  For the purposes of this cost/benefit assessment, the cost to the animal is considered as the adverse effects of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. The benefits must be for humans, animals or the environment and relate to the scientific and/or medical progress likely to result directly from the programme outlined in the application.

  We are committed to ensuring that, for as long as there is a need to use animals in scientific research, the legislation to protect them is applied to maximum effect.

  Police
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are employed by the Hampshire Police Force; and if he will make a statement. [60008]

  Mr. Denham
  Hampshire Constabulary employed 3,477 police officers on 31 January 2002. This was 28 more officers than on 30 September 2001.

  On 30 September 2001, the most recent date for which figures have been collected centrally, the force also employed 1,507 civilian support staff.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) of 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 237W, on the Private Finance Initiative, what savings are expected for each project listed in his answer; and if he will make a statement. [60418]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) of 24 October 2001,Official Report, column 288W.

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will issue for consultation the revised draft PACE Codes of Practice. [61928]

  Mr. Denham
  On 15 May, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the accompanying Codes of Practice. As part of the overall review process, and in order to provide practitioners with an up-to-date set of Codes as soon as possible, limited amendments are proposed to existing Codes of Practice B-E. These will primarily take account of legislative changes since the Codes were last updated in 1995. Further changes to the Codes may follow from the broader PACE review.
  1312W
  Section 67 of PACE requires that the Secretary of State first prepare and publish revised drafts of any proposed amendments for consultation. The revised draft PACE Codes of Practice B-E were issued for consultation today and copies have been placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  Inventures
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how Inventures is accountable to him. [50796]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: Inventures is currently the trading arm which is part of NHS Estates, an executive agency of the Department. The agency chief executive who as accounting officer is directly accountable to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health.

  Inventures is essentially a consultancy business employing approximately 270 staff with an annual turnover of approximately £15 million. It provides a wide variety of property services including planning, financing, procuring and managing all aspects of health care environment and estates. Its primary customers are the Department of Health and national health service trusts.

  Information for Health
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the report commissioned from Professor Protti by the Information Policy Unit and the NHS Information Authority on issues of implementing information for health. [61927]

  Ms Blears
  Professor Denis Protti of the School of Health Information Science at the University of Victoria, British Columbia was commissioned by the Department of Health to provide an independent assessment of the progress with electronic record development and implementation. He also considered the emerging issues around implementation of the NHS information strategy in general.

  The final report is published on the Department of Health website www.doh.gov.uk/ipu/whatnew/prottireport.pdf and copies placed in the Library.

  NHS Professionals
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement setting out(a) the matters to be covered by the Code of Practice for NHS Professionals, (b) when it is to be completed, (c) how he intends to publish it and (d) the timetable for publication. [56616]

  Mr. Hutton
  The contents of the Code of Practice for the supply of temporary staffing will cover a generic section and professional specific appendices. The generic section covers; advertising/publicity, commission rates/ management fee, continuing professional development, criminal record bureau, equal opportunities and human rights, induction, management of information, management of service, monitoring and adherence, occupational health services, obligations of provider to their own employees, pay and conditions, placement fees, quality assurance and complaints procedures, recruitment and selection process, retaining and maintaining documents, work status.
  1313W
  The code is scheduled to be completed, published and distributed in summer 2002.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he estimates that NHS Professionals will meet its target of operating across all NHS organisations and staff groups by April 2003. [56615]

  Mr. Hutton
  NHS Professionals continues to be planned and extended in order to be a nationally operating service by April 2003.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many call centres have been set up for NHS Professionals. [56612]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are currently five call centres across the service of NHS Professionals.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what dedicated IT infrastructure is in place to support NHS Professionals. [56613]

  Mr. Hutton
  Each provider of NHS Professionals has sourced their information technology solutions to support a nationally integrated network.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of NHS temporary staff he estimates will be provided by NHS Professionals by April 2003. [56614]

  Mr. Hutton
  NHS Professionals aims to be the primary provider of temporary health care staff to the national health service by April 2003.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names of the project board members of NHS Professionals. [56611]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National NHS Professionals and Agency Project Board are listed.

  There are a number of other project and steering groups which feed into this national project board, whose membership and structure is determined locally.

  Board members

  David Amos

  Deputy Director of Human Resources Directorate (Chair)—Department of Health

  Christine Beasley

  Regional Nurse Director DHSC—London

  Marcus Brindle

  NHS Purchasing and Supplies Agency Department of Health

  Janet Coster

  Managing Director of NHS Professionals—WYMAS

  Neil Griffiths

  Director of Operations/Deputy Chief Executive Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital

  Denis Gibson

  Chief Executive Workforce Development Confederation

  Caroline Fox

  National Lead for Temporary Staffing Department of Health

  Sandra Hatton

  Lead—Organisation and Leadership DHSC—London

  Josie Irwin

  Senior Employment Relations Adviser RCN

  Avril Imison

  Head of NHS Allied Health Professions Branch Department of Health

  1314W

  Board members

  Paul Jenkins

  NHS Direct National Project Manager Department of Health

  Debbie Mellor

  Acting Head of NHS Employment Department of Health

  Sue Meredith

  Director NHS Professionals—Oxford

  David Moore

  Assistant Chief Nursing Officer Department of Health

  Anne Rainsberry

  DHSC—South

  Pat Urry

  Pay Branch Department of Health

  Kathleen Weekes

  Chief Nursing & Healthcare Employment Consultant Department for Education and Employment

  Jackie Axleby

  Chief Executive Northern England Workforce Development Confederation

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which private nurses agencies are administering NHS Professionals for NHS trusts. [56609]

  Mr. Hutton
  NHS Professionals is run by the national health service for the NHS.

  Nursing Staff Agencies
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are used to judge the suitability of nursing staff agencies to provide nurses for NHS establishments. [59429]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: Under the Nurses Act 1957, agencies providing nursing staff for national health service establishments are currently licensed by local authorities. From 1 September, they will be subject to regulation by the National Care Standards Commission, from which date the nurses agency regulations and national minimum standards made under the Care Standards Act 2000 are due to come into force.

  Following the success of the London agency project, NHS trusts are working together to improve the cost-effectiveness and quality of temporary staff supplied by commercial agencies through agency framework agreements negotiated with a range of agencies that have been vetted using quality, risk and value for money criteria.

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent general practitioners per 100,000 population there were in(a) July 2000 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [57168]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department's general and personal medical services census is recorded annually on 30 September. The request for the information for July 2000 is referred back to the most recent census information, October 1999. The latest information available is the September 2001 census.
  1315W
  The number of whole-time equivalent general practitioners (GP) excluding GP retainers and GP registrars (the NHS Plan group) per 100,000 population were 53.4 in 1999, and 53.0 in 2001.

  The total number of whole-time equivalent GPs per 100,000 population was 57.0 in 1999, and 57.4 in 2001.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department produces targets relating to the average number of patients served by a general practitioner. [58822]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no targets for the list sizes of general practitioners.

  Overseas Doctors
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to alter the requirement for Commonwealth doctors to take an English language test before practising in the UK, with special reference to cases where English is already the first language of the doctor concerned. [57964]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Medical Act requires such a person to satisfy the General Medical Council's (GMC) registrar that he "has the necessary knowledge of English". We look to the GMC to apply this requirement in a proportionate and non-discriminatory way to each case. We understand that the GMC is to review the way in which it meets its obligations under the Act in relation to language proficiency.

  Agency Workers Directive
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implications of the European agency workers directive for the NHS. [59095]

  Mr. Hutton
  An initial regulatory impact assessment of the proposed directive on agency workers prepared by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been placed in the Library.

  The Commission's proposal would, as it stands, require that agency workers in the national health service did not receive less favourable basic working and employment conditions than comparable workers employed by the NHS. The proposal contains limited derogations from this requirement, which may be applicable in some cases. The proposal is subject to the co-decision procedure, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry remains in dialogue with other member countries and the Commission.

  The NHS policy is to employ personnel on permanent contracts where possible, and to ensure that temporary staff are treated fairly through NHS Professionals (the NHS-led approach to temporary staffing). We are also preparing a code of practice for the supply of temporary staff which is currently being drafted.

  Overseas Treatment
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reciprocal rights NHS patients have for treatment in other EU countries. [59186]
  1316W
  Mr. Hutton
  Regulations (EEC) 1408–71 and 574–72 (copies available in the Library) co-ordinate the social security and health care schemes of the EU member states. They contain provisions allowing access to health care throughout the EU on the same terms as provided to the host country's insured population. The following are the most important health care provisions of the regulations:emergency treatment for tourists temporarily visiting another EU country (the E111 arrangements);
  referral specifically for treatment of a pre-existing condition (the E112 scheme);
  health care for workers posted to another EU country (forms E101 and E128):
  health care in the new state of residence for state pensioners going to live in another EU state (E121); and
  health care for members of the family of workers or pensioners where they reside in a different EU state from the worker or pensioner (E109).

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the pilot for the overseas treatment of NHS patients to the Epsom and Ewell constituency. [59092]

  Mr. Hutton
  The pilot scheme for the overseas treatment of national health service patients is now at an end. Any NHS body can legally commission treatment overseas for its patients. However, the Department has advised any trust wishing to refer patients overseas to contact one of the lead commissioners who have been set up to organise treatment for NHS patients overseas. These lead commissioners are based in Guy's and St. Thomas' Trust and Kent and Medway health authority.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed in the Modernisation Agency at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients. [56860]

  Mr. Lammy
  At the 1 April 2002 there were 440 staff employed by the Modernisation Agency, of which 182 have professional clinical qualifications. 207 of the agency's staff are working directly with clinical teams and eight retain a responsibility for delivery of clinical care as part of their role with the agency.

  NHS Bank Staff
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing the use of bank staff within the NHS. [59185]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our strategy in relation to temporary staffing is:To reduce the overall demand for temporary staff by expanding the national health service permanent workforce.
  To improve the management and cost-effectiveness of NHS 'bank' arrangements through the NHS Professionals initiative.
  NHS Professionals is being implemented against a target to operate nationally for all staff groups by April 2003, around 50 trusts are already using the service.
  To improve the cost-effectiveness and quality of temporary staff supplied by commercial agencies through co-ordinated contracts negotiated with a range of agencies that have been vetted using quality, risk and value for money criteria.
  1317W
  Between September 1999 and September 2001 there was
  a net increase of nurses working in the NHS of 20,740
  a 4 per cent. increase in number of qualified allied health professionals
  5.7 per cent. more NHS consultants—the second largest increase on record and overall the NHS workforce increased by 4.3 per cent. to 1,1666,000.

  Building on the success of the London Agency Project, further agency framework agreements are being developed across the NHS.

  Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what diagnostic and treatment centres are planned under the NHS plan; when(a) construction is due to commence and (b) schemes will be completed; and what the cost is of each scheme. [56940]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan commitment is for there to be eight diagnostic and treatment centres (DTCs) open by 2004 with a further 12 in development. We are on course to deliver this.

  We announced a "first wave" of eight DTCs in February 2002. A list of the schemes is shown in the table. Development is being supported by £6.8 million central capital, supplemented by funds from local capital allocations. The schemes are on course to be operational by the end of 2002.

  Kings College Hospital NHS Trust

  North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust (Basingstoke Hospital)

  North Hampshire PCT (Chase Community Hospital, Bordon)

  Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust

  Redwood (subject to negotiation)

  Royal Hospital at Haslar, Portsmouth

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust (Reading)

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust.

  In addition the NHS is developing proposals to expand and bring forward the DTC programme further, including reviewing existing proposals.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role NHS Direct will have in providing advice on the threat of chemical and radiological attacks; what training has been provided to those staffing NHS Direct in providing this advice; and if he will make a statement. [57683]

  Mr. Hutton
  NHS Direct plans to develop relationships within the national health service and with the other agencies involved in emergency planning, such that full use could be made of the capabilities of NHS Direct in the event of an emergency, such as chemical or radiological attack. NHS Direct already has considerable experience in provision of information to the public whenever health scares arise. This experience is likely to be useful and can be built upon should there be a health emergency.

  Some aspects of training that would be appropriate in the NHS Direct response to chemical or radiological attack are already incorporated into local and national training programmes.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [58720]

  Mr. Lammy
  This Department has not appointed any non-departmental special advisers.

  The available information is shown in the table.

  9–11 October 2001

  6–7 November 2001

  Departmental special advisers

  1

  1

  Non-departmental special advisers

  0

  0

  Destination

  Washington

  Madrid

  Cost of visit

  £4,125.76

  £580.56

  All travel by special advisers is undertaken fully in accordance with the guidelines set out in the "Ministerial Code" and the "Civil Service Management Code".

  NHS Leadership Centre
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make an announcement as to the appointment of a new head of the NHS Leadership Centre; and who has been in charge of the organisation since the departure of the previous head. [59579]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The NHS Leadership Centre forms part of the NHS Modernisation Agency, which was established in April 2001.

  Following Barbara Harris' decision to step-down as Director of the NHS Leadership Centre in December 2001, Penny Humphris was seconded to the role from the 31 January 2002 on an acting basis. In the period between December 2001 and end-January 2002, David Fillingham, the NHS Modernisation Agency Director, took direct management responsibilities for the NHS Leadership Centre.

  The substantive post of Director of the NHS Leadership Centre is planned to be advertised the week commencing 10 June 2002. An announcement will be made once the recruitment process has been completed.

  NHS Consultants
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards renegotiating NHS consultants' contracts. [58868]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government's proposals for the new consultant contract were published in February 2001 and these, alongside the British Medical Association's own proposals, form the basis of continuing negotiations. We have discussed a range of issues and options in the negotiations and we are aiming to be able to announce progress shortly.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the right of local communities to establish or convert existing hospitals into foundation hospitals. [59094]
  1319W
  Mr. Hutton
  The first wave of foundation hospitals will be selected from among the acute national health service trusts that achieve three-star ratings in July this year. Details of the application process and criteria which will be applied will be published in July. However, successful applicants will need to demonstrate among other things that they have the management capability and clinical support to make a success of NHS foundation trust status, and that they have the support of the local primary care trusts who commission services from them.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much debt incurred by health authorities has been taken on by primary care trusts. [59091]

  Mr. Hutton
  The transfer of assets and liabilities from health authorities to primary care trusts will not be known until the audited accounts are available for financial year 2002–03.

  Hospitals (Shropshire)
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the budgets for(a) the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, (b) the Princess Royal hospital, Telford and (c) the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt hospital in each year since 1995. [45732]

  Ms Blears
  Pursuant to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 103W; I regret that the reply given was incomplete. I can now provide the additional information requested. The reply should read:

  Budgets for the Royal Shrewsbury hospital NHS trust, the Princess Royal hospital NHS trust and the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt NHS trust from 1995 to 2001

  £000

  Royal Princess

  Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt

  Royal Shrewsbury

  Total

  1994–95

  23,230

  19,638

  55,926

  103,794

  1995–96

  30,235

  20,595

  60,224

  111,054

  1996–97

  31,553

  21,028

  60,894

  113,475

  1997–98

  33,723

  22,368

  66,069

  122,160

  1998–99

  36,212

  25,723

  69,406

  131,341

  1999–2000

  40,216

  30,447

  84,600

  155,263

  2000–01

  43,770

  32,077

  80,280

  156,127

  Note:

  The budgets have been assumed to be the total income of the trusts during these financial years.

  Source:

  Annual accounts of the Princess Royal hospital NHS trust, the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt hospital NHS trust and the Royal Shrewsbury hospital NHS trust.

  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals Trust
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the franchise plan that he approved when appointing the new chief executive of the Ashford and St. Peter's hospitals trust. [58838]

  Mr. Hutton
  Trust chief executives are appointed and employed by national health service trust chairman and non-executives on behalf of the trust. Franchise plans are documents that set out future operational proposals for the 1320W
  trust and it is a matter for the trust in question how to use the plan. With the exception of any material that relates to the personnel appointment, and which is confidential, I would expect that the trust board would want to receive and consider the franchise at a meeting held in public.

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department assumed responsibility for the awarding of the contract to supply the UK Government with smallpox vaccine; and for what reason the management of this process was transferred to his Department from the Ministry of Defence. [57376]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: Responsibility for the provision of appropriate preventive and treatment measures for the protection of public health rests with this Department. Since smallpox vaccination of the public ceased in the 1970s and smallpox was declared eradicated worldwide, the Department has continued to hold a strategic stock of smallpox vaccine. Following a review of vaccine needs in the wake of the tragic events of September 11, a joint procurement of smallpox vaccine to meet both health and defence needs was deemed appropriate. This was part of the ongoing collaboration on medical countermeasures between the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisations and companies were considered by his Department when awarding the contract to produce smallpox vaccine for the UK Government; what contact his Department had with each of these organisations or companies prior to the awarding of the contract; when officials from his Department visited each organisation to assess the facilities for making the vaccine; by what criteria each of the facilities was assessed; which other organisations were(a) considered, (b) contacted and (c) visited prior to the creation of a shortlist of organisations; and on what criteria the final shortlist was compiled. [57378]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: Detailed confidential discussions were held with five major pharmaceutical companies who were known to have vaccine manufacturing capability either in the UK or in Europe. The companies, whose agreement to being identified has been obtained, were Acambis, Aventis Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, PowderJect and R1VM. All the companies approached responded and the decision to award the contract was taken solely on the basis of the responses received from the companies.

  An official from the Department of Health accompanied officials from the Ministry of Defence on a visit to Bavarian Nordic and Impfstoffwerke Dessau Tornav at the end of January on a fact-finding visit to discuss vaccine developments and manufacturing techniques.

  The details of the Government's requirements for smallpox vaccine are not being put in the public domain as this is information that might be of use to terrorists.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department has collated on the
  1321W
  take-up rate of mediation to resolve clinical negligence disputes over the past two years. [59640]

  Mr. Lammy
  The NHS litigation authority is responsible for handling clinical negligence claims made against the national health service. In June 2000, the authority began an initiative to encourage the use of mediation to resolve all suitable cases. 77 offers for mediation have been accepted and at the end of April 2002, 32 mediations have been completed, 31 successfully.

  Communication Aids
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend provision for communication aids for severely disabled people. [59754]

  Jacqui Smith
  The NHS Plan aims to benefit disabled people by increasing provision of community equipment to 50 per cent. more people than in 2000–01 and by integrating health and social service equipment services. Improved funding for the equipment (including communication aids) that such services provide is, and will be, part of increased baseline allocations to health and social services in the years 2001–02 to 2003–04. It is for local services to decide their spending priorities and there are no specific plans to extend provision for communication aids.

  Clinicians
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many clinicians within(a) the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust and (b) all NHS trusts operate outside the trust's communications loop. [58645]

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 2001: Vacancies in NHS trusts by region and NHS trust Qualified therapeutic radiographers 3 month vacancy rates1,2 and numbers3

  Three month

  Staff in post

  Vacancy rates percentage

  Vacancies

  (wte)

  (hc)

  England

  8.0

  110

  1,310

  1,450

  Northern and Yorkshire

  10.4

  20

  150

  170

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  27.0

  10

  10

  20

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  18.2

  10

  60

  60

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  30

  40

  The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  1.1

  0

  40

  50

  Trent

  1.9

  0

  150

  170

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  30

  40

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  30

  30

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  8.1

  0

  20

  30

  United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.()

  0

  30

  30

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  4.3

  0

  20

  30

  West Midlands

  15.1

  20

  80

  100

  North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  10

  10

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals NHS Trust

  8.6

  0

  10

  10

  The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

  26.2

  10

  20

  20

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  15.9

  10

  30

  40

  University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

  13.7

  0

  10

  10

  North West

  3.8

  10

  150

  170

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  10.1

  10

  50

  60

  Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  60

  70

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  30

  30

  Eastern

  6.8

  10

  140

  150

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  11.6

  10

  40

  40

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  20

  20

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  10

  20

  1322W
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has never been collected by the Department.

  IT Strategies
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost is of updating computer equipment in(a) Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust and (b) all NHS trusts to support Government IT strategies. [58646]

  Mr. Lammy
  Estimates of the cost of the modernisation of information management and technology in the national health service in England are set out in the report of the review, "Securing Our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View" from Derek Wanless, published in April 2002.

  Information about the costs in individual NHS trusts is not held centrally.

  Therapeutic Radiographers
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the vacancy rate is in therapeutic radiographers in (a) the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust and (b) all NHS trusts; and what the figures were in May 1997. [58643]

  Mr. Hutton
  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells National Health Service Trust had a vacancy rate of 6.9 per cent. for therapeutic radiographers as at March 2001 (latest figures available.)

  The first vacancy survey was conducted in March 1999, we do not hold vacancy information for 1997.

  Information on other trusts vacancies has been placed in the Library.
  1323W

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 2001: Vacancies in NHS trusts by region and NHS trust Qualified therapeutic radiographers 3 month vacancy rates1,2 and numbers3

  Three month

  Staff in post

  Vacancy rates percentage

  Vacancies

  (wte)

  (hc)

  Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  30

  30

  West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  8.5

  0

  30

  40

  London

  9.1

  20

  250

  270

  Barts and The London NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  30

  40

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust

  2.9

  0

  30

  40

  Havering Hospitals NHS Trust

  10.9

  0

  20

  20

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  20

  20

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  14.0

  0

  10

  10

  The Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  25.4

  10

  30

  30

  The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust

  13.4

  10

  50

  60

  University College of London Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  30

  30

  South East

  13.1

  30

  210

  240

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust

  19.2

  0

  10

  10

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

  6.9

  0

  40

  50

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  20

  30

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust

  26.2

  10

  30

  30

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  6.5

  0

  30

  30

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS

  5.5

  0

  20

  20

  Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Trust

  2.9

  0

  30

  40

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  21.1

  10

  30

  30

  South West

  2.9

  10

  170

  190

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  30

  30

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  20

  20

  Poole Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  30

  30

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  20

  30

  South Devon Healthcare NHS Trust and Torbay PCT

  9.0

  0

  10

  10

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  2.0

  0

  50

  60

  1 Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more(whole time equivalents).

  2 Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the September 2000 non-medical workforce census (whole time equivalent).

  3 Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Notes:

  1. Percentages are calculated on actual figures and are rounded to one decimal place.

  2. Totals may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding.

  3. Due to rounding calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  4. Due to the way vacancy data have been collected South Devon Healthcare and Torbay PCT contains combined data.

  5. Trusts where staff in post plus vacancies (wte) is less than five have been excluded.

  6. Vacancies—between zero and five vacancies.

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancy Survey 2001

  Department of Health Non-medical workforce Census 2000

  Radiotherapy Waiting Times
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a national standard method of calculating radiotherapy waiting times for NHS health authorities. [58642]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Cancer Plan set out maximum waiting time targets for first cancer treatment. We have introduced national data collection on the 2001 cancer treatment targets and are currently putting in place arrangements to collect information on waits from diagnosis to first treatment for all cancer patients. This information will he collected in a standard way.

  Local Improvement Finance Trust
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding is available(a) in England and (b) for North Staffordshire in support of the Local Improvement Finance Trust for the funding of GP premises; and if he will set out the timetable. [59741]
  1324W
  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service local improvement finance trust (NHS LIFT) initiative was announced in the NHS Plan.

  The initiative aims to deliver a step change in the quality of the primary care estate. NHS LIFT's initial focus has been to encourage investment in those parts of the country, such as inner cities, where primary care services are in most need of improvement. LIFT's objective will be to contribute to the overall NHS Plan targets of refurbishing or replacing up to 3,000 premises and 500 one-stop primary care centres by December 2004.

  The Department has earmarked £195 million (over the current spending review period) to support localities develop their LIFT schemes. All LIFT localities, including North Staffordshire, will receive significant levels of financial assistance.

  In February 2001, the Department prioritised an initial six LIFT schemes, and in January, a further 12 schemes were identified. Applications for a third wave of LIFT

  1325W
  schemes will be announced later this year. We anticipate a total of 42 LIFT schemes across the country by the end of 2004.

  Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from(a) the Audit Commission, (b) the Commission for Health Improvement and (c) the National Care Standards Commission on the establishment of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection; and what active consultations he has undertaken. [59869]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has received a letter from the acting chair of the Audit Commission and has also had discussions with the chief executives of the Audit Commission, the Commission for Health Improvement and National Care Standards Commission. All have accepted the case for the establishment of the new health inspectorate.

  Officials in the Department are in close contact with these organisations regarding the development of detailed policy and implementation plans.

  Non-medical Work Force
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many dieticians there are per head of population in each of the national health service trust areas in England; [59593]

  (2) how many (a) radiotherapists, (b) occupational therapists, (c) arts therapists, (d) orthoptists and (e) orthotists there are per head of population in each of the national heath service trust areas in England; [59887]

  (3) how many arts speech and language therapists there are per head of population in each of the national health service trust areas in England. [59594]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information has been provided on a health authority basis for dieticians, radiotherapists, occupational therapists, arts therapists, orthoptists, orthotists and speech language therapists.

  Information provided for radiographers covers both therapeutic and diagnostic radiography.

  The non-medical work force census does not collect information about orthotists.

  Between 1997 and 2001 there were

  480 more dieticians—a 21 per cent. increase

  2,390 more occupational therapists—a 21 per cent. increase

  930 more radiographers—an 8 per cent. increase

  129 more orthoptists—a 15 per cent. increase

  47 more art therapists—an 8 per cent. increase

  815 more speech and language therapists—a 17 per cent. increase.

  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Roaccutane
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the possible side effects of the anti-acne drug Roaccutane. [59413]
  1326W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: Roaccutane (isotretinoin) is licensed for the treatment of severe forms of acne. It has been associated with a number of serious side effects since evaluation of the clinical trial data at the time of licensing in 1982. These include dryness of the skin, eyes and mucous membranes, visual disturbances, liver disorders and increases in cholesterol levels.

  The safety of all medicines on the UK market is continuously monitored by the medicines control agency. The product information includes the summary of product characteristics for prescribers and the patient information leaflet included in each pack of the medicine. These are also kept under continuous review to make sure that they provide the most up to date and relevant information to healthcare professionals and the public regarding the safe use of the medicine.

  One of the key previous amendments to the product information was the strengthening of the warning relating to depression and other psychiatric reactions including suicide, which was approved in March 1998. The Committee on Safety of Medicines considered the issue of the Roaccutane and psychiatric reactions in September 2001 and advised that the existing wording adequately reflected the current level of knowledge with regard to these reactions.

  Ritalin
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding inappropriate use of the prescription of Ritalin for children. [60090]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have no record of recent representations on this subject. Methylphenidate (principal brand name Ritalin) is a controlled drug under Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act and is licensed for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children aged six years or older. Treatment should be under the supervision of a specialist in childhood behavioural disorders.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions of Ritalin were issued in each of the last five years for(a) attention deficit disorder and (b) attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in each (i) region and (ii) health authority. 160088]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally in the form, or for the years, requested. The available data on the number of prescription items dispensed in the community (for example excluding items written and dispensed in hospitals) for methylphenidate hydrochloride by health authorities and regions for the period 1999 to 2001 are shown in the table, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. It should be noted that Ritalin, the brand name for a drug used mainly in the treatment of severe forms of childhood attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders, is the principal but not the only presentation of methylphenidate hydrochloride.

  Hospital-acquired Infections
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what average time added to patient hospital-stays is from hospital-acquired infections. [59417]
  1327W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The data requested are not routinely collected.

  Antipsychotic Medication
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were issued in 2001 for

  Estimated number of prescription items (thousand) dispensed in the community in England for atypical, traditional and all antipsychotics by broad age group by health authorities and regions, 2001

  Atypical Antipsychotics

  Aged 16 to 59 years

  Health authority in which dispensed

  Children aged 0–15 years

  Elderly people aged 60 and over

  Exempt

  Charged1

  Total

  Eastern region

  Bedfordshire

  0.1

  9.7

  7.4

  2.0

  19.2

  East and North Hertfordshire

  0.4

  12.5

  9.1

  2.8

  24.8

  Hertfordshire

  0.3

  17.2

  14.3

  4.8

  36.6

  Norfolk

  0.2

  10.1

  13.9

  2.7

  26.8

  North Essex

  0.2

  13.9

  13.3

  3.3

  30.7

  South Essex

  0.3

  12.4

  8.7

  2.0

  23.5

  Suffolk

  0.2

  12.5

  6.2

  2.0

  20.9

  Total for eastern region

  1.8

  88.3

  73.0

  19.6

  182.6

  London region

  Barking and Havering

  0.0

  6.5

  5.4

  1.7

  13.6

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  0.0

  17.5

  16.5

  3.2

  37.3

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  0.1

  11.5

  8.3

  2.1

  22.0

  Brent and Harrow

  0.0

  5.8

  10.8

  1.8

  18.5

  Camden and Islington

  0.0

  3.7

  11.1

  1.3

  16.1

  Croydon

  0.0

  6.7

  7.7

  1.4

  15.8

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  0.0

  9.1

  13.5

  2.1

  24.7

  East London and The City

  0.1

  6.9

  17.5

  1.5

  26.0

  Hillingdon

  0.0

  1.8

  3.2

  1.1

  6.1

  Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster

  0.0

  5.4

  9.0

  1.6

  16.1

  Kingston and Richmond

  0.1

  7.2

  4.6

  1.9

  13.9

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0.2

  13.0

  17.6

  2.0

  32.8

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0.1

  10.9

  12.4

  2.8

  26.1

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0.2

  7.8

  8.5

  1.5

  18.1

  Total for London region

  1.1

  114.0

  145.9

  26.0

  287.0

  North West region

  Bury and Rochdale

  0.0

  6.4

  8.4

  1.3

  16.1

  East Lancashire

  0.2

  9.6

  9.9

  2.1

  21.7

  Liverpool

  0.1

  12.0

  14.8

  1.4

  28.3

  Manchester

  0.1

  9.3

  17.4

  1.2

  28.0

  Morecambe Bay

  0.1

  8.0

  5.5

  1.2

  14.8

  North Cheshire

  0.0

  3.8

  4.5

  0.7

  9.0

  North West Lancashire

  0.0

  11.4

  10.3

  2.6

  24.3

  Salford and Trafford

  0.1

  8.6

  11.7

  1.5

  21.9

  Sefton

  0.0

  6.6

  9.0

  1.2

  16.8

  South Cheshire

  0.1

  13.2

  11.5

  3.1

  27.9

  South Lancashire

  0.0

  5.3

  5.1

  1.3

  11.8

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  0.0

  7.3

  10.0

  1.5

  18.8

  Stockport

  0.1

  6.7

  6.5

  1.2

  14.5

  West Pennine

  0.1

  7.2

  7.1

  1.2

  15.5

  Wigan and Bolton

  0.0

  14.7

  9.9

  1.9

  26.5

  Wirral

  0.1

  8.4

  10.4

  1.7

  20.6

  Total for North West region

  1.0

  138.6

  151.9

  25.1

  316.7

  Northern and Yorkshire region

  Bradford

  0.0

  9.7

  8.6

  1.2

  19.6

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  0.2

  11.3

  11.7

  2.2

  25.5

  County Durham and Darlington

  0.1

  9.2

  10.0

  1.8

  21.1

  East Riding and Hull

  0.0

  8.4

  11.0

  2.1

  21.5

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  0.2

  7.2

  5.4

  1.0

  13.7

  Leeds

  0.1

  16.2

  17.1

  2.9

  36.2

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  0.3

  17.3

  15.2

  1.8

  34.6

  North Cumbria

  0.1

  6.7

  5.5

  1.7

  14.1

  North Yorkshire

  0.2

  10.7

  7.3

  2.2

  20.4

  Northumberland

  0.2

  4.8

  5.6

  1.1

  11.7

  1328W
  (a) atypical, (b) traditional and (c) all antipsychotic medication in each region and health authority for age groups (i) 0 to 15 years, (ii) 16 to 59 years and (iii) 60 years and over. [60630]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is shown in the table.
  1329W

  Estimated number of prescription items (thousand) dispensed in the community in England for atypical, traditional and all antipsychotics by broad age group by health authorities and regions, 2001

  Atypical Antipsychotics

  Aged 16 to 59 years

  Health authority in which dispensed

  Children aged 0–15 years

  Elderly people aged 60 and over

  Exempt

  Charged1

  Total

  Sunderland

  0.1

  4.6

  5.6

  0.7

  11.0

  Tees

  0.1

  7.6

  10.2

  1.5

  19.4

  Wakefield

  0.0

  8.3

  6.2

  1.1

  15.6

  Total for Northern and Yorkshire region

  1.7

  122.1

  119.2

  21.4

  264.4

  South East region

  Berkshire

  0.1

  11.2

  10.4

  3.6

  25.3

  Buckinghamshire

  0.1

  10.2

  9.0

  2.2

  21.5

  East Kent

  0.4

  10.8

  12.1

  2.3

  25.7

  East Surrey

  0.0

  4.5

  4.3

  1.9

  10.7

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  0.3

  16.3

  14.5

  3.1

  34.1

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  0.1

  15.1

  10.4

  2.9

  28.5

  North and Mid Hampshire

  0.3

  11.0

  7.2

  3.0

  21.5

  Northamptonshire

  0.4

  6.0

  8.0

  2.7

  17.1

  Oxfordshire

  0.2

  12.3

  7.5

  3.4

  23.4

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  0.2

  13.0

  10.6

  2.9

  26.8

  West Kent

  0.3

  16.1

  13.8

  4.0

  34.1

  West Surrey

  0.3

  9.5

  6.9

  3.0

  19.7

  West Sussex

  0.2

  11.2

  10.9

  3.3

  25.6

  Total for South East region

  3.0

  147.2

  125.6

  38.4

  314.2

  South West region

  Avon

  0.1

  15.8

  16.0

  3.3

  35.2

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0.4

  5.3

  7.7

  1.2

  14.7

  Dorset

  0.1

  9.3

  9.8

  3.0

  22.2

  Gloucestershire

  0.1

  6.0

  6.4

  2.0

  14.6

  North and East Devon

  0.5

  7.9

  9.5

  1.9

  19.8

  Somerset

  0.4

  8.4

  5.6

  1.2

  15.6

  South and West Devon

  0.5

  11.1

  14.5

  2.1

  28.2

  Wiltshire

  0.2

  12.4

  8.6

  2.4

  23.6

  Total for South West region

  2.4

  76.2

  78.1

  17.2

  173.9

  Trent region

  Barnsley

  0.0

  2.7

  3.1

  0.9

  6.7

  Doncaster

  0.1

  2.6

  3.4

  0.6

  6.8

  Leicestershire

  0.1

  10.9

  13.0

  2.5

  26.5

  Lincolnshire

  0.6

  9.4

  6.9

  2.0

  18.9

  North Derbyshire

  0.1

  3.4

  4.8

  1.0

  9.2

  North Nottinghamshire

  0.0

  4.8

  3.0

  0.9

  8.7

  Nottingham

  0.0

  2.9

  2.1

  0.7

  5.7

  Rotherham

  0.0

  7.7

  4.0

  0.6

  12.4

  Sheffield

  0.1

  4.4

  6.6

  1.0

  12.0

  South Humber

  0.2

  3.5

  4:6

  0.8

  9.2

  Southern Derbyshire

  0.1

  4.6

  5.4

  1.5

  11.6

  Total for Trent region

  1.3

  56.9

  57.0

  12.4

  127.6

  West Midlands region

  Birmingham

  0.8

  16.3

  20.7

  2.6

  40.4

  Coventry

  0.1

  8.7

  8.7

  1.5

  19.0

  Dudley

  0.2

  2.0

  3.7

  0.9

  6.8

  Herefordshire

  0.0

  0.9

  2.0

  0.4

  3.3

  North Staffordshire

  0.1

  7.2

  5.2

  1.5

  14.0

  Sandwell

  0.1

  2.3

  3.8

  0.7

  6.9

  Shropshire

  0.2

  6.7

  4.5

  1.4

  12.8

  Solihull

  0.1

  2.8

  2.6

  0.6

  6.1

  South Staffordshire

  0.3

  9.7

  4.9

  1.8

  16.8

  Walsall

  0.1

  4.7

  3.5

  0.6

  8.8

  Warwickshire

  0.2

  10.1

  7.4

  2.0

  19.6

  Wolverhampton

  0.0

  3.2

  3.8

  0.4

  7.5

  Worcestershire

  0.4

  6.7

  5.0

  1.4

  13.5

  Total for West Midlands region

  2.6

  81.3

  75.9

  15.8

  175.5

  England

  14.8

  824.6

  826.7

  175.9

  1,841.9

  1330W 1331W

  Traditional antipsychotics

  Aged 16 to 59 years

  Health authority in which dispensed

  Children aged 0–15 years

  Elderly people aged 60 and over

  Exempt

  Charged1

  Items personally administered

  Total

  Eastern region

  Bedfordshire

  0.1

  10.8

  9.1

  2.6

  0.1

  22.7

  East and North Hertfordshire

  0.1

  17.0

  14.3

  4.9

  0.2

  36.5

  Hertfordshire

  0.2

  20.7

  13.9

  5.6

  0.1

  40.4

  Norfolk

  0.2

  28.8

  33.5

  7.3

  0.4

  70.2

  North Essex

  0.3

  22.7

  17.0

  4.3

  0.1

  44.5

  South Essex

  0.2

  11.7

  13.6

  3.0

  0.0

  28.5

  Suffolk

  0.2

  20.0

  14.7

  4.3

  0.3

  39.5

  Total for eastern region

  1.3

  131.7

  116.2

  32.0

  1.3

  282.4

  London region

  Barking and Havering

  0.2

  7.8

  6.0

  1.9

  0.0

  15.9

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  0.1

  14.9

  18.0

  3.4

  0.0

  36.4

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  0.1

  13.6

  10.9

  3.2

  0.0

  27.9

  Brent and Harrow

  0.0

  7.4

  8.7

  1.9

  0.0

  18.1

  Camden and Islington

  0.0

  5.2

  14.1

  1.4

  0.0

  20.7

  Croydon

  0.0

  6.4

  8.2

  1.3

  0.0

  15.9

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  0.1

  11.9

  17.1

  3.5

  0.0

  32.6

  East London and The City

  0.1

  7.8

  18.8

  1.9

  0.0

  28.6

  Hillingdon

  0.1

  4.4

  3.6

  0.9

  0.0

  8.9

  Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster

  0.0

  3.5

  6.8

  1.1

  0.0

  11.4

  Kingston and Richmond

  0.0

  5.7

  4.4

  1.5

  0.0

  11.6

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0.0

  13.4

  16.4

  2.0

  0.0

  31.9

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0.1

  12.6

  11.0

  2.5

  0.0

  26.2

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0.0

  7.1

  8.6

  1.5

  0.0

  17.2

  Total for London region

  1.0

  121.7

  152.5

  28.1

  0.0

  303.3

  North West region

  Bury and Rochdale

  0.0

  14.7

  16.2

  3.6

  0.0

  34.6

  East Lancashire

  0.1

  15.5

  20.4

  3.3

  0.0

  39.4

  Liverpool

  0.1

  12.0

  21.8

  2.0

  0.0

  35.9

  Manchester

  0.1

  14.8

  26.1

  2.0

  0.0

  43.1

  Morecambe Bay

  0.0

  13.1

  9.7

  2.6

  0.1

  25.5

  North Cheshire

  0.1

  10.6

  13.5

  2.9

  0.0

  27.2

  North West Lancashire

  0.0

  15.8

  17.1

  3.5

  0.0

  36.3

  Salford and Trafford

  0.1

  23.1

  19.3

  3.0

  0.0

  45.6

  Sefton

  0.0

  11.1

  12.6

  2.0

  0.0

  25.7

  South Cheshire

  0.1

  18.8

  15.2

  3.6

  0.0

  37.8

  South Lancashire

  0.1

  7.0

  5.3

  2.2

  0.0

  14.7

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  0.1

  11.0

  14.9

  2.3

  0.0

  28.3

  Stockport

  0.0

  17.1

  13.4

  3.4

  0.0

  34.0

  West Pennine

  0.0

  12.9

  15.8

  2.4

  0.0

  31.2

  Wigan and Bolton

  0.1

  16.0

  15.4

  3.2

  0.0

  34.8

  Wirral

  0.0

  8.4

  15.2

  2.2

  0.0

  25.9

  Total for North West region

  1.2

  222.0

  252.2

  44.3

  0.2

  519.9

  Northern and Yorkshire region

  Bradford

  0.0

  12.8

  16.1

  2.8

  0.0

  31.8

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  0.1

  16.8

  12.4

  3.1

  0.0

  32.3

  County Durham and Darlington

  0.2

  22.1

  19.1

  3.5

  0.1

  45.1

  East Riding and Hull

  0.1

  18.5

  14.6

  3.1

  0.1

  36.4

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  0.1

  10.7

  10.9

  1.9

  0.0

  23.7

  Leeds

  0.1

  19.4

  23.9

  5.1

  0.0

  48.6

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  0.0

  11.5

  15.8

  2.4

  0.0

  29.8

  North Cumbria

  0.1

  7.9

  8.7

  2.1

  0.1

  18.9

  North Yorkshire

  0.3

  21.3

  14.3

  4.7

  0.2

  40.8

  Northumberland

  0.0

  8.1

  7.3

  1.6

  0.1

  17.1

  Sunderland

  0.1

  6.4

  5.4

  1.1

  0.0

  12.9

  Tees

  0.2

  18.4

  17.5

  2.3

  0.0

  38.4

  Wakefield

  0.0

  8.9

  9.5

  2.3

  0.0

  20.7

  Total for Northern and Yorkshire region

  1.5

  182.7

  175.5

  36.1

  0.6

  396.5

  South East region

  Berkshire

  0.1

  14.9

  13.4

  4.2

  0.1

  32.6

  Buckinghamshire

  0.2

  12.5

  10.4

  3.9

  0.1

  27.2

  East Kent

  0.2

  14.9

  14.9

  2.7

  0.1

  32.8

  East Surrey

  0.0

  11.8

  6.2

  1.7

  0.0

  19.8

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  0.1

  21.6

  23.2

  4.1

  0.1

  49.1

  1332W 1333W

  Traditional antipsychotics

  Aged 16 to 59 years

  Health authority in which dispensed

  Children aged 0–15 years

  Elderly people aged 60 and over

  Exempt

  Charged1

  Items personally administered

  Total

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  0.1

  20.2

  15.8

  3.8

  0.1

  39.9

  North and Mid Hampshire

  0.3

  11.2

  8.5

  3.5

  0.1

  23.6

  Northamptonshire

  0.2

  14.4

  13.6

  3.7

  0.0

  31.9

  Oxfordshire

  0.1

  9.8

  8.2

  3.1

  0.2

  21.4

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  0.2

  14.0

  12.2

  4.1

  0.1

  30.5

  West Kent

  0.2

  18.0

  19.7

  5.5

  0.1

  43.4

  West Surrey

  0.1

  12.5

  9.6

  3.6

  0.0

  25.8

  West Sussex

  0.1

  28.8

  13.5

  4.5

  0.1

  47.0

  Total for South East region

  1.8

  204.6

  169.2

  48.5

  0.9

  425.0

  South West region

  Avon

  0.2

  26.8

  25.4

  5.1

  0.1

  57.5

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0.1

  15.5

  16.0

  2.9

  0.2

  34.7

  Dorset

  0.2

  23.8

  14.7

  3.3

  0.1

  42.2

  Gloucestershire

  0.3

  14.0

  13.9

  4.7

  0.1

  33.1

  North and East Devon

  0.1

  14.8

  11.9

  3.1

  0.2

  30.0

  Somerset

  0.1

  11.0

  9.6

  2.1

  0.1

  22.9

  South and West Devon

  0.1

  19.6

  21.7

  3.1

  0.2

  44.7

  Wiltshire

  0.1

  14.2

  11.7

  4.0

  0.1

  30.1

  Total for South West region

  1.1

  139.7

  124.9

  28.3

  1.1

  295.2

  Trent region

  Barnsley

  0.1

  7.6

  5.1

  1.6

  0.0

  14.4

  Doncaster

  0.1

  9.5

  9.1

  2.1

  0.0

  20.7

  Leicestershire

  0.1

  21.2

  22.2

  4.8

  0.1

  48.3

  Lincolnshire

  0.1

  23.0

  16.5

  5.8

  0.2

  45.6

  North Derbyshire

  0.1

  14.3

  10.5

  2.1

  0.0

  27.0

  North Nottinghamshire

  0.1

  13.5

  8.5

  2.1

  0.1

  24.3

  Nottingham

  0.1

  19.2

  15.2

  4.3

  0.1

  38.8

  Rotherham

  0.1

  15.6

  7.5

  1.1

  0.0

  24.4

  Sheffield

  0.2

  16.2

  15.0

  3.2

  0.0

  34.6

  South Humber

  0.1

  10.7

  9.6

  2.4

  0.0

  22.9

  Southern Derbyshire

  0.1

  19.5

  12.8

  3.4

  0.0

  35.9

  Total for Trent region

  1.1

  170.3

  131.9

  33.0

  0.5

  336.9

  West Midlands region

  Birmingham

  0.6

  24.5

  34.7

  4.1

  0.0

  63.9

  Coventry

  0.1

  5.6

  8.0

  1.7

  0.0

  15.4

  Dudley

  0.0

  11.2

  8.8

  2.6

  0.0

  22.6

  Herefordshire

  0.2

  5.3

  4.4

  1.0

  0.1

  10.9

  North Staffordshire

  0.1

  15.3

  11.7

  3.5

  0.0

  30.5

  Sandwell

  0.1

  9.5

  8.0

  1.7

  0.0

  19.2

  Shropshire

  0.1

  11.7

  10.5

  2.5

  0.1

  24.8

  Solihull

  0.1

  3.5

  3.5

  1.2

  0.0

  8.2

  South Staffordshire

  0.1

  15.9

  11.1

  3.0

  0.1

  30.1

  Walsall

  0.0

  9.9

  8.1

  1.7

  0.0

  19.6

  Warwickshire

  0.0

  12.1

  9.4

  3.5

  0.1

  25.1

  Wolverhampton

  0.1

  8.4

  7.0

  1.1

  0.0

  16.5

  Worcestershire

  0.3

  17.1

  9.9

  2.3

  0.1

  29.8

  Total for West Midlands region

  1.7

  149.9

  134.9

  29.9

  0.4

  316.8

  England

  10.8

  1,322.7

  1,257.2

  280.2

  5.1

  2,876.0

  All antipsychotics

  Aged 16 to 59 years

  Health authority in which dispensed

  Children aged 0–15 years

  Elderly people aged 60 and over

  Exempt

  Charged1

  Items personally administered

  Total

  Eastern region

  Bedfordshire

  0.3

  20.5

  16.6

  4.6

  0.1

  42.0

  East and North Hertfordshire

  0.5

  29.5

  23.5

  7.6

  0.2

  61.3

  Hertfordshire

  0.5

  37.8

  28.2

  10.4

  0.1

  77.0

  Norfolk

  0.4

  38.9

  47.4

  9.9

  0.4

  97.1

  North Essex

  0.5

  36.5

  30.3

  7.7

  0.1

  75.2

  South Essex

  0.5

  24.1

  22.3

  5.1

  0.0

  52.0

  Suffolk

  0.4

  32.6

  20.9

  6.3

  0.3

  60.4

  Total for eastern region

  3.0

  219.9

  189.2

  51.5

  1.3

  464.9

  1334W 1335W

  All antipsychotics

  Aged 16 to 59 years

  Health authority in which dispensed

  Children aged 0–15 years

  Elderly people aged 60 and over

  Exempt

  Charged1

  Items personally administered

  Total

  London region

  Barking and Havering

  0.2

  14.3

  11.5

  3.5

  0.0

  29.5

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  0.2

  32.4

  34.5

  6.6

  0.0

  73.6

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  0.2

  25.1

  19.2

  5.3

  0.0

  49.8

  Brent and Harrow

  0.0

  13.3

  19.5

  3.8

  0.0

  36.6

  Camden and Islington

  0.1

  8.9

  25.1

  2.7

  0.0

  36.8

  Croydon

  0.0

  13.1

  15.8

  2.8

  0.0

  31.7

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  0.2

  21.0

  30.6

  5.6

  0.0

  57.3

  East London and The City

  0.2

  14.7

  36.2

  3.4

  0.0

  54.6

  Hillingdon

  0.1

  6.2

  6.8

  2.0

  0.0

  15.1

  Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster

  0.0

  8.9

  15.8

  2.7

  0.0

  27.5

  Kingston and Richmond

  0.1

  12.9

  9.1

  3.4

  0.0

  25.5

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0.3

  26.4

  34.0

  4.0

  0.0

  64.6

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0.2

  23.5

  23.3

  5.3

  0.0

  52.3

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0.3

  14.9

  17.1

  3.0

  0.0

  35.3

  Total for London region

  2.1

  235.6

  298.4

  54.1

  0.0

  590.3

  North West region

  Bury and Rochdale

  0.1

  21.2

  24.6

  4.9

  0.0

  50.7

  East Lancashire

  0.3

  25.1

  30.3

  5.4

  0.0

  61.1

  Liverpool

  0.2

  24.0

  36.6

  3.4

  0.0

  64.2

  Manchester

  0.2

  24.1

  43.6

  3.2

  0.0

  71.1

  Morecambe Bay

  0.1

  21.1

  15.3

  3.8

  0.1

  40.3

  North Cheshire

  0.1

  14.4

  18.0

  3.6

  0.0

  36.2

  North West Lancashire

  0.0

  27.2

  27.3

  6.0

  0.0

  60.7

  Salford and Trafford

  0.2

  31.7

  31.0

  4.5

  0.0

  67.5

  Sefton

  0.0

  17.7

  21.6

  3.2

  0.0

  42.5

  South Cheshire

  0.2

  32.0

  26.7

  6.7

  0.0

  65.6

  South Lancashire

  0.2

  12.3

  10.5

  3.5

  0.0

  26.5

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  0.1

  18.3

  24.9

  3.8

  0.0

  47.1

  Stockport

  0.1

  23.8

  19.9

  4.6

  0.0

  48.5

  West Pennine

  0.1

  20.1

  22.9

  3.6

  0.0

  46.7

  Wigan and Bolton

  0.1

  30.7

  25.3

  5.1

  0.0

  61.3

  Wirral

  0.1

  16.8

  25.6

  3.9

  0.0

  46.5

  Total for North West region

  2.2

  360.7

  404.1

  69.4

  0.2

  836.6

  Northern and Yorkshire region

  Bradford

  0.1

  22.5

  24.7

  4.1

  0.0

  51.4

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  0.3

  28.1

  24.0

  5.3

  0.0

  57.8

  County Durham and Darlington

  0.3

  31.3

  29.1

  5.4

  0.1

  66.2

  East Riding and Hull

  0.1

  26.9

  25.6

  5.3

  0.1

  57.9

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  0.3

  17.9

  16.3

  2.9

  0.0

  37.4

  Leeds

  0.3

  35.6

  41.0

  8.0

  0.0

  84.8

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  0.3

  28.8

  31.0

  4.2

  0.0

  64.4

  North Cumbria

  0.2

  14.6

  14.2

  3.8

  0.1

  33.0

  North Yorkshire

  0.5

  32.0

  21.5

  6.9

  0.2

  61.2

  Northumberland

  0.2

  12.9

  12.9

  2.7

  0.1

  28.8

  Sunderland

  0.1

  11.0

  11.0

  1.8

  0.0

  24.0

  Tees

  0.3

  26.0

  27.8

  3.8

  0.0

  57.8

  Wakefield

  0.1

  17.2

  15.7

  3.4

  0.0

  36.6

  Total for Northern and Yorkshire region

  3.2

  304.8

  294.8

  57.5

  0.6

  660.9

  South East region

  Berkshire

  0.2

  26.1

  23.8

  7.8

  0.1

  58.0

  Buckinghamshire

  0.3

  22.7

  19.4

  6.2

  0.1

  48.7

  East Kent

  0.7

  25.7

  27.0

  5.1

  0.1

  58.5

  East Surrey

  0.0

  16.3

  10.5

  3.7

  0.0

  30.4

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  0.4

  37.9

  37.7

  7.2

  0.1

  83.2

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  0.1

  35.3

  26.2

  6.7

  0.1

  88.4

  North and Mid Hampshire

  0.6

  22.2

  15.7

  6.5

  0.1

  45.1

  Northamptonshire

  0.5

  20.5

  21.6

  6.4

  0.0

  49.0

  Oxfordshire

  0.3

  22.0

  15.8

  6.5

  0.2

  44.8

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  0.4

  27.0

  22.8

  7.0

  0.1

  57.3

  West Kent

  0.5

  34.0

  33.4

  9.5

  0.1

  77.6

  West Surrey

  0.4

  22.0

  16.4

  6.6

  0.0

  45.5

  West Sussex

  0.3

  40.0

  24.5

  7.8

  0.1

  72.5

  Total for South East region

  4.8

  351.8

  294.8

  86.9

  0.9

  739.2

  1336W 1337W

  All antipsychotics

  Aged 16 to 59 years

  Health authority in which dispensed

  Children aged 0–15 years

  Elderly people aged 60 and over

  Exempt

  Charged1

  Items personally administered

  Total

  South West region

  Avon

  0.3

  42.5

  41.4

  8.4

  0.1

  92.7

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0.5

  20.8

  23.7

  4.1

  0.2

  49.4

  Dorset

  0.3

  33.1

  24.5

  6.4

  0.1

  64.5

  Gloucestershire

  0.4

  20.1

  20.4

  6.8

  0.1

  47.8

  North and East Devon

  0.6

  22.7

  21.4

  4.9

  0.2

  49.8

  Somerset

  0.4

  19.4

  15.2

  3.3

  0.1

  38.5

  South and West Devon

  0.7

  30.8

  36.2

  5.2

  0.2

  73.0

  Wiltshire

  0.3

  26.6

  20.3

  6.4

  0.1

  53.7

  Total for South West region

  3.5

  215.9

  203.1

  45.6

  1.1

  489.2

  Trent region

  Barnsley

  0.1

  10.3

  8.2

  2.6

  0.0

  21.1

  Doncaster

  0.2

  12.2

  12.5

  2.7

  0.0

  27.6

  Leicestershire

  0.2

  32.1

  35.2

  7.3

  0.1

  74.8

  Lincolnshire

  0.7

  32.4

  23.4

  7.8

  0.2

  64.5

  North Derbyshire

  0.1

  17.7

  15.2

  3.1

  0.0

  36.2

  North Nottinghamshire

  0.1

  18.3

  11.5

  3.0

  0.1

  32.9

  Nottingham

  0.1

  22.1

  17.3

  5.0

  0.1

  44.6

  Rotherham

  0.1

  23.3

  11.5

  1.8

  0.0

  36.7

  Sheffield

  0.3

  20.6

  21.5

  4.2

  0.0

  46.6

  South Humber

  0.3

  14.2

  14.2

  3.2

  0.0

  32.0

  Southern Derbyshire

  0.3

  24.1

  18.2

  4.9

  0.0

  47.5

  Total for Trent region

  2.4

  227.2

  188.8

  45.5

  0.5

  464.5

  West Midlands region

  Birmingham

  1.4

  40.8

  55.3

  6.7

  0.0

  104.3

  Coventry

  0.2

  14.3

  16.7

  3.2

  0.0

  34.4

  Dudley

  0.2

  13.2

  12.5

  3.5

  0.0

  29.4

  Herefordshire

  0.2

  6.2

  6.4

  1.4

  0.1

  14.2

  North Staffordshire

  0.2

  22.4

  16.9

  5.0

  0.0

  44.6

  Sandwell

  0.2

  11.7

  11.8

  2.4

  0.0

  26.1

  Shropshire

  0.3

  18.4

  15.0

  3.9

  0.1

  37.6

  Solihull

  0.2

  6.3

  6.1

  1.8

  0.0

  14.3

  South Staffordshire

  0.4

  25.6

  16.0

  4.8

  0.1

  46.9

  Walsall

  0.1

  14.6

  11.6

  2.2

  0.0

  28.4

  Warwickshire

  0.3

  22.2

  16.8

  5.4

  0.1

  44.7

  Wolverhampton

  0.1

  11.6

  10.8

  1.6

  0.0

  24.0

  Worcestershire

  0.6

  23.8

  14.9

  3.7

  0.1

  43.2

  Total for West Midlands region

  4.3

  231.2

  210.8

  45.6

  0.4

  492.3

  England

  25.6

  2,147.2

  2,083.9

  456.2

  5.1

  4,717.9

  1 Charged prescription items include those where a charge was made at the point of dispensing and where a patient has a pre-payment certificate.

  Notes:

  1. The analysis of the data for non-charged categories is based on a 1 in 20 sample of all exempt prescriptions submitted to the Prescription Pricing Authority by community pharmacists, appliance contractors, and dispensing doctors. Personally administered items are free of charge.

  2. Antipsychotics are defined in the British National Formulary (BNF) paragraph 4.2.1, antipsychotic drugs. Atypical antipsychotics cover the drugs Amisulpride, Clozapine, Olanzapine, Quetiapine, Risperidone and Zotepine contained within BNF 4.2.1.

  Poisons
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department will publish an annual report of all poisonings recorded by the National Poisons Information Service. [60629]

  Ms Blears
  A copy of the combined annual report of the National Poisons Information Service centres for the year 2000 will be placed in the Library. The combined report for 2001 is not yet available but it will be placed in the Library in due course. The hon. Member may wish to know that in future it is intended to produce a single annual report for the National Poisons Information 1338W
  Service for publication on a wider basis once enhancements to the data collection and analysis systems are completed to enable all centres to record compatible information on the inquiries they receive.

  Stroke
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many social workers are(a) working in rehabilitative services for stroke victims and (b) working in stroke units in hospitals. [60134]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Coronary Care
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what services are available to those who survive heart attacks; and how often these patients were observed after leaving hospital in the last 12 months. [57817]

  Ms Blears
  The "National Service Framework" (NSF) for coronary heart disease, published in March 2000, sets out the standards of care for the national health service and others to help people who have had a heart attack, with action for secondary care, primary care and rehabilitation services.

  The immediate priority identified in the NSF is increasing the use of effective medication for patients who have had a heart attack, following discharge from hospital. Effective medication includes aspirin, statins, beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors. Prescribing will depend on individual circumstances. The myocardial infarction national audit project established by the Royal College of Physicians indicates that the targets set out in the NSF for prescription of effective medication are now being achieved nationally.

  How often patients are observed after leaving hospital will depend on individual patient needs.

  Osteoporosis
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the operations postponed due to osteoporotic hip fractures were cancelled operations in(a) Hull and the East Riding and (b) England and Wales, in the last two quarters for which figures are available. [57575]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on the number of operations postponed or cancelled due to osteoporotic hip fractures are not available, as no information is collected on the reasons for cancellations.

  Data on the number of operations cancelled in England by the hospital for non-clinical reasons on, or after, the day the patient was due to be admitted are available in the Library.

  Information about health services in Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Smoking
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of people in the UK who smoke, broken down by region. [59793]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 June 2000]: The information is given in the table.

  Estimated percentage and number of current cigarette smokers, among adults aged 16 and over, by region United Kingdom, 2000

  Region

  Percentage

  Number1

  United Kingdom

  27

  12,900,000

  England

  27

  10,700,000

  NHS regional office areas in England2

  Northern and Yorkshire

  28

  1,400,000

  Trent

  26

  1,100,000

  West Midlands

  26

  1,100,000

  North West

  29

  1,500,000

  Eastern

  25

  1,100,000

  1340W

  Estimated percentage and number of current cigarette smokers among adults aged 16 and over, by region United Kingdom, 2000

  Region

  Percentage

  Number1

  London

  27

  1,600,000

  South East

  25

  1,800,000

  South West

  27

  1,100,000

  Wales

  25

  600,000

  Scotland

  30

  1,200,000

  Northern Ireland

  29

  400,000

  1 Estimated number of smokers rounded to the nearest one hundred thousand.

  2 NHS regional office areas are as at 31 March 2002.

  Note:

  The number of smokers has been calculated using the 1991 census based population estimates for mid-year 2000, aged 16 and over (provided by the Office for National Statistics to the Department. of Health).

  Sources:

  Prevalence of smoking:

  (a) Office for National Statistics: General Household Survey 2000, published as 'Living in Britain: Results from the 2000 General Household Survey'.

  (b) Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency: Continuous Household Survey 2000.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the relationship between the incidence of smoking in particular regions of the UK and the amount of NHS health funding allocated to that region. [59794]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The prevalence of current cigarette smoking by region and the health authority total allocation by region are shown in the tables.

  The national health service resource allocations take account of a number of factors including population size, age related need and relative need. Smoking prevalence is strongly related to socio-economic group, with prevalence higher in manual groups than non-manual groups. The resource allocation per capita tends to be higher in regions with above average prevalence and conversely, lower in regions with below average prevalence.

  Table 1: Prevalence of current cigarette smoking among adults aged 16 and over, by regional office area, England, 2000

  Regional office area1

  Percentage of cigarette smokers

  England

  27

  Northern and Yorkshire

  28

  Trent

  26

  West Midlands

  26

  North West

  29

  Eastern

  25

  London

  27

  South East

  25

  South West

  27

  1 NHS Regional Office Areas as at 31 March 2002.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics: General Household Survey 2000, published as 'Living in Britain: Results from the 2000 General Household Survey'.
  1341W

  Table 2: Health authority total allocation by regional office area for 2002–03

  NHS regional office area1

  Total allocation(£000)

  England

  41,468,469

  Northern and Yorkshire

  5,420,886

  Trent

  4,197,552

  West Midlands

  4,324,033

  North West

  5,829,741

  Eastern

  4,096,433

  London

  6,974,051

  South East

  6,694,368

  South West

  3,931,405

  1 NHS Regional Office areas are as at 31 March 2002.

  Source:

  Department of Health RD Resource Allocation

  Human Genetics Commission
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the letter of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford of 16 April (ref DOH/3/5653/16), what action the Human Genetics Commission is recommending in relation to Japan Tobacco, Corixa, and lung cancer vaccine licensing. [57133]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The human genetics commission (HGC) is aware of the concerns surrounding US-patented lung cancer vaccines that have been licensed to an overseas tobacco firm. HGC will continue to consider the broader ethical and social implications of the patenting of genetic inventions and will take note of the findings of various reviews of patenting and intellectual property rights that are under way.

  Hepatitis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines for implementing the antiviral treatment for hepatitis C. [60524]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: Copies of the guidance on the use of Ribavirin and Interferon Alpha for Hepatitis C from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) have been placed in the Library. The uidance is also available on NICE's website at http://www.nice.org.uk/cat.asp?c=11657.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much extra funding he plans to provide for the prevention of diabetes over the next five years; and if he will make a statement; [60122]

  (2) how much is spent in (a) England and (b) Gloucestershire on the treatment of diabetes; and if he will make a statement; [60120]

  (3) what extra funds he is providing to fund the National Service Framework; and if he will make a statement. [60119]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: Information is not collected centrally on how much is spent on the treatment of diabetes, nor is information available on expenditure on the treatment of diabetes in
  1342W
  Gloucestershire. However, it has been estimated that around 5 per cent. of total national health service resources are used for the care of people with diabetes.

  The Budget provides the highest sustained growth in NHS history, with annual average increases of 7.4 per cent. in real terms over the five years 2003–04 to 2007–08. Decisions about the allocation of the increased funding will be announced later this year.

  Prevention of diabetes is one of the key areas covered by the diabetes national service framework standards, published in December 2001. Local strategies on promoting healthy eating and physical activity, and reducing overweight and obesity, are also being developed as part of the implementation of the national service framework for coronary heart disease. We are taking forward a wide range of work across Government to reduce obesity, to increase physical activity and improve diet.

  Attention Deficit Disorders
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in each of the last five years were diagnosed with(a) attention deficit disorder and (b) attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in each (i) region and (ii) health authority, broken down by age group. [60089]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally. The prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder of all types is estimated at around five per cent. of school-aged children, approximately 345,000 six to sixteen-year-olds in England.

  Food Supplements
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received concerning the impact that EU legislation on food supplements will have on the equestrian community. [60013]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not recently received any representations concerning the impact of the proposed Directive on food supplements on the equestrian community.

  Juvenile Sex Abusers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department takes to address the needs of children and young people who sexually abuse; and if he will make a statement. [57198]

  Jacqui Smith
  Social services departments should carry out an assessment of the needs of a child who has sexually abused. Such assessments should take into account that children who abuse may have considerable unmet developmental needs, as well as specific needs arising from their behaviour. A young abuser should be the subject of a child protection conference if he or she is considered personally to be at risk of continuing harm. Where there is no reason to hold a child protection conference, there may still he a need for a multi-agency approach if the young abuser's needs are complex. A plan of action should be put in place to address the needs of the young abuser, detailing the involvement of all agencies.
  1343W
  If children who abuse others are thought to have a mental health problem then they may also need to be referred to child and adolescent mental health services. Those facing serious charges need to undergo a forensic assessment and may also, in exceptional circumstances, need to be admitted to a specialist forensic unit.

  NHS Estate
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change there has been in the backlog of maintenance for the NHS estate in 2001–02. [58298]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: Backlog maintenance is defined as the cost to achieve buildings which are sound, operationally safe and exhibit only minor deterioration.

  Figures for the outturn of year 2001–02 are still being collected and validated and are therefore not yet available.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the letter from the hon. Member for Canterbury dated 12 October 2001, regarding briefing on chemical and biological attacks. [57785]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has no record of receiving the hon. Member's correspondence. The Department's ministerial correspondence unit is seeking a duplicate copy of this correspondence.

  Dr. Ali Malik
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where in the national health service Dr. Ali Malik (GMC No. (5) 195377) is employed. [57956]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not keep a register of NHS employees. However doctors are required to provide the General Medical Council (GMC) with a registered address, but this is not necessarily their place of work. The GMC publish the register on the Internet.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop qt Bristol.

Illegal Meal Imports
Lord Rotherwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to prosecute passengers for importing illegal meat.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, prosecutions are a matter for the enforcement authorities. The Government are committed to ensuring that there are effective deterrents in place. We are addressing the issues with all the agencies involved and working with them to improve intelligence sharing and to focus deterrence action for maximum impact.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, is he aware that, given the Government's present record of stopping illegal meat imports, most people would believe that this Government had little interest in halting this grisly trade? Indeed, in the past couple of years there have been only three prosecutions and those were brought under the CITES convention. Only a few aircraft have been stopped coming into Heathrow from West Africa. The passengers, when searched, were found to be carrying literally tonnes of illegal meat. When do the Government intend to get tough and prosecute these gangs and individuals who at the moment flout our laws and bring in illegal meat such as bushmeat which could cause serious animal and human diseases?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I repeat that the Government are not the prosecuting authority; prosecutions are a matter for the enforcement agencies. The noble Lord is, of course, right to the extent that there has been detection of illegal meat. By and large that meat was not of itself likely to cause animal disease but did present a public hygiene problem and possibly a problem as regards endangered species. Clearly, the Government's intention is to reduce the motivation for bringing in such meat, to increase the deterrents and to involve the airlines, the port authorities and the enforcement authorities in minimising that trade.
Earl Peel: My Lords, given the threat to which my noble friend referred and given the very real concern that exists within the farming community, bearing in mind that both foot and mouth and swine fever probably both came in on the back of illegally imported meat, do not the Government accept that, instead of having several agencies which are
254
responsible for this problem, the time is now right to have one sole agency that is properly funded with the correct level of personnel and the ability to buy all the necessary surveillance equipment in order to deal with this very real problem?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the relative jurisdictions of the various agencies is one of the issues that the Government are addressing. To change the structure of jurisdiction would require legislation and is therefore a medium-term prospect. In the meantime we are looking at co-operation and better co-ordination and the prioritisation of those authorities which exist which, of course, have wider responsibilities than stopping illegal meat imports.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, why do we not take this matter as seriously as do Australia and New Zealand? Is the Minister aware that dogs can be trained to search out human bodies? Such animals could successfully tackle the problem we are discussing if there were enough of them.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government take the matter seriously. The situation in Australia and New Zealand is different from that in the UK. We are part of a single market and the vast majority of goods and people who enter the UK travel from other EU countries. The external EU regime is the important issue here. We have raised with the Commission the need to tighten restrictions in that regard. Our own enforcement measures may indeed benefit from the use of dogs and we intend to give that a trial run. However, it would not be a case of using the same dogs to seek out illegal meat as those that seek out illegal immigrants or drugs. Although that is one aspect of enforcement and detection. it is not perhaps the most important one.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Noble Lords: The Liberals!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, other meat is still coming into this country. We do not appear to have enough people to check meat that is imported from countries where various diseases exist. Have we now a plan to check these ordinary imports coming in through our ports?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards commercial traffic, there is a full check on the documentation of all imports of meat and meat products. The procedure varies a little according to the provenance of the products concerned, but in general at least one in five is physically checked. There is, therefore, a high level of checking. In addition, there is targeted checking of those products in relation to which intelligence indicates that there might be a problem. There is already, therefore, a high level of checking at the ports of containers used in the supposedly legal trade.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I declare an interest as a trader in livestock. I was glad to note that

255
the Government have empowered local authority inspectors to stop and search passengers. However, does that extend also to port health authorities? Recently, EU inspectors issued a critical report on the way in which we conducted our hygiene inspections. Do the Government have any plans to direct more vets to that task?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the points raised by the EU inspectors are being addressed by the Government. The additional powers to search relate to the environmental health officers and port officers.
Baroness Strange: My Lordsx2014;
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, there was an unfortunate misunderstanding earlier, and I think that we should hear the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise for crossing the wires; I did not mean to. I have a very short question. The noble Lord said—or implied—that the Government will do nothing and that they will leave the matter to the prosecuting authorities. Is he aware that that is a profoundly unsatisfactory answer?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, of all people, would understand that it is not the job of the Government to prosecute and that it is their job to ensure adequate resources, deterrence, information and intelligence to minimise the threat of the entry of illegal imports. That is the Government's job. It is the prosecuting authorities who take decisions to prosecute.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Boston airport in America is filled with beagles wearing green coats with "sniffer dog" written on them and that those dogs smell out imported foodstuffs?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the regime that confronts travellers into the United States. That is clearly part of that country's way of engaging in deterrence. It is also, however, regrettably true that a large amount of illegal meat finds its way into the United States across its frontiers. Even such a regime is not a complete failsafe for keeping out illegal meat.

Commonwealth Development Corporation
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Rawlingsasked Her Majesty's Government:
How far their policy of eliminating poverty dictates their Commonwealth Development Corporation investments.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, all investments by CDC must be, in the opinion of the directors, for the benefit of a developing country. The investment policy requires 70 per cent of CDC's investments to be for the benefit of poorer countries. Individual investments must of course be approved by the board, not by the Government.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. This is, I believe, the noble Baroness's first time at the Dispatch Box.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Rawlings: I therefore congratulate a former colleague from the European Parliament and wish her the best of luck in her new post.
Does the Minister agree that one manner in which CDC Capital Partners might improve its capacity to reduce poverty would be to have greater interface between CDC Capital Partners and DfID officials in the countries in which they work? What is being done to improve the interaction between CDC and DfID employees on the ground?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. It is good to have an opportunity to acknowledge her work and commitment in this area. She is absolutely right. We cannot be complacent about communication between DfID officials and CDC. The Government believe that that communication is very good, but it can always be improved. The noble Baroness will know that DfID employs 35 enterprise development advisers and field managers in poor countries and in the UK and that it currently has a portfolio of project commitments totalling more than £200 million. I agree that we should never be complacent but the arrangement is doing well.
Lord Judd: My Lords, it is good and encouraging to see the Minister bringing her experience to this new role. Does she agree that one of the most important elements in the distinguished history of CDC is that it has had a hands-on approach in which a priority is building up local talent to manage genuinely locally based enterprise? Is it not terribly important to ensure that CDC is not now tempted to go along the road of becoming just another financial institution£another merchant bank?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords. I thank my noble friend for that question. He is absolutely right to talk of the respect for CDC's responsible handling of business development in developing countries, particularly in poorer developing countries. He should have confidence in the fact that when investments have been sold, this was done responsibly. When CDC sells businesses, it seeks to sell them to companies that are better placed to take them on to the next stage of their commercial development. I refer, for example, to

257
CDC's Ugandan tea business, Rwenzori Highlands Tea Company, which was sold to Finlays, which has a very good international reputation as a tea specialist.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, as the Minister is new to her responsibilities, I wonder whether she is aware that investments made by the new management, CDC Capital Partners, which are expected to earn a full risk-adjusted return, cost the British taxpayer £61 million on capital of £406 million two years ago and another £162 million on capital of £521 million last year. At the same time, the traditional agricultural investments, which are being run down, actually made a profit of £11 million. Why is CDC's sole shareholder—the British taxpayer—gambling on mobile phone networks and Internet ventures? She referred to Rwenzori in Uganda, which is being sold. It is investing in a shopping mall to which ordinary Ugandans cannot afford to go.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I do not agree with the premise of the noble Lord's question. I believe that investments by CDC in services such as telecommunications and energy and in its property portfolio—the noble Lord talked about shopping malls—are very important, particularly so far as concerns energy. That is of benefit to poor people— both the rural and urban poor. Telecommunications is also important if we are to enable people to go from a position of simply being sustained in rural agriculture, for example, to medium and long-term economic development for their countries.

Clergy: Employment Status Review
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I state my interest. I am a member and former official of the union, MSF—now Amicus—to which a number of clergy belong.
The Question was as follows:
When their consultation paper affecting employment status for clergy will be published.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, DTI officials have met Church authorities from different faiths and representatives of the clergy from the Amicus union to discuss the employment status review. We are aiming to publish a discussion document on employment status, which will include the issue of the status of the clergy, before the end of July.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. However, does he agree that in the 21st century it is unacceptable for any group of employees to be outside the provisions of employment law, perhaps with no remedy against
258
unfair dismissal and, in the case of women, no remedy against sexual discrimination? Should this issue not be resolved as quickly as possible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the faiths take the view that being in the clergy is a vocation. It is a spiritual vocation rather than employment and. therefore, office-holder status is more appropriate. Of course, these issues will be debated in the discussion document. However, conformity with the Sex Discrimination Act will not be covered by the discussion document because exemptions relating to the clergy appear in that Act.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have received a stipend and have some responsibility for the clergy and their posts. Nevertheless, does the Minister accept, as I believe he already has done, that it may not be appropriate to extend statutory employment rights to clergy if, for example, it can be demonstrated that to do so would be incompatible with their vocational character of ordained ministry? Is he also aware that the Church of England has already taken significant steps to improve the working conditions of the clergy and that it continues to do so?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as one office-holder to another, I acknowledge what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol says. Indeed, it is the view not only of the Church of England but of other Churches and other faiths that office-holder status is more appropriate. But, of course, under those circumstances, there is a certain responsibility on the Churches to provide their own protection for their clergy. I understand that there is some movement towards that in the clergy discipline measure, which will go to the Ecclesiastical Committee shortly.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, if clergy receive stipends from religious bodies, can the Minister clarify whether they are regarded as employees. although some may consider that they are working directly for a superior entity—their Creator?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those who receive stipends are not considered to be employees but office-holders. Of course, some clergy, such as chaplains in the Prison Service or the Armed Forces, are employees in the conventional sense and are serving Mammon rather than God.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while the Church may be legally exempt from the terms and conditions of the Equal Pay Act, not providing equal pay is not in keeping with the spirit of the legislation? Would it not be better if the Church were open about its conditions so that we could all see that it was working towards equal pay and equality between the sexes?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, clearly there are many ways in which clergy in the Church of

259
England and other faiths do not receive the benefits of employment legislation. Reference has been made to unfair dismissal. Questions also arise in relation to terms and conditions of service—maternity and paternity leave, the working time directive and the minimum wage—as well as in relation to the issue of equal pay. The discussion document will be about all forms of atypical workers, including the clergy. It will include, for example, home workers. If employment status is not to be conferred, one issue that will have to be resolved as a result of the discussion document is how protection is to be given to such people.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, could it be that part of the confusion arises from the distinction between the words "employee" and "worker"? Can the Minister say what stage the review of that distinction, promised by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry during the Second Reading of the Employment Bill on 27th November, has reached? It was promised that the review would take place in the early part of this year but we are now in June. It is a very important issue.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that that is quite the same issue. The distinction between a "worker" and an "employee" is important but it does not involve the clergy. If the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is referring to the review of Section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999—I believe that she is because she has shown a great interest in this matter—then I can say that we shall be undertaking the review as we agreed.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the clergy's interpretation is that these jobs have a spiritual aspect. But does the Minister agree that they are still jobs and therefore should be subject to the coverage explained by my noble friend? The fact that the Sex Discrimination Act exempts such people means that that Act is lacking in its provisions. Therefore, coverage should be given, regardless of what the clergy say and of what the present Act says. It is inadequate and wrong.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was asked when the discussion document would appear. I answered that it would appear before the end of July. It will cover exactly the points raised by my noble friend Lord Ashley and others. They are legitimate points and they should he responded to properly. It would be wrong for me to pre-judge now from this Dispatch Box what the results of the consultation will be.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government considered the fact that the clergy are taking certain cases to the European Court? It would be rather sad if decisions relating to the clergy were decided by the European Court rather than by
260
Her Majesty's Government and the Ecclesiastical Committee. Have the Government taken note of that fact?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have taken note of the fact that, in particular, the Reverend Ray Owen is petitioning the European Parliament. Clearly, there are relevant European directives about employment rights and we adhere to those directives. We shall take a great interest in the outcome of the Reverend Ray Owen's case.
Earl Russell: My Lords, while I can understand why it might be held that the Sex Discrimination Act is not the most appropriate weapon for the clergy, will the Minister venture a lay opinion as to whether the text of St Paul, that
"in Christ there is neither male nor female",
might be thought to have any relevance to the issue of equal pay?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. Given my known views about religion, I am the last person who should venture such an opinion.

Afghanistan: Security
2.59 p.m.
Lord Burnhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they intend to make to the proposal by the president of the World Bank that donors to the World Bank should separately contribute to the funding of a trained and disciplined Afghan army as a necessary element in rebuilding that country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, security in Afghanistan is vital if the current political and reconstruction processes are to succeed. A properly trained army under central control is an essential element. The UK is willing to commit resources to that end. provided that there is a framework for security sector reform, accountability for the use of funds and a programme to reintegrate former combatants.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, it is a question of whether the World Bank could take part. What information does he have as to whether this country and other countries will be potential or actual donors to such a scheme if it comes into operation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, indicates, by its constitution the World Bank is unable to contribute for military or, indeed, police purposes. In a speech in Kabul last month, the president of the World Bank, Jim Wolfensohn, appealed to members of the World Bank as individual countries to set up trust funds for these purposes. He recognised the importance of military and security issues in Afghanistan. We have been

261
responding positively to that. We have already dedicated 33 million dollars for security sector reform as part of our global conflict prevention pool. Money from that will he in part for army salaries. Along with other nations, we are taking an active part in work to that end.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister noted the views expressed by Mr Ahmed Rashid, the well-known expert on Afghanistan, in an article in the Daily Telegraph on 8th June, that one of the factors fuelling warlordism is the lack of funds and the lack of aid projects on the ground? Can the Minister tell the House how much of the 1·8 billion dollars. pledged at the Tokyo donors conference, has been paid over? I know that the United Kingdom has a good record on this matter.
Can the noble Lord tell the House what progress has been made in setting up the Afghanistan reconstruction trust fund, which is another proposal by the World Bank? It was supposed to lead to a donors' meeting in June and to the appointment of a donors committee this month. Has that been accomplished? Would not it be better to concentrate on those ventures rather than to go off at a tangent and consider the security issue separately?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept that this is going off at a tangent. I do not think we can have effective aid measures unless there is peace in the areas in which those aid measures are taking effect. The two are completely complementary. Unless there is an army, border guards, a police service and a judiciary, there will not be the conditions in which aid will go to those for whom it is intended, and it will not be properly used.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the Afghan reconstruction trust fund. That is, indeed, what the World Bank is working on. He told the House about the plans for progress in the next month or two. My understanding is that those plans are on course.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while security is an essential element in ensuring a proper reconstruction programme in Afghanistan, if peace and stability are to be secured we must be careful that a tendency does not develop whereby governments—perhaps not our own but others—may be tempted to see security as a military matter and to put military operations ahead of the essential top priority of economic and social development.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my response is the same as that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I do not believe that we shall see the delivery of aid in the broader sense that he wants unless there is social peace and law and order in these countries. That is certainly the view of the World Bank, which is why it has appealed to individual countries to support the security sector programmes. If we kept to the present situation, we would have the regional commanders in effect employing the only armed people in Afghanistan. The Afghan Government
262
cannot afford to pay them. If they are paid for by the regional commanders they will not be under central control and there will not be a guarantee of security for, apart from anything else, aid workers.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, now that we know from reports of international Human Rights Watch that the regional commanders and regional warlords in particular are manipulating the process of democratic reform by putting their placemen in position to run the country in future, surely the whole process of setting up the central military operation should be accelerated. Does my noble friend have any idea how long it will take to establish that military structure, which is so important for Afghanistan?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do riot think it would be appropriate, on the second day of the Loya Jirgah, which started only yesterday and is due to continue until next Sunday, for me to anticipate the results and how far the regional commanders will succeed in coming together to produce a stable and democratic government. The conclusion drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. about the urgent need for military and police forces in Afghanistan is entirely correct.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the greatest threat to security in Afghanistan comes from warlords and residual terrorist groups? Does he agree that that shows the continued importance of the war on terrorism and the need to support the newly-appointed president, Hamid Karzai? What is being done to strengthen Hamid Karzai's capacity to govern in the name of all Afghans from each ethnic group?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not aware that we have a final outcome of the election or appointment of a president in Afghanistan. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, is better informed. However, as I indicated in a previous Answer, there will never be a secure civil society in Afghanistan so long as there are armed bands controlled by and responsible to those regional commanders. If that is the thrust of her question. I agree with the noble Baroness.

Andy Hood
3.7 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they endorse the move of Andy Hood, special adviser at the Ministry of Defence, from that post to join a PR company; and whether such a move is consistent with the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, Mr Hood made an application to join Brunswick Group under

263
the normal procedures. His application was considered in the normal way by MoD officials and a decision was made that no condition should be imposed upon Mr Hood taking up this appointment. All that is entirely in line with procedures applicable to special advisers.
These procedures, set out in the Civil Service management code, allow for applications from special advisers to be dealt with in that way.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may make clear at the outset that my concern is not with Mr Hood per se but with the underlying principle that has seen a steady stream of government advisers find alternative employment in the private sector.
Regardless of whether or not there is a conflict of interest in this case, do not the Government realise how that sort of action plays with public perception? Does the Minister accept that if it is appropriate for Ministers of the Crown to be subject to a period of purdah before taking up outside appointments, it is just as appropriate for special advisers? Would not that ensure that the prized impartiality of the Civil Service is not only upheld but is also being seen to be upheld?
Lord Bach: My Lords, there is no issue of principle here. The time of the House is being wasted, and I shall tell the House why. This application was approved without condition. Mr Hood had no dealings with his prospective employer when he was a special adviser and had no routine dealings with commercially sensitive information about any company. The noble Earl is wrong when he says that there must be a gap for senior civil servants. Everything depends on what job the senior civil servant is doing and to what job he or she may or may not be moving. The same applies to special advisers, as it did in this case. I really must invite the noble Earl not always to believe everything he hears on the radio.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I understand that that was cleared by MoD officials. But there is obviously great sensitivity about special advisers. I, indeed, employed a special adviser who himself subsequently moved to a lobbying company. Special arrangements were made and the move was carefully considered before he went. That needs to be done. But I trust that it was considered centrally as well. Was it done through the Cabinet Office and the Cabinet Secretary, or was it, as I understand, done through the committee that approves appointments of people moving from the Civil Service into the private sector?
Clearly, there needs to be a common approach, because otherwise, exactly the point made by my noble friend is valid. There will be suspicion and concern that the gentleman concerned will have knowledge that in
264
certain circumstances will be valuable to a private-sector company. It is most important that the Government protect the integrity of the public service from that position.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reasonable approach. Of course he is right that these things should be done properly. Our case is that in this case they were done absolutely properly.
If I may, I shall take a little time to explain what happened. When Mr Hood received an offer of employment from Brunswick, he followed the established business appointment procedures and provided the MoD with full details of his proposed future employment. MoD officials consulted Cabinet Office officials on the procedures that should apply in handling his application. The Cabinet Office advised that, in accordance with the Civil Service management code, it needed to be consulted only if the MoD judged that Mr Hood had had official dealings with his prospective employer at any time during his period of Crown service and there appeared to be a risk of criticism. MoD officials were satisfied on those grounds that the application did not need to be referred to the Cabinet Office. The decision on Mr Hood's application was therefore taken by MoD officials with the approval of the Permanent Secretary.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as I served for eight years on the committee on appointments of retired public servants the committee referred to by my noble friend Lord King and we prescribed periods of quarantine for a number of distinguished persons who were leaving public service, may I ask whether this case has been referred to that committee or an equivalent body?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's question, but of course I shall find out and let him know. Had Mr Hood had close involvement with defence companies while he was in the MoD and had his position at Brunswick involved work with clients, which it does not, the management code might have imposed a condition. But, as I said, that did not apply in this case.
Lord Roper: My Lords, while accepting what the Minister said about this particular case, is there not concern that special advisers, because of their contacts with Ministers and their access to high-level policy decisions, ought perhaps to be treated in the same way as senior civil servants? Does the Minister accept that we have pressed for some time from these Benches for consultation and the preparation of a Civil Service Act, so that those matters can be clarified?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the Government are certainly committed to Civil Service legislation. Indeed, I agree with what he says about the way in which both special advisers and senior civil servants should be treated.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, given the useful and informative exchange of questions and answers that

265
we have had, will the Minister now consider withdrawing his remark that my noble friend Lord Northesk was wasting the House's time?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord puts it so gracefully that of course I will.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am so glad that the Minister has taken back that remark, because it was going to prevent me thanking the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House sincerely for allowing this Private Notice Question.
Is the Minister aware that at the end of an excellent debate in your Lordships' House on 1st May, his colleague, the Cabinet Office Minister, gave many noble Lords the impression that the Government had lost their appetite for a Civil Service Act? I think that that was partly because the debate coincided with the publication of an interview with the Cabinet Secretary in which he expressed in print his view that there was no need for such an Act as we have managed perfectly well without one for hundreds of years.
I again ask the Minister, on the lines of the question asked by my noble friend Lord Roper, to confirm that the Government intend to introduce a Civil Service Bill in this Parliament to deal with matters such as this. Will he tell us what is the status of the consultation on that Bill and what is the timetable for its introduction?
Lord Bach: My Lords, to some extent, I repeat, the Government are committed to legislation for the Civil Service and plan to consult fully in advance of its introduction. It is important, as the noble Lord made clear in his question, but no government would commit themselves firmly to a detailed timetable in respect of their future legislative programme. I do not think that the noble Lord expected any other answer.

Milford Haven Port Authority Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Land at Palace Avenue, Kensington (Acquisition of Freehold) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Tax Credits Bill
3.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): I beg to move that this Report be now received.
266
Moved, That the Report be now receivd.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, before we decide whether to receive this Report, I raise a matter of which I have given the Minister prior notice regarding the way in which the Bill has been handled.
Immediately before—the day before—the Bill entered the Grand Committee a large number of government amendments were tabled to it—so many amendments and so late, indeed, that it was decided that the appropriate course of action was to cancel the first day in Committee upstairs. It is not unusual for a large number of government amendments to be tabled at short notice, but these amendments were not concerned with policy or tabled in response to points made in another place. They were what the Minister herself described as drafting or technical amendments. It would be far more appropriate to describe them as restructuring amendments because, as the Minister herself pointed out, there are fundamental inconsistencies—indeed, she used the word "contradictions"—between the earlier and later parts of the Bill. It is fundamentally flawed.
Rarely in almost 40 years in both Houses have I seen such a badly drafted Bill—in fact I probably never have. But this Bill does not come before us at its first stage. It has already passed through all its stages in another place. It was considered under a heavy so-called Programme Motion, which caused the time available for debate to be very limited. Indeed, Part 2 was not considered at all in another place. Clearly, the Opposition in another place were under considerable time restraints, but the legislation also passed through all of its stages in another place without the Minister responsible for the Bill realising that it contained such fundamental flaws.
Consequently, it seemed appropriate to us when the Committee finally met to ask the noble Baroness to inquire into the position. As always, she was extremely courteous and apologised on behalf of the Government. Naturally, we accepted her apology. But that does not cover the question of accountability. Apologies do not make the Government accountable. The crucial questions are: what went wrong in this case and what should be done about it? The relevant rules were examined in great detail by the Treasury Select Committee and the Liaison Committee in another place in 1985–86. They considered the precedents, including, in particular, the Crichel Down case—a famous case that, I regret to say, is referred to in the Hansard report of the Grand Committee as the "trickledown" case.
The position that emerged after the Westland affair and all that controversy was clear. Ministers are accountable to Parliament, and, if something has gone wrong in a department, the right course of action for the Minister is to inquire into the matter and report hack to the House on what has gone wrong. It is not at all clear what went wrong here. Did the draftsman simply have a mental breakdown? Was he replaced by another draftsman, who realised what a horrible mess had been made of drafting the Bill? Was it that

267
responsibility for the Bill fell between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury? We really do not know what the reasons were, but, if the Government are to be held accountable, we are entitled to know that the Minister has examined the matter thoroughly. She should report to the House what has happened and what steps have been taken to prevent its recurrence.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I think that I am entitled to say a few words—not many—on the background to the issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, a number of government amendments were tabled very late indeed. That was unfortunate. It is part of a tendency, which has been growing for a good many centuries, to regard Parliament as a rubber stamp for laws made by Ministers.
None of us regards the Minister as being in the least degree responsible for the error. She is accountable for it. She discharged that accountability with distinction. First, she owed us an apology, and she gave us a wholehearted and genuine one that I welcomed and accepted. She owed us her best efforts to help us understand what the amendments meant: she gave us that, even to the extent of providing us, well in advance, with her speaking notes. I, for one, found those notes extremely helpful in understanding the meaning of the amendments before I had to reach a decision on them. Finally, she had to persuade us that the amendments were clear, sensible, meaningful and useful to the Bill: she succeeded in that, too.
In those circumstances, the Minister discharged her accountability to the House with distinction. Any Opposition is, of course, entitled to a pound of flesh when such a mistake is made. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, had his pound of flesh in Committee, but, as proceedings in Grand Committee are nearly in secret session, he was entitled to let the House know what had happened. He has done so, and he was right to do so. However, I cannot agree that he should ask that any further blame fall on the Minister.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am not blaming the Minister.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that correction; I am glad that it is now in the record. It was generous of him.
As I believe the amendments to be thoroughly beneficial and sensible, I do not intend to make any further fuss about them. Anyone who followed the proceedings of another place yesterday will appreciate how vital it is to this House that we do not have a guillotine. They will also appreciate that that freedom depends on the exercise of self-restraint. I shall say nothing more about any further groups of amendments dealing with the late government amendments. However, should there be a Division on any of those groups, those of us on these Benches will vote with the Government.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Higgins said. However, I am sure that all
268
those who participated in the Committee share the opinion of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The Minister was most helpful, clear and forthright in explaining the position. Your Lordships should be grateful to her for that.
There is an important point of principle and procedure involved, however. Does the Minister agree that the proposal—currently under consideration—that a draft Bill be examined before the actual Bill is introduced, in a bid to avoid problems with late amendments, would not cover a Bill such as this, for which there is a definite timetable? This Bill must be completed and introduced by the commencement of the next tax year, and certain constraints apply to such a Bill that would not apply to other Bills. I see that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House is in his place. Might not the Government consider whether, in such exceptional circumstances, additional resources might be made available to parliamentary counsel? Alternatively, the priorities of parliamentary counsel might be reordered, which might be for the convenience not only of this House but of Parliament as a whole.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if I cannot express my appreciation of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has raised this matter, I can, at least, express appreciation of the tone in which he did so. I also appreciate the supportive remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the frank and generous response of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman.
I am happy to repeat the apologies from my department and from the Government. No one wishes to impede, in any sense, the proper scrutiny of legislation by tabling amendments late. What happened was undesirable and extremely unfortunate. I regret that it happened, and, as your Lordships have been kind enough to acknowledge, that regret is sincere, if only because the matter loses me all my moral leverage in trying to bully the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, into putting his amendments down in good time. In many ways, I am the loser in all of this.
As your Lordships have acknowledged, the amendments were entirely technical. I take the point about restructuring in relation to one clause, but the amendments sought, for example, to change the word "revoke" for the word "terminate" or to change the word "entitlement" for the word "award". We were trying to clarify what everyone has acknowledged to be a difficult and technical Bill that seeks to integrate a tax and benefit system. If, on reflection, my honourable friend the Paymaster General thought it sensible to make the amendments, even at that late stage, for the sake of clarity, it was right for us to do so, given that it is a major piece of legislation. I say that even though, as I said, I regret that the changes were not proposed earlier.
I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. for acknowledging the fact that, although the amendments were tabled late, we did what we could to redress the imbalance of information that would otherwise have resulted. I would not wish to be put in that position. Even though the noble Lord.

269
Lord Higgins, might take my assurance that the amendments were technical, he and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, needed time to get their heads around the amendments to be confident that they were what 1 said they were. If I say that something is true because I say so arid I am speaking for the Government, it is not always the case that it will be believed automatically. So I provided my speaking notes and offered additional briefing, and, with the co-operation of the Opposition—for which I am grateful—we deferred the first day of Committee. In practice, it turned out that there was a full week between the tabling of the amendments and the first discussion of them, thanks to the co-operation of the Opposition.
Where do we go from here? The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, went on to say that he wanted an inquiry that reported to the House. With respect, I do not think that that would be helpful. There was a mistake, which should not have happened, and I shall certainly do my best to ensure that it does not happen again. I regret it very much. However, I do not think that any report that named individual civil servants and the like would be helpful. If it helps, I am happy to arrange a meeting between the noble Lord and my honourable friend the Paymaster General so that he can air his concerns and discuss with her the issues that have arisen. I have failed to allay the noble Lord's concerns, but she may be able to do so. That would be an appropriate way forward. If the noble Lord is still not satisfied after that, he can, of course, pursue the matter.
I am not sure that I can do any more than I have done, but, if the noble Lord wishes to pursue the matter, I suggest that he allow me to offer him such a meeting with my honourable friend. I ask him not to pursue the option of an inquiry that would name individuals. I cannot do that; I take responsibility at the Dispatch Box. If the noble Lord wants further meetings with officials or any additional briefing—I am happy to snow him under with any amount of paper—I am happy to pursue that line. Having said that, I offer my apologies again and express my appreciation of the tone in which your Lordships have raised the matter.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as always the noble Baroness has been most gracious. Of course we accept her apology, as well as all that she has said. She has gone to considerable lengths both to put the matter right and to ensure that procedures are carried out efficiently. We are grateful for that because in this House we have a working arrangement which enables us properly to scrutinise legislation. I may well take up the kind offer that she has made. Again, I should like to thank her for her extremely forthcoming response.
One very clear moral may be drawn from this tale: the system of programming in another place is not giving that House the time to do its job properly. Had this Bill not been scrutinised and amended in your Lordships' House, we would have passed, I believe, a completely unworkable piece of legislation. This is an extremely important matter.
270
Perhaps I may make a final point. The amendments before us today will go back to be considered in another place. I understand that the original programming Motion will probably cover that as well. For that reason, Members of the other place must be given adequate time—I am sure that they will be—to consider the amendments properly once the Bill leaves this House. I am most grateful to the Minister.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Report received.
3.30 p.m.
Clause 1 [Introductory]:
Lord Saatchimoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, after first "credit" insert "or benefit"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Higgins. Before doing so, perhaps I may once again draw the attention of noble Lords to the declaration of interest which I made at the commencement of the Second Reading of this Bill.
The issue touched on by this group of amendments was debated at length in Grand Committee, but I wish to return to it again and to refer to a helpful letter which I have received front the Minister. I shall come to that in a moment.
These amendments relate to the wording of Clause 1, which makes radical changes to the Government's whole tax credit scheme. The amendments suggest that we should insert the words "or benefit" in various places after the words "tax credit". It may be considered by noble Lords that the opening amendments from these Benches turn on a particularly small and pedantic point, or perhaps a "technical" point of the kind referred to by the noble Baroness when moving various government amendments. However, I hope that I shall be able to persuade the House that this matter is neither small nor pedantic.
It could be asked what possible difference could be made by what a thing is called; whether that thing is a benefit or a credit. What is in a name? We believe that a great deal rests in a name if it touches on a hypersensitive issue of the moment; namely, the quest ion of accounting treatment. If, by changing the name of an item, its accounting treatment is changed, then the result may be that the picture of a set of accounts its altered, that any comparison made between accounts becomes more difficult, or, more generally, it becomes harder for the reader of a set of accounts to appreciate what is going on.
I shall explain the significance of those remarks. Until around only a month ago, the Government chose to bury the bad news of the impact of tax credits on the public accounts in the traditional hiding-place of creative accountants through the ages; that is, on the last page of the notes to the accounts. I have here the Red Book for 2001. On the last page of the notes we see the words,
"income tax credits which score as public expenditure under national accounting conventions".

271
That was a way of expressing the fact that the Government's treatment of tax credits did not conform with the standard accounting principles of the OECD, the result of which was that perhaps the most politically sensitive figure in the whole of the document—the so-called tax burden-—was reduced by the accounting treatment adopted by the Government. However, as I have said, that treatment did not conform with generally accepted principles.
Protests have been made over many years about the Government's treatment of tax credits which culminated, I believe, in strenuous disagreements between the Office for National Statistics and the Treasury. Then, in the latest Red Book covering the last Budget, the Government belatedly repented. In Box C2 on page 216 they announced that henceforth the treatment of tax credits would conform with generally accepted principles.
The problem is that this change is central to what the Bill is all about. The reason why our proposed change of wording—the use of the term "benefit" alongside the term "tax credit"—is so important is as follows. In Committee, several revelations—I would go so far as to say "stunning" revelations—were made to many of the economists and commentators who follow the public accounts in detail. For example, we learnt for the first time that the total amount involved in tax credits is now £15 billion per year, which is a staggering sum. Huge though that sum may be, if that £15 billion was comprised entirely of tax credits and the benefit element was small, then perhaps there would be no need for our amendments. The fuss we are making would then be a genuine waste of time, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, put it. Unfortunately, however, that is not the case.
The revelation in regard to this matter was made in a generous letter sent to me by the Minister. Of the £15 billion, some 90 per cent is not a tax credit; it is a benefit, by which I mean that the common usage of the term "tax credit" would suggest that it referred to a reduction in tax liability. In other words, if a person's tax liability is £100 and they receive a tax credit of £10, then their tax liability is reduced to £90. Everyone would understand that to be a tax credit.
In order to check that my own understanding of tax credits would be no different from that taught to anyone else, I shall quote from an accounting tutorial that I bought this morning, covering the NVQ level 2 accounting award. The book states that it is suitable for ACCA courses. It is a kind of child's guide to accounting. Under tax credits it states:
"This money comes from a reduction in the amount of tax which the employer collects from employees and pays to the Inland Revenue. This is why it is called a tax credit".
However, in her letter the Minister stated:
"The latest estimates are that about 10–11 per cent of the new tax credits will score as negative taxes in 2004–05 and later years and 89–90 per cent scoring as public expenditure".
272
That means that 90 per cent of the amount paid out in tax credits will not be a reduction in people's tax liabilities. It will exceed their tax liabilities so that, in effect, it is a benefit. That is why this matter relates closely to how it is treated in the public accounts.
It is important that the word "benefit" is used to make the position clear. When we discussed this matter in Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that the Government had accepted the distinction between a tax credit and a benefit. They had accepted that in the accounting treatment which from now on will be adopted in the Red Book. If the Government have come to recognise the distinction, will they now go to all the trouble of distinguishing between the 90 per cent that is a benefit and the 10 per cent that is a tax credit? To us it seems only reasonable to put on the face of the Bill words to the effect that the items now known as "tax credits" should be known as "tax credits or benefits". I hope that the Minister will see the amendment in the light of my argument. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, invites us to begin our proceedings as in Grand Committee—I was going to say with a philosophical debate but, after Starred Questions today, it is probably a theological debate about the nature of tax credits and whether payable tax credits ought really to be described as benefits. I suspect that there will be no meeting of minds on this issue. We discussed the matter in Grand Committee; I followed that up with a letter to his noble friend Lord Higgins in which I explained that the accountancy devices now seem to be both nationally and internationally consistent—and there is still no meeting of minds.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, made the point that a payment of money to a claimant which does not offset tax that he would otherwise have had to pay should not be called a tax credit. He prayed in aid an NVQ 2 accountancy book. His reading of that is probably the best argument I have yet heard for having an annual updating of textbooks, to the greater profitability of the authors and the greater elucidation of their readers.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, wishes to preserve the divide between those who receive support from the state by way of being required to pay less into the state's coffers and those who receive a direct payment out of those coffers. He seems to think that one form of support is perhaps more respectable than the other. I do not believe that the distinction should be preserved.
The tax credits introduced by the Bill will be much more closely aligned with traditional income tax than their predecessors, in a way which will enable the tax system to recognise family circumstances and resources. The new tax credits will run in line with the tax year, ending the six-monthly stops and starts of the present system; they will be based on the gross income of claimants for a tax year instead of on a snapshot of income around the time of claim; and they will be based on a definition of income which is much closer

273
to the tax definition of income, enabling people to use the information that they have for tax purposes for their tax credit claims as well.
The new generation of tax credits will be closely integrated with the rest of the tax system and therefore in respect of all these measures quite different from social security benefits. That is why, as a system, it is much more akin to and aligned with the tax system than with social security benefits.
Behind that lies a deeper reasoning. One of the aims of the tax credits introduced by the Bill is to overcome the divide that currently exists between different systems of support, not only to give greater continuity of support for children but to allow people more easily to move out of work, into work, and, if they fall back onto benefits again, none the less to have continuity of support and not have to change from one system to another.
If we were to accept the reasoning behind the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, it would obviate what we are trying to do—that is, to integrate the streams of support for children into a single system which you port from out of work and into work. As a result, as he will know—we discussed this at great length in Grand Committee—most families with two children on income support, for example, will gain more than £9 per week from the new child tax credit. It is a feature of the system that has been widely welcomed by the groups which campaign on child poverty issues.
We are introducing two new tax credits to replace six existing and often overlapping strands of support. This is brought out in the last of the amendments in this group which seeks to replace the word "both", referring to the two new tax credits, with the word "all".
Our structural reforms will reduce complexity and overlap. They will do away with supporting children on the test of whether their parents are in work or not; instead, it will be in terms of their income and so on. This fundamental change should be welcomed. We discussed this matter at great length in Grand Committee and I followed that up with very full letters about the accountancy arrangements. I believe that there is now no dispute that the way in which the Government account for these arrangements is consistent with ONS and OECD accountancy practices. I shall not go back over that issue again except to repeat that where tax credits are less than or equal to the tax liability of the family, this is scored as negative tax. This treatment is consistent with OECD and ONS guidance and broadly consistent with international guidance. We are transparent in our accountancy.
Behind that is the deeper reasoning that we wish to consolidate support for children in a way that encourages people into work but does not penalise them if they cannot work. We have developed a system of tax credits which aligns the support we are giving for children far more closely to the tax system than to the benefits system. For those three reasons—the transparency of our accountancy, the structural
274
thinking behind trying to integrate tax credits, and our wish to go for simplicity rather than complexity and for support rather than drawing a line between those out of work and in work—I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendments further.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I am also grateful for her reconfirmation of the Government's change of heart about the accounting treatment of these tax credits. The reason the issue has arisen is because changes in accounting treatment are a moment when people who study accounts become wary and nervous. Any change of accounting treatment, whether in a good direction or a bad direction, is a source of difficulty for readers of accounts. We would like to call a spade a spade. These tax credits are not tax credits, they are benefits—90 per cent of them are anyway.
I shall not press the point but I should like to remind the Minister of three statements that were made in a recent article. First,
"Reader understanding [of financial reports in the public sector] is sometimes felt by those who compile them to be a disadvantage".
The article goes on:
"Such reports should … minimise jargon…have a logical structure … not be unduly distorted"—
and I draw your Lordships' attention to the last phrase—
"by public relations considerations".
The importance of those comments lies in the fact that they were made by none other than the chief adviser to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the these matters, Professor Likierman. He also said in a report written with Vass that,
"Those who wish to find out what is going on are faced with major hurdles".
We need a clear, complete and comprehensible set of public accounts, to which there are not too many changes and which conform with standards of accounting practice, so that people have a chance to carry out the detective work to find out what is really happening. That is a matter of common-sense. I am grateful for the Government's assurance that that is the way matters will proceed from now on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 not moved.]
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 14, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the whole of this clause is effectively concerned with introducing two new tax credits—the child tax credit and the working tax credit—and with abolishing a series of other tax credits. One cannot help but feel that the speed with which tax credits are introduced and abolished is likely to cause some confusion.

275
The amendment seeks clarification from the Minister of a particular point. Those in outside bodies—particularly those concerned with the disabled—may be a little confused by the fact that in subsection ( 1 ) we introduce two new tax credits which do not refer to the word "disabled", whereas in subsection (3)(c) the disabled person's tax credit is abolished. That may give the impression that a disabled person's tax credit has been abolished without anything being put in its place. As I understand it, that is not the case. However, it may be helpful to those reading these debates who have an important interest on behalf of disabled people they are seeking to help if the Minister could spell out precisely what is the position so far as concerns the disabled.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am very happy to do so. I hope that this will be regarded as helpful. Basically, we are integrating the support for disabled people moving into work into the working-tax-credit and child-tax-credit scenario, but with greater generosity for disabled people. In particular, where there are two disabled workers in a family, two disability elements will be payable and there will no longer be a lower threshold for withdrawal of tax credit from individual disabled workers. In other words, we are seeking to make a distinction not as regards whether someone is disabled but as regards whether we can give him support for his family. As a result, DPTC, as was, is being integrated into the new tax credit system but with more generous support than has previously been the case.
I do not know whether that gives the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, enough information. I am happy to enlarge on it if he should wish me to do so.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, it is helpful to have that on the record. We welcome what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Saatchimoved Amendment No. 7:
Leave out Clause 1.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to leave out Clause 1. In moving the amendment, I return to the history of tax credits. We still find it troubling that we have not received the assurance we had hoped to receive: that the process over the past five years of the introduction, abolition and replacement of tax credits on a regular basis would not continue. Perhaps the Minister will assure us that the improvements made by scrapping various credits and replacing them with others is the end of the process.
I remind noble Lords of the background to the difficulty in the hope that it might stimulate the assurance we seek. The working families' tax credit had a longer life than its predecessor—the employment tax credit. The latter tax credit never made it on to the statute book, let alone into the pay packet. In his pre-Budget Statement, the Chancellor
276
announced that the employment tax credit was to become the working families' tax credit. That was a model of consistency compared with the history of the children's tax credit, with the replacement of which we are also dealing today.
In the 1998 Budget the Chancellor announced the introduction of the children's tax credit. That was supposed to begin in April 2001 but it never made it. In his March 2000 Budget Statement the Chancellor announced that the children's tax credit was to be replaced by the integrated child credit. Therefore the children's tax credit had the distinction of being abolished before it was even introduced. Sadly, since then the integrated child credit has itself disintegrated and we are left only with the child credit referred to in the Bill.
Over the past five years, the family credit which had existed since 1988 has been replaced by the working families' tax credit, the employment tax credit. the working tax credit, the children's tax credit, the integrated children's tax credit and the child tax credit. Looking at it in another way, the average life of a tax credit is six months.
Those changes of mind must reduce confidence in the system. They must also lead to the problems we have seen with regard to take up. They must increase the burden on business by adding costs in order to change systems to deal with the Government's change of heart on the tax credits. They lead also to the problems I described earlier in terms of accounting treatments which are crucial. A period of calm is now required for assessment. I hope that the Minister will assure us that that is the case.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded us of Keynes' injunction that no man should he condemned for a sincere conversion. However, I hope that he will also agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon who has done excellent work with the Inland Revenue in his tax rewrite group. He expressed alarm at the speed and volume of change of tax legislation. While Keynes and the noble Earl. Lord Russell, are right that a man should be allowed to change his mind, there is a limit. I think that the Government have exceeded it.
I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the pace of change that we have seen in the past five years will now cease.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister may remember a fact sheet distributed a few years ago by Rowntree under the intriguing title, "The WIS that was"—"WIS" being the working income supplement, the Canadian version of what we are attempting now. The fact that that was withdrawn is a marker that teething troubles over the introduction of this type of measure are not confined to this Government or this country. A difficult and important technical exercise is being engaged upon. We are being offered a considerable improvement on what we have had. I doubt whether it is the final word on the subject even now.

277
I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, whom I respect very deeply indeed. But between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and Keynes the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, might admit to being slightly more averse to risk taking.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the primary question was whether this was the end of the process. The noble Lord can predict my answer. It is, "No, not necessarily-. It is desirable to have a system which is as stable. predictable and transparent as possible. But against that one learns from experience. As the noble Lord spoke, I was reflecting on my experience in the world of social security. He will know that what we sought to do with this and other legislation over the past five or six years is to tackle poverty and, as one of the keys ways of tackling poverty, to make work pay.
I learned from family credit that when all payments went to the carer at home it meant that work, or entry wages, were often perceived as not worth having because they were relatively low compared with median wages. Therefore one needed a working families' tax credit paid either in full or in part by the employer.
I also learned from family credit that not enough support was being given to disabled people. Experience of the new deal demonstrated that we had to have more generous financial arrangements particularly for single disabled people who would otherwise not be eligible for something like family credit because they did not have children.
Equally, looking at family credit and the new deal for lone parents, we realised that one of the great handicaps for a lone parent moving into work is the lack of affordable childcare. Therefore we have needed to develop childcare support and a childcare tax credit as part of the package.
Since we have introduced the WFTC legislation. we have also learned that lone parents in particular have quite frequent movement in and out of work during the year, possibly coming out of work over the summer holidays and going back into work when the children go back to school. We need a constant system of support which reflects the realities of their lives not the tidy-mindedness of bureaucrats.
The noble Lord mentioned the employment earnings top up. That was a pilot scheme. We learned from that that there is significant poverty, not so much among the under-25s who do not have a disadvantage in the labour market so far as we can tell but for some single people over the age of 25 who remain extremely poor. To target support only on families meant that we could not help those people properly into the labour market and persuade them that work paid.
I call that learning from research, pilots and experience in trying to develop policies that meet the objective, which I am sure all noble Lords share, of tackling poverty, especially child poverty, and making work pay.
278
The simple answer to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, is no, it cannot be the end of the process, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. I hope that it will be as stable a system as possible because that is the only way we shall make it an effective system.
With those more general remarks, I hope that we try to loop-in learning experience from research, pilots and the effectiveness of the legislation. Every piece of legislation seeks to improve on what has happened previously but produces new pressures and problems which have to be addressed. I hope that we shall be in for a period of stability. That is in the best interests of the people receiving these tax credits. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to move on to the next amendment.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am happy to accept the Minister's wish that a period of calm should ensue, for the benefit of all the people who are the beneficiaries of tax credits. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Clause 2 [Functions of Board]:
Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 9 and starred Amendment No. 8A, which I regret to say was tabled rather late—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Exceedingly late.
Lord Higgins: For reasons that I shall explain.
The trouble with this part of the Bill is the draftsman's determination to say that black is white and white is black. The Bill is drafted by reference to 1866 and 1890 legislation. In Committee, I complained that use of the word "gross" was inappropriate. If tax credits are deducted from the rest of revenue, one ends up with net income—not gross income. Curiously, the subsection states that after allowing deductions in respect of tax credits, one goes ahead with gross income—a contradiction in terms.
I have maligned today's draftsman because I find that in Section 10 of the Exchequer and Audits Departments Act 1866, the same situation arises. It states:
"The Commissioners of Customs, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and the Postmaster-General shall, after the Deduction of the Payments for Drawbacks, Bounties of the Nature of Drawbacks, Repayments and Discounts"—
all of which might reasonably cover tax credits—
"cause the gross Revenue of their respective Departments to be paid … to…Her Majesty's Exchequer".
Watching Mr. Schama's television programme, "The History of Britain" last night, I noticed that there may have been other preoccupations in 1866 that diverted the attention of the then parliamentary draftsman from that provision but it is clear that after all those discounts, repayments and drawbacks from

279
gross revenue, one ends up with net revenue. The 1866 Act was defective and has gone on being defective a long time.
I do not understand why the draftsman decided to refer to the 1866 Act. The Minister, in her usual manner, has courteously written a long letter seeking to defend the Government's position, but it is plain that once tax credits are deducted from revenue one ends up with net revenue—not gross revenue. I am seeking to ensure that the subsection makes sense by correcting the 1866 Act. Then everything will flow through in a beautifully lucid stream. That being so, the amendments are eminently sensible. The Bill would be properly drafted.
I hope that the Minister can accept the amendment. I realise that there may be consequential amendments to other legislation but no doubt they can be covered in later stages of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I presume that the House is aware that the noble Lord has pre-empted himself in his Amendment No. 8A.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has a sublime faith that the world is divided into black and white and never the twain shall meet. Unfortunately, most of real life happens in varying shades of grey. One of the best things about the Bill is that it allows us to recognise those shades of grey for what they are and to deal with them in a much more accurate way than could be done by the precise definition of black and white that the noble Lord would prefer. To paraphrase Charles II, all tax credits are grey in the dark.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, took my best point. I too studied the words of the 1866 Act. I tried to seek help from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because I think that was a Gladstonian measure, as opposed to a Conservative Bill. I cannot believe that even the noble Lord would think that Mr. Gladstone could be in error in his assessment of government revenues—since his has been the guiding hand on the Treasury for the past 150 years.
It is clear that "gross revenues" in the 1866 Act means the sum left after all deductions. Intrigued by the same point, I checked the Oxford English Concise Dictionary last night—regretting only that I did not have the full dictionary. One of the meanings of "gross" at the time of the 1866 Act was the greater portion, as opposed to the complete, non-net portion. That may be why "gross" was appropriate in 1866. I am not sure but that is the best that I can do in the time available. I shall check with some of my etymological friends, to see whether they can do better. The noble Lord is obviously right about our current understanding of the word "gross".
Section 3(4) of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc) Act 1999 provides that the reference to "gross revenues" in Section 10 of the 1866
280
Act is not taken to include sums payable into the National Insurance Fund. That provision would be disturbed if the 1866 Act were amended.
I agree that it should be made clear in primary legislation that tax credit payments are to be deducted from tax receipts before they are paid to the Exchequer but that is made perfectly plain in Section 5 of the Tax Credits Act 1999—and in Clause 2(2) for the future. That is a better approach than trying to interfere with the established reference to "gross revenues" in the 1866 Act.
The 1866 Act contains no reference to net revenues. That term is not used at any point. If we were to follow the noble Lord, consequential amendments would be needed to rectify something like 150 years of finance legislation. The phrase "gross revenues" accurately refers back to legislation that gives the appropriate enabling powers. If the meaning of those words has changed, that may be for a future consolidation Bill. The words in the Bill have the same meaning as those used in 1866. I hope that the noble Lord accepts that we are not about to redraft back to Gladstone's period and that he will withdraw his amendment, tempted though he may be to pursue it.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I find that response very sad. If the use of the word "gross" has changed in the dramatic way that the Minister suggests, there must be total confusion as to today's meaning. It seems clear that I am right and that the change ought to be made but I shall not pursue the point further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8A and 9 not moved.]
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 17, leave out "include" and insert "exclude"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with a somewhat similar point. I have great trouble with this part of the Bill. We are suggesting an addition to subsection (3):
"For the purposes of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890"
in this case—we are making progress!—
"the definition of 'inland revenue' in section 39 of that Act is to be taken to include tax credits".
That section of the 1890 Act lists a series of things which are to be taken as "inland revenue"—for example, taxes and so on. But they are all items where the Government receive revenue. Clearly, in the case of tax credits, the Government are not receiving revenue; they are paying out benefits—in 90 per cent of cases, as my noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, points out—or are deducting the tax credits from the revenue that they would otherwise receive. Therefore, one cannot include, with any sense at all, in the definition of "inland revenue" a tax credit. It is not revenue; it is expenditure—or, at the very least, it is a reduction in revenue. Therefore, to rely again on the 1890 Act is quite wrong.
There are other means of getting round this point in terms of the drafting. As I understand it—and the Minister wrote me a most helpful letter—the purpose

281
of all of this is to ensure that the responsibility for tax credits is transferred to the Inland Revenue. That is what it is all about. In that case, all that has to be said is that the Inland Revenue should be responsible for tax credits, but one should not get into this convoluted, and in my view totally wrong, way of drafting the subsection.
There is no problem in dealing with the basic point that the Government apparently seek to achieve; namely, that the responsibility for these matters will not be with the Department for Work and Pensions but with the Inland Revenue. We are running into trouble here because, of course, the traditional function of the Inland Revenue is not to give money away. That is not what it is there to do. It is now being asked to fulfil a function which it has previously not fulfilled; namely, to give hand-outs or, at the very least, to reduce the amount of money that it receives from people. If that is so, then the matter ought to be dealt with in the way I have described and not by means of this convoluted idea that the definition in the 1890 Act should be perverted—that is the only word that I can use—or reversed, or turned upside down to meet the point that the Minister is trying to achieve. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I suspect that I shall be no more helpful than I was on the previous point. The noble Lord is right: Clause 2(3) provides that, for the purpose of the 1890 Act, the definition of "inland revenue" is to be taken to include "tax credit". This is necessary in order to ensure that the same general statutory framework under which the board operates is appropriately applied to new functions. Thus, the reference to "inland revenue" in this context is simply a reference to the matters falling under the administrative responsibility of the Board of Inland Revenue.
Because the responsibilities of the board are changing—so that its role is no longer confined to the traditional one of collecting taxes—the scope of the 1890 Act, which set up the Inland Revenue commissioners and determined their powers, and which provides the statutory framework under which they operate, also needs to be extended. There is nothing sinister about this. Equivalent provision is currently made in both the Tax Credits Act 1999—which the noble Lord, along with myself, saw through this House and, as he said, improved, so this is possibly one area that bypassed him—and the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Act 1999.
I have spoken at some length. It is simply that the term "inland revenue" means basically the handling of the matters that the Inland Revenue is now deemed to perform, as conferred by parliamentary authority. That is why the wording is in its present form.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I still find this an extraordinary way for the draftsman to proceed in terms of what the Government want to achieve. All that need be said is that the Inland Revenue should be responsible for tax credits instead of going about the matter in this roundabout way—a way which, in my
282
view, is positively wrong. I shall give further thought to the matter and consider whether we should return to it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 26, at end insert "and the amounts deducted by them from inland revenue"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be convenient to take also Amendment No. 14. Clause 2(5)(a) reads:
"the amounts of the several payments made by them of or in respect of tax credits".
I seek to add the words,
"and the amounts deducted by them from inland revenue".
It seems to me that there are two aspects of tax credits: the part concerned with payments outwards. and the part concerned with reducing the amount of tax that the Inland Revenue will collect. It seems appropriate that we should deal with both.
Amendment No. 14 suggests that we should leave out paragraph (c) at line 28, referring to,
"the amounts received by them in respect of tax credits".
The reference is to the amounts of tax credits received by the board. I simply do not understand that. The board will not receive any tax credits; it will either pay out tax credits, in the form of benefits; or, alternatively, it will reduce the amount of tax which it collects. But, I repeat: the board will not receive tax credits. Tax credits will be going out; they are not revenue that is coming in. Therefore, I do not understand why Clause 2(5)(c) is drafted in this way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, these amendments relate to the accounting requirements on the Board of Inland Revenue in relation to tax credits. Subsection (5) requires the board to show how much it has paid out by way of child credit and working tax credit; its administrative costs in respect of those credits; and how much it has received by way of tax credits.
Amendment No. 11 seeks to make payments of tax credits to be accounted for as deductions from "inland revenue". I assume that in tabling his amendment the noble Lord had in mind the reference to "inland revenue" in Clause 2(3)—which refers back to the 1890 Act. We have already discussed this matter.
There is, of course, a wider point about the responsibility of the board to account properly for the deductions that it makes from tax receipts in order to make payments of child tax credit and working tax credit. It is right that the board should be required to account for the tax credit that it pays out; and so it will' do. This is already dealt with by Clause 2(5)(a) without the addition of the words proposed by the noble Lord. These amounts will, as a matter of fact, be the amounts that it has deducted from the "gross revenues" before paying them to the Exchequer.

283
Section 13 of the 1890 Act—I am sorry about all the history; I have learnt more about the founding of the Inland Revenue than I thought I should ever want to know—which imposes a duty to keep accounts, was originally drafted only with tax and duties in mind, as the noble Lord suspected. Clause 2(5) therefore amplifies Section 13 of the 1890 Act so that the duty to keep accounts is meaningful in relation to tax credits. Paragraph (a) requires the board to show how much it has paid out by way of tax credits; paragraph (b) requires it to show its administrative costs in respect of those credits; and, in order to ensure that the board is required to account separately for recoveries of overpaid tax credit, paragraph (c) requires it to show how much it has received by way of tax credits. That may address Amendment No. 14. What that is about is the recovery of overpayments—which means that money will flow into the Inland Revenue. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with that explanation.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, surely, then, the provision ought to read: "the amounts reclaimed by them in respect of tax credits". If that is the function of Clause 2(5)(c)—namely, that the board has to get back repayments—then that is what should be stated, and not that it has received money in respect of tax credits, because, with great respect, it has not; it has overpaid and then got the money back. That does not mean that it has received anything. It is to be hoped that it has received exactly the same amount in both directions, so it has still not received anything. If that is the function of subsection (5)(c), I do not think that it does what the Government want.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to look again at the drafting, but I would have to take professional advice. My understanding is that the amounts received by the Inland Revenue in respect of tax credits followed the wording in the previous legislation of 1999. I was seeking to elucidate the seeming oddity of the Inland Revenue receiving tax credits: it does so if it is recovering overpayments. We are again into a debate about the appropriate use of words. I can only give the noble Lord my best advice.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as this amendment is the last of this bunch, we can agree that it is all about the appropriate use of words. But it is not a good idea to have words in legislation that are positively wrong or that say the opposite of what was intended. It is not true that the Inland Revenue will receive any money in respect of tax credits. If the function of the subsection is to say it may get back what it paid out, the most it has received is what it paid out, which is nil. Therefore, it has not received any tax credit. If the subsection's function is simply to say that the amounts it reclaims are overpayments, surely the Minister can table an appropriate amendment at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Saatchimoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 27, after "expenses" insert "of the Board"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. As we learnt in Committee, the Government propose to impose on employers, regardless of their size or profitability, the burden of administering the new tax credits scheme.
In Committee we raised the point that large companies might be able to cope with the administrative burden and therefore we should not shed too many tears for them, but we expressed concern about small businesses which employ only a few people. They do not have and cannot afford the departments to administer such a complicated scheme. Therefore, this modest amendment seeks to require the Government, at the minimum, regularly to assess and record estimates of the costs to employers of carrying out the new tasks required of them.
We believe that having such a regular responsibility would have a salutary effect in focusing the Government's attention on the costs to business of implementing the Bill. I remind your Lordships that the Government's so-called Better Regulation Task Force recognises the regulatory burdens associated with tax credits. In a report on payroll burdens, it stated that businesses now see themselves becoming unpaid benefit officers.
In another place and in Committee several attempts were made to move the Government to take pity on the plight of small businesses, but they have remained strangely unmoved by the pleas from small businesses, their regulatory body and the Opposition Benches; both ours and the Liberal Democrats'. The reason might become apparent if I recall two things the Minister said in Committee, which illustrate that there is a great philosophical—although she prefers "theological"—gulf across the Dispatch Boxes about the nature of the tax credits.
On the first Committee day, in response to concern about small employers, the Minister said, with mild irritation,
"all they have to do is to pay out what the tax credit office tells them to pay".—[Official Report, 16/5/02; col. CWH 36.]
Later, on concerns expressed by Age Concern and others about claimants not being able to follow the lengthy complicated claim forms in relation to the minimum income guarantee, the Minister said, again with mild irritation—I believe she had a mock-up of the claim form—
"12 pages of print. Even with my poor eyesight, it is big enough to read".—[Official Report, 21/5/02; col. CWH 86.]
The Government do not in any way identify with the employer's problem, because their attitude is, I repeat,
"all they have to do is to pay out what the tax credit office tells them to pay".
They are not moved by the 30 per cent of claimants who do not claim tax credits because their eyesight is good enough to read 12 pages of print. But they are keeping too many small businesses and individuals dependent on them.

285
In Committee, it was clear that the Minister was radiantly sincere about the good that the Bill is bringing to families and businesses up and down the land. It is moving to hear her passion on the subject, but will she see that there may be a higher good than that the Government can bestow on employers and citizens: the good of independence? It is not necessarily desirable for companies to be in thrall to government offices to pay what the Government tell them to pay; nor for citizens to be dependent on filling in forms to gain sums of money from the Government.
Our Benches prefer to stress independence, inner directedness and self-determination on the part of people and companies. Those qualities are the essence of being grown-up. Sometimes the Government give the impression that they prefer people to remain as dependent children. I hope that on this occasion the Minister will show a little more sympathy for small businesses than she or the Government have done in the past. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was not entirely sure where the noble Lord was coming from. We were listening to a speech about the burdens on small businesses, which half-way through became about the dependency culture of the people employed in small businesses. I am not sure where his primary sympathies lie.
I shall try to take both points in turn. I am sure that the noble Lord does not want to go into compliance costs for employers; we come to that issue under later clauses in the Bill. Neither do I, except to repeat that, overall, business will save something like 11 million in the cost of administration and that the simplification of the Bill compared to the existing tax credits system has been widely welcomed by employers' associations.
The noble Lord made much of my phrase that employers would have to pay out only what the tax credit office told them to. The noble Lord appeared to believe that small businesses would themselves have to make elaborate calculations. On the contrary; I was saying that they would be expected only to set the amount they would need to add to wages against the moneys they would be collecting from tax and national insurance, and that it would be the simplest form of administration that could be devised. It was a point about simplicity and the minimum of burden rather than any dismissal of the behaviour of small businesses.
The reason why tax credits are necessary in the first place is that those small businesses are paying relatively low wages. They might actually think that it is in the interests of their workforce that, as a result of tax credits, their employees are now able to enjoy a higher standard of living—including better diet, better housing, and so on—than would otherwise be the case if they were solely dependent on the wage for which they work.
Moreover, in terms of the wider point about the dependency culture and workers, I should stress that we discussed earlier the reasons for developing and building on the working tax credit and disabled
286
person's tax credit. For many workers in this country, especially if they have dependent children, the entry wages that they receive are not sufficient, as they perceive it, to make it worthwhile for them to work. As a result, this Government have introduced a minimum wage and a tax credit system, both of which make it financially advantageous to work, where appropriate, as a way of addressing what would otherwise be family poverty; in other words, we are helping people to help themselves.
Therefore, for the party opposite to accuse these Benches of increasing dependency when it opposed the minimum wage and tax credits as a means of ensuring that anyone coming off benefits and moving into work finds himself substantially better off is, to use the cliché, a bit rich. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that I am glad to say there is no meeting of minds on this issue.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, perhaps she will kindly acknowledge that not all the parties opposite opposed the minimum wage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to give recognition to the support that the noble Earl has always given to the attack on both low pay arid low income.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am sorry that there is no meeting of minds. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and look forward to better luck at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Lord Saatchihad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
"ANNUAL REPORT TO PARLIAMENT
The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay before Parliament an annual report on the Board that shall include—

(a) the accounts of the Board;

(b) an estimate of the take-up of the working tax credit; and

(c) an estimate of the take-up of the child tax credit."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not wish to move Amendment No. 15 but should like to move Amendment No. 16.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Saatchimoved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
"ANNUAL REPORT TO PARLIAMENT (NO. 2)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay before Parliament an annual report on the Board that shall include

(a) the accounts of the Board;

(b) an estimate of the take-up of the working tax credit;

(c) an estimate of the take-up of the child tax credit;

287

(d) data on the number of investigations carried out into fraud, the number of prosecutions and the number of convictions; and

(e) an estimate of the cost to employers of operating tax credits."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would require the submission of an annual report to the Treasury giving an account of the care and management of tax credits. In particular, the report would contain the board's estimates of the total take-up of each tax credit, the statistical, and other, assumptions upon which such estimates are made, and the actual take-up of each tax credit. The board's reports would be published by the Treasury so that where the take-up of any tax credit was less than the forecast level the report would set out the Treasury's estimate of the amount of moneys not spent by reason of the deficiency of take-up to which the estimate related. It would also contain the Government's proposals for increasing take-up to the forecast level.
Under the amendment, the report would also show the amount of tax not paid as a result of tax credits and the amount of tax credits paid to persons otherwise not liable to income tax. The key elements of the annual report would be a total estimate of the take-up of the working tax credit, an estimate of the take-up of the child tax credit, data on the number of investigations carried out into fraud, and the number of prosecutions and convictions. The report would also contain an estimate of the cost to employers of operating the working tax credit as well as an estimate of the cost to employers of operating the child tax credit.
The background to the amendment is that the vast nature of this Bill and its new tax credits are untested and, unless proper provision is inserted in the legislation to monitor what actually happens, will remain inscrutable for some time. I shall not repeat the very real fears expressed in Grand Committee because the Minister is familiar with them. However, because of the Government's record on the preceding tax credits, which they are trying to correct, it is feared that the most needy people in our society will not take up this help. We hope that the Government will correct the record, but, as has been said, the forms are complex. The Government have, quite rightly, tried to make them simpler, but the procedures are still quite intimidating to many people who do not have the excellent eyesight of the noble Baroness. Perhaps the Government will assess whether or not we are justified in our fears and agree to lay an annual report before Parliament on take-up.
Fears have also been expressed that the Bill will afford opportunities for fraud. We ask the Government to assess whether such fears are justified and to lay an annual report before Parliament on the extent of fraud and on their success in suppressing it. Concerns have been raised that the legislation will also impose an unassessed and large cost on employers, especially small employers, to the detriment of their business and enterprise. Therefore, if they will do nothing else, perhaps the Government can at least
288
estimate the cost to employers of operating and working the scheme; and, indeed, lay an annual report before Parliament on such costs to employers.
Our suggested new clause makes the most modest request upon the Government—a government who often speak of "openness". I hope, therefore, that the Minister will now have an open mind and accept the proposed new clause in the spirit of openness and respect for accounting to Parliament. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not often support amendments that request the submission of annual reports, but, as I believe the Minister and I are agreed, we are in a process that is still at an experimental stage and it is possible that we can achieve a period of stability that will have its advantages. We shall certainly need to review the operation of the measures introduced under this Bill at some stage.
The whole of the social security system hitherto has tended to be drawn up on the assumption that people are either in or out of work. However, we all know that it is not quite as simple as that; indeed, that is the principal problem that this Bill is trying to tackle. I believe we are agreed that it is likely to take several attempts to get it right. On the whole, there are political advantages in involving as many people as possible when considering the evidence upon which that has to be decided.
The proposed annual report would be capable of doing some good, but I have one small regret; namely, that it does not include any report on the possible danger to employees of claiming tax credit and being threatened with dismissal for being an annoyance to their employer. Such situations do arise. One needs to be even-handed. The amendment does not say that the report should not include such information. I hope therefore that those compiling the report will feel able to investigate that possibility.
The problem regarding the cost to employers is a real one. I am not certain whether it is best dealt with on a flat rate or by a general estimate, as set out here. That is a matter we should keep an eye on because it is capable of becoming a burden to small businesses. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept that this proposal is not meant to be unhelpful; indeed, it might advance our progress at later stages.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Saatchi. I very much agree with the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The Minister will recall that we debated this issue at an earlier stage in the sense that another amendment looked at estimates. The Minister was kind enough then to indicate that she might be able to describe what might, or might not, be forthcoming in an annual report—an ex post report.
In addition to the annual report—something that I support most strongly—can the Minister say whether. as a supplement in terms of information, there might also be included in the regular quarterly reports that come from the board—and which, I believe, do cover

289
some other tax credits, especially the disabled person's tax credit—reference in the same format to the working tax credit and the child tax credit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, such reference already exists. As noble Lords have shown some concern about these issues, however, I should perhaps give a fuller answer, and make a slightly longer contribution than I have done so far in addressing specific points.
The new clause proposed in Amendment No. 16 attempts to impose an obligation on the Board of Inland Revenue to produce and present to Parliament an annual report on the take up of tax credits and to include the board's accounts in the report. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has made his case for such a report, as he did in Grand Committee. As I said in Committee, however, I believe that this new clause is unnecessary. In explaining why it is unnecessary, I should like to deal with the two substantive and core issues covered by the new clause—the scrutiny by Parliament of the tax credits system, and the question of take-up levels.
As noble Lords will be aware, there are several well established ways for Parliament to scrutinise precisely the information that noble Lords wish to be reported. Parliamentary Questions are, of course, one such method. In particular, however, the Board of Inland Revenue already publishes an annual report covering all that department's activities. This report includes departmental accounts and is presented to Parliament by the Paymaster General. Details of the board's administration of tax credits are, therefore, already made available to Parliament. Noble Lords will also be aware that the chairman of the Inland Revenue appears annually before the Public Accounts Committee so that the committee can more closely scrutinise the details of the annual report. That level of scrutiny may even exceed that proposed in the amendment.
With regard to accounting for tax credits payments themselves, that is a matter for the Treasury, which clearly sets out those details in the Financial Statement and Budget Report—the FSBR—at Budget time. If I may, I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, to tables C7 and C13 of chapter C of this year's FSBR for details of tax credits paid out in the years 2000–01 and 2001–02. Clearly, therefore, Parliament already has ample opportunity to debate the details of the Budget. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently discussed at some length the treatment of tax credits with the Treasury Select Committee in the other place. Moreover, as I said, the Board of Inland Revenue already reports annually to Parliament, and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reports to both Houses and the Treasury Select Committee on the Treasury's accountability for tax credits.
The amendment also requires the board to publish data on fraud investigations and prosecutions. Of course there must be the utmost transparency in this. However, I again remind noble Lords that the Board
290
of Inland Revenue's annual report already includes details of the Inland Revenue's work on countering fraud and non-compliance. This will include precisely the details on tax credits investigations that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, seeks in his amendment. We therefore seem to be discussing almost a "scissors and paste" operation in which we should rearrange and republish information that. is already published. I am slightly puzzled by the proposal. The way in which the information is provided currently allows one to contextualise it in terms of how the Treasury and Inland Revenue are meeting their responsibilities.
The new clause would also impose on the board an obligation to set out in an annual report the cost to employers of operating tax credits. I remind noble Lords that employers are not involved in paying child tax credit or the childcare element of working tax credit. Employers shall only be required to make payments of working tax credit. Again, such provision is unnecessary; it seems to be another "scissors and paste" proposal. The costs to employers for their part of the responsibility will be addressed by the revised regulatory impact assessment which is being prepared in the light of announcements made in the Budget. That is the right place to deal with this information as the board could not be responsible for formally accounting for costs other than its own. Indeed, the Government take the regulatory impact of legislation very seriously indeed, which is why we introduced the concept of a regulatory impact assessment. I remember crossing swords with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, when we first debated the issue and he asked why we were making the proposal. I think that it is now accepted that this is a more transparent way of holding the Government to account than that which preceded it.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, seems to believe that an annual report of these costs would be of more value, but I do not think that that is correct. A full arid comprehensive assessment of the cost in the regulatory impact assessment will provide all the information he is looking for and probably more. This does not have to be produced annually because the cost to employers is unlikely to fluctuate year on year given a constant set of legislative obligations. I should also remind noble Lords that the Government provide comprehensive impact assessments whenever legislation is introduced or amended and there is a significant regulatory impact.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, it would help greatly if the Minister will confirm that regulatory impact assessments are conducted annually. I was under the impression that they were produced when legislation is introduced but not thereafter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I was speaking too quickly or quietly, but the noble Lord seems to have missed some of my remarks. I apologise. As I said, a regulatory impact assessment

291
does not have to be produced annually because the cost to employers is unlikely to fluctuate year on year given a constant set of legislative obligations. I also sought to remind noble Lords that the Government produce comprehensive impact assessments when legislation is either introduced or amended and there is a significant regulatory impact.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, raised the issue of take-up. There are quarterly statistical reports not only on disability credits, including DPTC, but on WFTC and all income support benefits. These reports contain detailed information on tax credits awards, breaking them down by family type, region, amount of award and other categories. I certainly use the reports in my own background research. The Revenue intends to continue to produce this type of information in relation to WTC and CTC. Furthermore, the information is available not annually, as the amendment proposes, but quarterly. One will therefore be able to track the statistics and see the correlation between support through tax credit and employment profiles, possibly in relation to the time of year and other factors. The information already provided is therefore more informative than that requested in the amendment.
To summarise, I have dealt with the points on regulatory impact assessment, the quarterly statistical reports, the board's report to Parliament, the Chancellor's report to Parliament and the Treasury Select Committee's scrutiny. We already provide all that information, and I believe that we do so more comprehensively than the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, proposes in his amendment. He is asking for a "scissors and paste" version of information that is already in the public domain, simply to present it in a narrower format. I do not understand why we should do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, raised the issue of quarterly performance reports and may find the following information helpful. The Revenue will agree operational targets with the Treasury which are published in advance in the service delivery agreements. This information on performance as against performance targets also is additional to the information called for in the amendment.
The last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, was on the take-up of tax credits. I cannot agree with his view on take-up. As I said in Committee, I believe that the take up of WFTC is hugely encouraging: 1·3 million families benefit from it, over half a million more than benefited from family credit. Moreover, these families are receiving on average £40 per week more on WFTC than they were on FC. The credit is benefiting 2.5 million children, and I think that that is a success. Perhaps the noble Lord has been thrown by the statistics published in the January 2001 report analysing the effect of tax credits on low and moderate income families up to the end of 2000. However, the tax credit legislation was not passed until 1999. Consequently, in the first year, take-up of WFTC by expenditure was 76 per cent—which is close
292
to the 81 per cent for family credit in its final year, and much higher than the figure; of about 60 per cent for family credit in its first year.
As I said in Committee, all the research I have subsequently seen suggests that the number of families on WFTC has increased by another 160, 000, or 14 per cent, since summer 2000. We expect that figure to grow over time. One is tracking both cash and cases, if I can put it that way. Those figures diverge as the number of cases of families claiming is somewhat less than the percentage of cash because the people who tend not to claim are those who are due small amounts, perhaps 50p or £1.
The new child tax credit creates a seamless system extending further up the income scale than WFTC, so the take-up of the existing children's tax credit is equally relevant. Again, that is hugely encouraging. To date, over 3·7 million claim forms have been received and over 90 per cent of eligible claimants have claimed.
In the light of that our assumptions for the take-up of child tax credit are that about 5·75 million families with children will claim and benefit from it. One advantage of the new system is that we already know who most of the potential claimants are; they are families currently claiming WFTC, DPTC and the children's tax credit. Therefore, we know fairly well already what the client audience is and what the take-up is likely to be. Those families will be sent a claim form directly later this year.
That direct targeting of claimants will be complemented by an extensive publicity campaign using various media. That will begin later this year and will focus initially on general awareness before we go on to more targeted campaigns, including, above all, people who have hitherto not come within the fold; that is, those over 25 without children who will receive working tax credit. I agree that there is more likely to be a problem in that area.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that the proposed new clause is unnecessary. I argue that essentially it does a scissors-and-paste job on information that is already in the public domain. Plans are in place to monitor take-up of tax credits and the Inland Revenue and Treasury are working hard with their advertising partners to ensure that publicity will be maximised. The outcome will be open to scrutiny. As regards scrutiny, the amendment is rather less comprehensive than the scrutiny that currently exists in the ways I have described. I hope that your Lordships will accept that the amendment is unnecessary. To seek a scissors-and-paste annual report of information that is already available in the public domain in a fuller, more comprehensive and contextualised way is simply redundant.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am most grateful for all that the noble Baroness said. I hope that I may paraphrase it. I think she said that in order to find out how the new tax credit system is working I shall have to study the regulatory impact assessments—which may or may not be published from time to time—certain pages in the Red Book, the Inland Revenue's

293
annual report and the report of the proceedings of the Treasury Select Committee. When I have done all that, I shall have to study some quarterly reports that the Government publish.
We cannot accept that that is an adequate way of presenting information. We believe that it should all be brought together. After all, I do not believe that it was clear until the Committee stage in this place that the total amount of money involved in tax credits was a staggering £15 billion. That figure does not appear in the Budget Red Book 2002. It was not clear until the proceedings in this House that 90 per cent of that amount will not be paid as a reduction in tax liability but will be paid, in effect, as a benefit payment, as the Government now concede. It was not clear until the proceedings in this place—as the noble Baroness told us on the second day of Grand Committee—that, apparently, the Government have carried out research. The noble Baroness stated:
"From our research, we also know that those people not claiming [WFTC] are those who are due very small sums, perhaps £l or £2".—[Official Report, 21/5/02; CWH 87.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord may not have read it but it is published research.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, it may be published research but the point of the amendment is that we should like to see all the research brought together in one place so that people who want to study the impact of this vast scheme will be able to find the answers that they seek. For example, the forecast in the Budget Red Book for 2002 is that the tax credits will cost £4.6 billion next year. It emerged only in the proceedings in this place that that figure was based on the assumption that 85 per cent of those eligible would claim. In other words, the total cost of the two tax credits in the Bill—if there were 100 per cent take-up—would be £5.4 billion and the Government would save £800 million through non-take-up. I do not know where I could find the figures for the saving that the Government have made through non-take-up since 1997. I do not know where I could find the figures for any aspect of the tax credits scheme. I do not know where I could discover what happens to the money that has not been taken up.
For all those reasons we believe that it is valid and reasonable to ask for information on all those aspects of this important scheme which may, as we have said from the beginning, do all that the Government hope that it will—as we also hope—to help the poorest people. That is a fine and worthy aim. I do not understand why the Government are not proud to produce an annual report pulling all the information together in one simple form for a simple reader to examine. I am sorry not to he able to accept what the noble Baroness said. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
294
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121;Notcontents, 118.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lindsay, E.

Ampthill, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lucas, L.

Avebury, L.

Luke, L.

Barker, B.

Lyell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden. L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blatch, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Boardman, L.

McNally, L.

Bowness, L.

Maddock, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Burnham, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Byford, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Caithness, E.

Montrose, D.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moynihan, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Newby, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Noakes, B.

Chalfont, L.

Northesk, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northover, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Crathorne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Peel, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dundee, E.

Reay, L.

Eames, L.

Rees, L.

Elton, L.

Rennard, L.

Falkland, V.

Renton, L.

Fearn, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Feldman, L.

Roper, L.

Flather, B.

Russell, E [Teller]

Freeman, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Saatchi, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sandberg, L.

Geddes, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Geraint, L.

Selsdon, L.

Glentoran, L.

Sharman. L.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sharples, B.

Greaves, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hanham.B.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Henley, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Higgins, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Swinfen, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Home, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Howe, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Vivian, L.

Jopling, L.

Waddington, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Walmsley, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Weatherill, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Wilcox, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Alli, L.

Bach, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Barnett, L.

Andrews, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Billingham, B.

295

Blackstone, B.

Jones, L.

Borrie, L.

Judd, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bragg, L.

Layard, L.

Brennan, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brookman, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Chan, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Christopher, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Crawley, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morgan, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Palmer, L.

Dubs, L.

Parekh, L.

Elder, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Erroll, E.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Radice, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Richard, L.

Gale, B.

Rooker, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sawyer, L.

Gilbert, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sheldon, L.

Goudie, B.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Grenfell, L.

Strange, B.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Harrison, L.

Tenby.V.

Hayman, B.

Thornton, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Uddin, B.

Hoyle, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Whitty, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Jeger, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.7 p.m.
Clause 3 [Claims]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 37, leave out "for the whole or part of a tax year"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the other 55 amendments that are associated with it.
This set of amendments—no fewer than 56 in total—clearly requires some explanation. Earlier, the Minister gave a courteous reply to the points that I had raised about the vast mass of government amendments that appeared at short notice before the Bill's
296
Committee stage. In the course of our discussions upstairs, we debated those amendments. It seemed to us that there was a case for bringing them to the attention of noble Lords on the Floor of the House.
My noble friend Lord Saatchi has already referred to the vast amount of money that will be expended on tax credits. The Bill will be a major item in public expenditure. Perhaps the Minister would clarify exactly what that sum will be. I believe that it comes to almost the whole amount of the increase in taxation that the Chancellor introduced by increasing social security payments from the private sector as against the business sector. It is roughly comparable in scale to that sum.
We discussed the matter in Grand Committee. It is a great deal more convenient for the Grand Committee to sit upstairs rather than in the Moses Room, where one has the greatest difficulty hearing what is being said. The layout upstairs is also preferable. It was the first occasion on which I and, I believe, the Minister had been in a Grand Committee upstairs, and I was not fully aware of the normal procedures. They include the provision that, unless government amendments are objected to, they should go into the Bill. I was persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to whom I defer on matters of procedure, to accept that view. If one wanted the issues to be debated on the Floor of the House on Report, it would not have been appropriate to object to the amendments.
On reflection, I believe that I made a mistake in following that line because, not infrequently, attendance in Grand Committee is not as large as it might be. Of course, the attention of the House is drawn to the matters which are debated in Hansard, and that is an improvement on Commons Hansard because the debates appear in the main publication.
None the less, if one wants attention to be drawn to an amendment on the Floor of the House, there are only two ways of doing so. Either one objects to the government amendment, in which case I understand that it would not be included in the Bill following the Committee stage; or, alternatively, one tables an amendment on Report to reverse the government amendment.
As I said, given the importance of this set of amendments and the other sets of restructuring amendments, I believe that on balance I was probably mistaken not to object to them all the way through, although that would have been a singularly tedious way of proceeding. It would perhaps have been only slightly less tedious than what we have done in bringing the matter to the attention of noble Lords on the Floor of the House; namely, reversing all the government amendments, which is what these amendments seek to do. That is an incredibly tedious procedure because the points in the Bill where the amendments appear have changed since the Bill was discussed in Grand Committee. I believe that we should consider how best these matters may be dealt with if a Bill goes to a Grand Committee.
Having said that, I also believe on reflection that it was a mistake that the Bill was dealt with upstairs because it is, after all, a major, flagship government

297
Bill and involves a huge amount of public expenditure. That would have been my view in particular had I realised that all these amendments were going to be made.
In her usual—I am almost inclined to say "habitual"—helpful way, the noble Baroness responded to a suggestion that I made during a break in Grand Committee when a Division took place on the Floor of the House. I suggested that we should group the amendments into various categories. If we had not done so, I suspect that we should have been there until Christmas. Therefore, as we now go through the Bill, we have no fewer than five categories of government amendments, including a huge number of individual amendments which cover individual points. This group is in the first category, and I believe that it is worth while to spell out what it does.
Effectively, the amendments, which the Government have inserted and which, for the purposes of debate, we suggest should be knocked out, draw a distinction between the award of tax credits under which payments are made during the year—the crucial word there being "award"— and entitlement—the crucial word being "entitlement" —which is settled after the year end when the current year income is known. As I understand it, the amendments also include some technical changes to provisions concerning the recovery of over-payments and the paying out of under-payments—we referred to those matters earlier—when entitlement turns out to be different from the amount paid under awards during the year.
The system which the Government are introducing in the Bill is very complex so far as concerns both the entitlement and award of tax credits. In the elaborate explanatory document which the Government produced, they point out that different provisions will be applicable—we shall come to some of those points later—depending on whether an individual's income goes down or goes up. The individual will be able to claim adjustments during the year if his income goes down. If it goes up, it will he taken into account, both with regard to award and entitlement, only if the amount of the increase in the year exceeds £2, 500. I hope that the noble Baroness will confirm that I am right in that.
I am afraid that all my old Treasury hackles tend to rise at this point—the Treasury halo takes a long while to wear out—so far as concerns allowing people to receive an extra £2, 500 in income without the Treasury doing anything about it. Of course, that is not the case in relation to income tax. If someone's income increases from one year to the next, then, so far as concerns income tax and if that person is not outside the scope of income tax for whatever reason, he will be taxed on the £2, 500. However, that is apparently not to be the case in relation to tax credit.
We have not been given any justification for that arrangement. We were given a justification as to why the £2, 500 limit applies in relation to tax credit. We were told by the noble Baroness, and it is spelt out in the booklet. that, since most people's income increases a little during the year, it would involve a huge number of adjustments. That is one reason that has been
298
advanced. However, I have not been given any justification as to why someone who receives tax credit should not be penalised for an increase in income of £2, 500 within the year, whereas someone who pays income tax but does not receive tax credit should pay tax on the £2, 500. We have not had any justification for that arrangement. If the Inland Revenue wants to reduce the number of calculations that people have to make, it can say that everyone who receives an increase of up to £2, 500 in a year will not be taxed on it. That would be an expensive solution and I am not sure that the shadow Chancellor would necessarily want me to support it. But there is a fundamental difference here between the tax credit system and the taxation system.
Of course, as we know, the tax credit system applies to people with an income of £50, 000 a year if they receive the working tax credit and £50, 000 plus if they receive child tax credit as well. I believe that that is right; the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong. At all events, the figure goes way beyond the level at which income tax first becomes payable.
Therefore, this set of government amendments seeks to deal with the distinction made between the award of, and entitlement to, tax credit. Clearly. whatever one's view, that is something that one accepts with the system as a whole. As I said earlier, if we do not set this matter straight, the system will become unworkable. If the Bill went through as the Commons had left it, again, it would have been unworkable.
Therefore, noble Lords are fulfilling their function of seeking to improve legislation. With the help of the noble Baroness, we have done that in relation to a number of social security Bills. Consequently, the House will realise that the purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the Bill is debated on the Floor of the House. Perhaps a rather more elaborate explanation of exactly what the Government have in mind would be helpful, in particular in regard to the points that I have made. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I do not want to discuss the substance—or reversal—of these amendments. I believe that we debated them in Grand Committee to a considerable extent. I simply want to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about whether or not this is the type of Bill that should be dealt with in Committee on the Floor of the House.
In my view, this is exactly the kind of Bill that should be dealt with in Grand Committee rather than on the Floor of the House because I suspect that not more than six Members of any party understand the detail of it. Certainly, having sat through the Committee stage, I do not believe that more than about six Members of any party participated in the debates or even came to listen to them.
I believe that one of the great problems in relation to this House and the way that it works is its gross inefficiency. By far the greatest single part of that inefficiency is the manner in which we take Committee stages of Bills on the Floor of the House when they could be dealt with, in parallel with other Committee

299
stages, upstairs. I believe that this is exactly the type of Bill which should be dealt with in Grand Committee, and I consider it to have been an extremely sensible way of proceeding.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to hear that I agree with every word spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. There is an opportunity off the Floor of the House to deal with technical Bills which are elaborate in terms of their inter-connections and to be able to press in a more informal way without the Chamber being taken over by the "anorak nerds" who follow social security matters.
I turn to the substance of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I am in some difficulty and ask for the noble Lord's help. I had assumed that by seeking to reverse each of these technical amendments, the noble Lord wanted me to explain what they do. I am happy to do that at considerable length. Instead, the noble Lord raised general points about responsiveness and income test, which are more suitable to a clause stand part debate or an amendment to that effect. Indeed, subsequent amendments have been tabled on what counts as relevant income to which his points might have been more properly addressed. I am in somewhat of a dilemma. I am happy to seek to explain what each of the government amendments does—and, therefore, what the original government amendments, which are now part of the Bill, did—and what would be the effect on the Bill if the House were to support any of the amendments in the group proposed by the noble Lord. I am not sure that that is what the noble Lord wants.
I am happy to confirm that the amendments deal with the interaction between awards and entitlement, as the noble Lord said, and include some technical changes to the provisions about recovering overpayments and paying out underpayments when entitlement turns out to be different from the amount paid under an award during the year.
I am happy to repeat the need for this cluster of technical amendments. The new tax credits introduced by the Bill are designed to target support according to the current circumstances of claimants within the context of a system that bases entitlement to tax credits on annual income but allows for adjustment if claimants experience a change in their level of income.
Therefore, we need to make the distinction between an award, which is what one receives as one goes along, and the entitlement, which is the end-of-year reconciliation. As I believe the noble Lord understood following our discussions in Committee and the follow-up papers, there were some technical problems with the relevant provisions in the Bill as it originally stood. Most obviously, there was a contradiction between Clause 5 and some later provisions of the Bill. While Clause 5 was based on the assumption that awards would or would not end in particular circumstances, Clauses 14 to 16 made clear that the
300
existence of awards was dependent on decisions made by the board. Those two ideas did not sit happily together. Therefore, we sought to clarify the matter.
In addition, the Bill was unclear about the effect of income on awards and entitlement. Because the new tax credits will respond to changes in income, entitlement cannot finally be determined until after the end of the year when current year income is known. However, as the Bill stood before Committee, the lack of such a clear distinction meant that claimants might face having their entitlement curtailed because of decisions taken by the board during the year based on expectation about income. In particular, if the board decided not to make an award in the expectation that a claimant's income would be too high for them to be entitled to any tax credits, that could cut across the claimant's entitlement. Awards will be finalised at the end of the year once all the relevant details about income are known. But if no award was ever made, there would be nothing to finalise.
The fact is that awards and payments under those awards are simply the vehicle for delivering support during the year. Entitlement is different. It depends on the underlying facts, some of which cannot be determined until the end of the year. But as the distinction was not clearly drawn by the provisions in the Bill as it stood, we decided that a number of technical changes were necessary and these were absorbed into the Bill in Committee.
I am happy to seek to rebut each of the detailed amendments moved by the noble Lord, but that would take some time. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to say whether that would be helpful or whether, having made a general point, he is now content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. In the interests of speeding up proceedings, it is certainly the case that, as she says, some of the points on income definition, and so forth. arise in later amendments. I was seeking to bring out the consequences of the Government's arrangements for the within-the-year and after the end-of-year situation, with which the amendments are primarily concerned, and to draw out the fact that there seems to be some inconsistency in policy between the tax credit arrangements and the normal tax arrangements. Under self-assessment one has a situation where there is a degree of anticipation.
Clearly, the Government feel that we must help those who suffer a fall in income during the year and who are somehow totally impoverished and in need of instant assistance rather than for that to be left until the end of the year. If that is the argument, it seems odd to make those arrangements for people who are being paid up to £50, 000 per year and who seem unlikely to starve during the course of the year.
Essentially, as the noble Baroness rightly says, the amendments deal with the distinction between entitlement and award. I was seeking merely to bring out the inconsistency of approach by the Revenue to taxpayers as against tax credit receivers. That is why I

301
thought it appropriate to raise the matter now rather than later. Having said that, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could at least indicate to the House which amendments are concerned with that issue and which are apparently the minority of amendments concerned with the recovery of overpayments and the rectifying of underpayments, which I understand is the function of some of the amendments but not others.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall try to be helpful but again I may need the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
As regards the substantive point concerning people who earn up to £50, 000, the noble Lord will remember—we can debate later the question of MDRs and so forth—that those who are sensitive to a sharp taper fall in the withdrawal of working tax credit are those with incomes around £10, 000 to £15, 000 per year, depending on size of family. From about £20, 000 per year upwards, there is little effect on taper rates because whatever happens to their income does not affect their entitlement to the children's tax credit element of the child tax credit, because that is the old tax allowance.
Therefore, the asymmetry of tolerance, the £2, 500, in practical terms is available only to those on modest incomes who are to some extent on the edge of the tax bands. Once people come off the taper of the main child tax credit and go on to the children's tax credit at about £18, 000, £20, 000, thereafter, whatever happens to their income, it remains the same until they hit £50, 000. It is precisely because we want to encourage work incentives that we have opted for what I believe is the decency of the asymmetry which allows for those who see an increase in their income. Often, with a couple, he may be on a low income and for the first time she re-enters the labour market. If they were immediately clobbered by a full withdrawal of working tax credit or some element of children's tax credit, probably the first thing she would do would be to drop out of the labour market. That is the last thing we want to happen.
We recognise that there is a sensitivity to those effects, simply because people are on very low incomes. That is why we have the asymmetry between immediately responding to falls in income but allowing in the first year in which it occurs for a tolerance of the first £2, 500 of earnings. However, in practice that tolerance does not apply because it makes no difference to people once they have run out of the conventional working tax credit and children's tax credit and they are on just that last element of children's tax credit, which runs from about £18, 000 or £19, 000 up to £50, 000 before it finally tapers out. So, in practice that tolerance is targeted on those who have the lowest income who are most sensitive to changes in circumstances. That is why I believe that it is such a decent policy.
Amendments separating out awards and entitlement—again, I am happy to give a full explanation, if the noble Lord wishes—are
302
Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 22. If it will help the noble Lord, I am happy to speak briefly to them. I look for some steer from him on that.
Amendment No. 17 to Clause 3(1) would reverse changes designed to make clear that a claim to a tax credit is needed each year. That amendment was needed because, once a proper distinction between awards and entitlement has been drawn, the requirement for a new claim each year is no longer implied by Clause 5, which used to provide that an award on a claim ended at the end of each tax year.
I mentioned that there was an inconsistency between certain provisions of Clause 5 and the fact that awards will, in fact, reflect decisions made by the board during the year. Those provisions were therefore removed from Clause 5 and replaced by new subsection (3), which makes clear that an award is brought to an end during the year only by a decision made by the board to terminate it. Amendment No. 23 would reverse these changes.
Amendment No. 18, the third of the quartet, would remove new subsection (2) of Clause 3, which has been inserted to make clear that, where the board decides not to make an award or to terminate an award, any subsequent entitlement is dependent on the making of a new claim. That makes clear that the position for second and subsequent claims during the year is the same as that for new claims.
Finally, Amendment No. 19 would remove Clause 3(4). That provision states that entitlement ends when a couple breaks up or a new couple forms. That is an important provision. Couples will make a joint claim to the new tax credits. If a couple ceases to exist, obviously the previous entitlement must end. It would clearly be wrong to remove that provision.
I think that those were the specific amendments on which the noble Lord wanted me to expand. If he wants me to describe any others, I am happy to do so, but I do not want to trespass on your Lordships' time if he thinks that unnecessary.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am not clear whether all the other amendments are concerned with overpayments and underpayments. I was rather worried by what the noble Baroness said in speaking to an earlier amendment about overpayments and underpayments. This set of amendments includes provisions for underpayments and overpayments as well, and I am not clear which concern entitlement as opposed to award and which concern overpayments, and underpayments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords. I have described the substantive amendments on entitlement. The amendments concerning overpayments and underpayments are Amendments Nos. 107, 108. 120 and 155. Apart from those making changes to Clause 14, the other amendments are primarily consequential. I am happy to follow up the matter in correspondence.

303
If the noble Lord wants me to pursue any of this, he is welcome to hear my 16-page speech, but he may prefer not to.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that we do not want to get too deeply into the whole—mess, I was going to say. Will she just explain what the amendments concerning overpayments and underpayments do?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the improvements were designed to enable the board to recover overpayments before the end of the year when an award was initially made to a person who, in fact. never met the basic qualifying criteria for the tax credit. They also allow interest to be charged in such cases from the point at which the award is terminated—although only if the overpayment arose as a result of fraudulent or negligent conduct on the part of the claimant. They also make clear that the board is under an obligation to pay any extra tax credits to claimants in cases where there has been an underpayment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I am not sure whether there is any more convenient way of not moving the following 55 amendments. If not, we shall not move them at the appropriate moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
The Earl of Northeskmoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment by which we seek clarification from the Government of how they intend to define a separation as permanent or otherwise. We feel that the drafting as it as stands leaves the interpretation wide open. Accordingly, we should like more information on how permanence of separation is to be defined.
No doubt the Minister will maintain that the principles of the definition are well established in social security law and practice. That may be so, but it would be helpful if she would enumerate them. I have in mind the equation of that practice in Grand Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with the uncertain art of weather forecasting. The point at issue for us is how the relevant information about the separated couple, or the couple deemed to be permanently separated, is to be elicited from them. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall try the short answer and if that is not good enough I shall try the longer one. The short answer is that we ask them. As the noble Earl rightly said, there are established tests for cohabiting couples, such as whether people share financial arrangements and cohabit sexually and whether the relationship appears to be stable, under social security arrangements. But
304
ultimately, the test of whether separation is permanent depends on the facts of the particular case. In most cases, it is obvious. Where it is not, we tend to ask the claimant.
That is not to say that people must not get together with an ex-spouse in perpetuity, but they must consider that there is a degree of permanence in the separation. That covers situations such as those in which a couple have a perfectly stable marriage but may be working at different ends of the country and see each other only once a month. That is not a separation. We know what constitutes cohabitation in terms of shared financial arrangements, permanent relationships and the like. We also have well-established arrangements for permanent separation. If we are in doubt and have no reason to believe that there is fraud, we will ask them and take their word for it.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I think that I am content with that reply from the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Claims: supplementary]:
The Earl of Northeskmoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert ", provided that such a person has satisfied an official of the Board as to the identity of such a person and of the claimant, and that such a person acts genuinely for the claimant".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope that the amendment is self-explanatory. The Minister will be aware that we debated something similar in Grand Committee. Indeed, she gave us a gracious and helpful response then to the effect that the number of individuals involved in making claims on behalf of others is relatively small in the scheme of things. Moreover—I hope that I have understood this correctly—they are either appointed by the Secretary of State or the Board of the Inland Revenue or are court order appointments.
None the less, while acknowledging those points, we continue to be concerned that a potential loophole for abuse remains. In the context of establishing the legitimacy of a claim on public funds, it is neither onerous nor bureaucratic to require that the Revenue satisfies itself as to the identity of the appointee and the claimant and to ensure that the appointee is acting genuinely on behalf of the claimant. That is all that the amendment would provide. Surely that is just common sense and good practice. It is an entirely reasonable requirement. At the end of the day, we are all in the business of ensuring that tax credits reach those who are entitled to them and minimising the potential for fraud through this provision would be an effective means of doing so. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry that, if the noble Earl thought that my response in Committee was helpful, he did not at the same time think it persuasive. Obviously, the lesson from that is that I could read the telephone directory and it would make no difference; the amendments reappear.

305
Bluntly, I am not sure why the noble Earl is concerned about the matter. As he rightly said, repeating the information that I gave in Committee, there are only about 1, 000 appointee cases, which usually involve people with severe learning difficulties. Three-quarters of those appointee cases are appointments made by the Secretary of State or by the Board of the Inland Revenue. The remaining quarter consist of court order appointments. Only about 200 of those are cases in which spouses have appointed their partners and we consider that all of those cases are genuine.
The point is that because the appointment process is already rigorous, the amendment is entirely unnecessary. We have no evidence of any compliance problems at all—not one. I have asked about that. The process is rigorous. People are visited by specially trained members of staff who meet both the appointee and the claimant. They must assess whether it is in the best interests of the claimant to grant appointee status. They will consider what measures the appointee is putting in place to ensure the arrangements—for example, whether they are currently looking after their affairs and managing their finances, whether the claimant can act on his own and what kind of work the claimant is doing. If necessary, they will make follow up visits, and so on. None of the staff in the disabled persons tax credit unit can recall a case in which a spouse was appointed when the other spouse could have acted on his or her own behalf. Given that fact and the fact that the appointment process is so rigorous, I cannot conceive of any reason why we need any further activity.
The noble Earl asked why the Revenue should not identify appointees. Appointees will be subject to an interview with an experienced member of staff. That is current practice, and it will continue. There are abundant safeguards in the system, and, as far as we know, it has never been subject, in any sense, to abuse. I hope that the noble Earl will allow that to continue.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I should say in passing that I never dreamed of asking her to read out the telephone directory—perish the thought—although it might be more interesting than some of the drafting of the Tax Credits Bill. I shall leave that by the side.
Lord Higgins: It might make more sense.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, that may also be true. The substantive reason why we were unpersuaded in Grand Committee remains. We were concerned at the potential for abuse of the system. However, the Minister has given a more persuasive response to that point today. This time, I am persuaded, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Freemanmoved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 11, at end insert ", including any signposting information about benefits and services provided by government departments to which the claimant or claimants have access by virtue of their entitlement to tax credits"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment probes further the issue of passporting benefits. The matter was discussed in Grand Committee, but it merits a little further clarification. The amendment would clarify the suggested requirement that the Inland Revenue should have responsibility for signposting the rights of tax credit claimants to other benefits. It is a signpost; it is not designed to imply, in any way, that the Inland Revenue should be under a duty or obligation to calculate what the other benefits might be or to assess whether there is an absolute right to the benefits.
A few moments ago, the noble Lord. Lord Newby, rightly described the Bill as extremely complex If it is complex for your Lordships' House and for another place, it will be extremely complex for those who will have to administer it and those who should benefit from it. Therefore, we on these Benches share with the Government the aim of ensuring that there is the highest possible take-up not only of the working tax credit and the child tax credit but of other benefits that are passported by the award of those tax credits. The amendment proposed earlier by my noble friend on the Front Bench and carried by the House will go some way to identify, through an annual report, where there is low take-up.
The Minister was most helpful. I shall study what she said in the record, but I understood her to say that it should be possible to compare performance targets on a quarterly basis for the 'working tax credit and the child tax credit, as administered by the Inland Revenue, with actual take-up and expenditure. That was what the Minister implied. I shall read Hansard, and, if that is the case, it would be helpful.
I hope that I have assured the Minister that my intention is to signpost, not to place additional burdens on the Revenue, which already has a substantial burden. I am grateful for the earlier clarification about the helpline and about the literature that would be available. All of that is part of signposting to passported benefits. It was helpful of the Minister to say in Grand Committee that those who wanted a face-to-face interview with officials at the Inland Revenue would be able to have one if they asked. I hope that I report the Minister's intentions correctly. There will, of course, be an extensive IT system to support the dissemination of information among officials and between departments, the Inland Revenue and local authorities on the nature of the benefits.
The minimum that many claimants will wish to see is the Inland Revenue providing information on available passported benefits in an up-to-date list and, most importantly, details of names, addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers and website addresses for the departments to whom people may make a valid claim. That is a simple request. The system is immensely complicated and burdensome.

307
It is designed to be beneficial to those on low incomes, and I hope that the Minister will embrace the purpose, if not the text, of the amendment. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. It seems eminently reasonable. We debate it against the background of a fundamental shift in the role of the Inland Revenue.
It emerged in debate on earlier amendments that the Inland Revenue would go from being an institution that only collected money to being one that also disbursed it in the form of tax credits of one sort or another. There has been an institutional change, and I suspect that it will come as a shock to some in the Inland Revenue to find themselves dealing with tax credits. In that context, the relationship between the Inland Revenue and—I was going to say—what remains of the Department for Work and Pensions will be important, particularly as the tax credits must have some relationship with what my noble friend Lord Freeman rightly calls passported benefits, which are still administered by the department. It will involve a fundamental effort to change the co-ordination between the two bodies.
Can the Minister tell us which benefits will be administered by the Inland Revenue and which by the Department for Work and Pensions, so that we can get some idea of the scale of the problem? Are we right in thinking that the tax credits covered by the Bill are the only benefit that will be dealt with by the Inland Revenue? Can the Minister enumerate the benefits to be administered by the Department for Work and Pensions to which people in receipt of tax credits will be entitled?
The other thing that I would like clarified relates to the so-called passported benefits. Generally, that has tended to relate to benefits covered by the contributory system. I am not sure that that is true. In short, we do not have a clear definition of what is meant by passported benefits. We must be clear about the so-called passported benefits to which tax credit recipients will be entitled. Secondly, will any of those be of the kind that is restricted to contributory benefit recipients? To put it another way, will some of the passported benefits not be those which would be received by tax credit recipients, but only by those who receive contributory benefits.
I hope that I have put that clearly. I apologise for my sentence structure and syntax, which went totally awry. I was short of a word to describe a person entitled to a benefit. Using the word "entitlee" provides the only way of getting around the problem. However, I shall not attempt to repeat the point; I rely on the noble Baroness to understand what I was saying.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am always delighted to work out what the noble Lord has said. When I am in doubt, I shall ask him.
308
First, I shall pick up a point not related to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, but a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, with regard to performance targets. To ensure that there is no ambiguity about this point, performance against published targets will be reported in the board's annual report. A quarterly report will be made containing information on the award of tax credits. As now, it will contain detailed information about regional variations and the like.
I turn now to the question raised by the noble Lord. Lord Higgins. He asked which passported benefits will be administered by the Inland Revenue and which by the Department for Work and Pensions. There may be one or two passported benefits, such as entitlement to the social fund and so forth, that will continue to be administered by the department to those claimants of child tax credit whose adult element is income support and jobseeker's allowance.
But passported elements as we normally think of them, such as free school dinners, prescription charges and the like, will be administered neither by the Inland Revenue nor by the Department for Work and Pensions. Rather, they will come under what might he called the host government department. Thus free school meals are provided by the Department for Education and Skills; free prescriptions and dental treatment are provided by the Department of Health. They are to be passported because, as the noble Lord rightly identified, if a claimant has been on income support or jobseeker's allowance, those provide an automatic ticket to eligibility for such benefits.
The list includes other benefits—I have been trying to recall some of the more obscure among them—such as reduced charges for utility payments; help with school uniform purchases, which is an education matter; prison visits; and home insulation, a benefit dealt with by the former DLTR. Furthermore, I cite entitlement of access to, although not necessarily an award from, the social fund, which will be a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions. The devolved administrations will also have their own schemes for passported benefits.
All those benefits will be paid to people by virtue of the income test employed by the relevant department. So far as I am aware, they have no connection, in terms of passported benefits, to national insurance or the contributory principle. Obviously I do not refer to benefits such as winter fuel payments or TV licences, which are passported because the recipient would be in receipt of an old age pension. In this context they have no connection to these tax credits. At that stage the noble Lord's point would be brought to bear if those were the elements that he wanted to call "passported" benefits.
I hope that that makes the matter clear to the noble Lord. Passported benefits, as they are conventionally understood, whereby via the income test the recipient will be entitled to those benefits, will he handled by the

309
home department—the Department for Education and Skills or the Department of Health. I give way to the noble Earl.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. Can she give an assurance that nothing in this Bill would restrict the freedom of the devolved administrations to take their own decisions on these matters?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have no reason to think so, but the noble Earl will understand that tax credits and social security remain national considerations. However, my understanding is that the passported benefits and their eligibility are matters for the devolved administrations. If I need to qualify that remark, I shall write to the noble Earl.
If the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is content with my explanation of the nature of passported benefits, perhaps I may return to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman. I am sure that no noble Lord in this House would challenge the notion that people must know about and understand their entitlement to benefits which they are, indeed, entitled to receive. Knowledge is power in this context. If people do not know about the benefits, they will not be able to claim them.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I wish to clarify one point. Does the fact that someone is entitled to a tax credit give them any kind of "passported benefit" to which otherwise they would not be entitled?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, yes. It would depend on their income; in other words, the question would arise over the connection between the income scale of the home department—the Department for Education and Skills may decide that free school meals will be cut off at a certain point of income level while the eligibility for free prescription charges may be cut off at a different income level by the Department of Health—and the read-across from those levels to the tax credit system. That is how the levels for eligibility will connect.
What we cannot do any longer is put in place an easy calibration. Those on income support will certainly be eligible for passported benefits, but there will be people who are eligible, perhaps, for child tax credit which will be sufficiently generous in its maintenance payments to float those recipients off income support. Therefore there will be complexities with regard to the read-across.
Basically, however, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health have an income test which so far has been triggered by the read-across from income support and jobseeker's allowance. The income test will continue to apply, but clearly tax credits, which will include the working families' tax credit, apply right up the income scale to an annual income of £50, 000 and therefore there can
310
be no automatic read-across from tax credits. As the noble Lord will recognise, unless that is the case then far too many families would become eligible.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that the fact that someone is entitled to a tax credit in itself does not entitle them to any other passported benefits which otherwise they would not receive because of the level of their income?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is correct. Tax credits will apply to incomes possibly up to £50, 000 per year. Indeed, the matter is very straightforward. People will be entitled to passported benefits according to their level of income. What has yet finally to be determined—I hope that I shall be able to give clear details of this when we come to Third Reading—is the read-across from income levels to how high up a claimant is on the tax credit system. I refer here to the chimneys of income levels. We have to ensure that the read-across works effectively. I hope that that makes sense to noble Lords.
I am able to confirm the information I gave a little earlier in my remarks to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the devolved administrations. The devolved assemblies will be free to do as they wish in terms of how they apply the system. I am glad to be able to confirm that point.
I return now to the substantive issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, in his amendment. Of course he is absolutely right to say that the information has to be made available. It also has to be timely and up to date. Ideally, because of the circumstances that I have just described, the information would best come from the home department, such as education or health. I believe that that is why the noble Lord wanted to see signposting put in place. That is quite right and is much better than an assessment of entitlement made by the Inland Revenue, which would not necessarily have the relevant information, given the host of very minor passported benefits that are available.
I hope that I am able to give the noble Lord the reassurance that he seeks by saying this. The award notice that the Revenue will send out to claimants detailing what tax credits they will be paid will include a message telling them that they may be entitled to other benefits as a result of their award. The message will advise them to telephone the Revenue's tax credit helpline, which is the point at which most applicants will be able to receive guidance. In turn, the helpline will direct applicants to sources of information about the main benefits.
As the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, identified, there will be interviews available for claimants. Furthermore, the Revenue is planning to produce a leaflet, telling claimants how to access more information on particular major passported benefits. I can confirm that the leaflet will include all the relevant telephone numbers, fax numbers and other information that we believe will be helpful. In that way, we shall ensure that people know how to follow up any benefit to which they think they may be entitled.

311
I hope that, as a result of my remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, will accept that we are putting in place signposts, as he suggested. We are doing that through the helpline, the offer of interviews, and the publication of literature containing all the relevant information. With that explanation, set in the wider context of what is a passported benefit and who is to be responsible for it, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful response. The record will need to be studied.
I shall work on the assumption that the relevant interests in the community—those who work with and represent people who will be making claims for tax credits—will be able to comment on and have some input into the literature and the nature of operation of the helpline. Over the coming years they should be able to review the effectiveness of those measures. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Period of awards]:
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Clause 7 [Income Test]:
The Earl of Northeskmoved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, again this is a probing amendment. We merely seek clarification of what kind of social security benefits the Government intend to prescribe in the context of the subsection. As drafted, it appears to be very open-ended.
With apologies for perhaps being a little obtuse, I should like to press the Minister on one other point. My first reading of the subsection suggested to me that its purpose was to disqualify certain individuals from entitlement to tax credits if they were in receipt of other prescribed social security benefits. On re-reading it, it occurred to me that that was not necessarily its intent; rather, it could be delivering a mechanism whereby the income test is waived in circumstances where individuals are in receipt of other prescribed social security benefits.
There is a world of difference between my two interpretations. I should be grateful if the Minister can clarify the matter for me. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will not pursue the amendment. We discussed this issue in Grand Committee. The amendment would remove the provision for regulations to suspend the tax credits income test for those families receiving income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance, a provision which is necessary in order that such recipients may have automatic access to maximum child tax credit.
312
As I tried, obviously unhelpfully, to explain in Grand Committee, for most families the income test in Clause 7, which is based on the income of a tax year, provides a fair and simple way of assessing entitlement to tax credits and targeting support. However, for the poorest families there needs to be a safety net. Currently that is provided by IS or JSA, and both of those benefits include elements for the children in the household. But, from 2004, existing IS and JSA claimants with children will be transferred to the child tax credit and the child-related elements of these benefits will cease.
We want to ensure that those families continue to receive at least the same levels of overall support as they do now. If these families were subjected to a test of their annual income while claiming income support or income-based JSA, it is possible that they would not receive maximum child tax credit due to their income across the whole year— including periods when they may not have been receiving IS or income-based JSA—being more than the £5, 060 income threshold. It is a way of protecting people who drop down into unemployment that they are able to receive this support which they would not otherwise do if we were, in some senses, anticipating or averaging the income that they had so far earned.
The regulations will make clear that for any period of entitlement to IS or income-based JSA, entitlement to child tax credit will be at the maximum rate and shall not be subject to a test of annual income. The income of the previous or current year when perhaps a period of employment or self-employment had come to an end will not be taken into account. This will ensure—this is why it is entirely benign—that the poorest families with children continue to receive the appropriate safety net support on a weekly basis. We believe that to be vital.
As to the noble Earl's final question, the income test is waived for those who are in receipt of IS or income-based JSA because they will receive the maximum CTC to which their circumstances entitle them. In that sense it is an automatic conveyor belt. I hope that that helps the noble Earl. It is a way of making sure that when people become unemployed and drop down onto the basic benefits they do not find their previous earnings disqualifying them from help during their most needy period.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I should perhaps apologise that it takes me a long time to wrap my head round the complexity of these issues. I do not have the experience of the noble Baroness. It is a delight always to hear her explanations as and when, slowly, they begin to enter my consciousness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 19, leave out subsection (3).

313
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to leave out subsection (3), an important subsection which effectively defines "relevant income".
In her typically helpful way, the noble Baroness was kind enough to send me a letter on this issue following the exchanges which took place in Grand Committee. There are a number of matters I should like to pursue, but perhaps I may first clarify one point. Among the other helpful information provided by her department—in particular in relation to what we called category three government amendments—was an explanation that Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and so on, which we will debate later, replaced the references to "relevant income" in Clause 17. We are dealing here with Clause 7. not Clause 17, and, as far as I know, the expression "relevant income" appears in Clause 7, is defined there and remains a concept which is helpful in the Bill. I am not clear why the amendments to Clause 17 apparently replace references to "relevant income". I am sorry to throw this one to the noble Baroness at rather short noticeߞClause 17 refers to the "final notice" and so on—but if she can clarify that point, if not now, then when we come to Clause 17, it would be helpful.
The noble Baroness argues in the letter she was kind enough to send me that the definition of "income" for the purposes of tax credits is effectively the same as the definition of "income" for normal tax purposes. That would be so particularly, apparently, so far as concerns income from capital. But, having said that, it appears to be the case—this is a point that I raised on an earlier amendment but the Minister suggested that we should come back to it later—that the rules which apply in the case of income tax do not apply to tax credits because of the need, on the one hand, to help people whose incomes fall within the year and, on the other hand, to reduce administrative charges where incomes rise during the year.
I am still not clear how the Revenue has been "persuaded"—I think that is the best way of putting it—to adopt such lenient attitudes with regard to the tax credit, and how it remains intransigent in regard to allowing people to have up to £2, 500 extra income from one year to another without taxing them. Given, for the reasons the noble Baroness mentioned—that is, reducing the level of marginal rates as you go up the income scale—the fact that the tax credit goes up to £50, 000, and beyond that where an individual also receives child credit, this seems to be a very asymmetrical way of doing it.
If it were related only to people on low incomes, one could understand it. But it seems very strange to do it for people who are not on low incomes. Or am I totally missing the point? Would everyone with an income of up to £45, 000 be entitled to tax credits? It may be that I have misunderstood that particular point. Will anyone on an income of £45, 000 who is not entitled to tax credit be taxed on an income increase during the year of less than £2, 500? A person on tax credit will not be so taxed. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, taxation rules are not changing. If someone's income increases
314
from £20, 000 to £22, 000, or from £45, 000 to £47.500, he will continue to be taxed on that increase as now. There will be no change in that.
With regard to people on higher incomes. it was the interconnection between that and the taper off of the tax credit. As the noble Lord will know, you enjoy the full tax credit up to incomes of about £90 a week. You then taper off the working tax credit. You then taper off the child tax credit which includes the childcare element, the children's element and the family element. The last element to remain is the family element. The other elements have been tapered out at about £15, 000 to £20, 000 according to family size. You continue to enjoy the family element which was the old tax allowance up to about £50, 000 whereupon it tapers out again and you finally end up just on child benefit.
On responsiveness, at the point at which all the elements of child tax credit have tapered out except for the family element— that is, between £20, 000 and £50, 000—it does not matter what happens to your income; you retain your entitlement to that sum. Therefore the head space issue does not come into play.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the noble Baroness enlighten us? Does the Rooker/Wise amendment and the uprating procedure for indexing cover the limits at which the tax credit kicks in or will that have to be dealt with when we come to Amendment No. 37?
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it will have to come under Amendment No. 37. Tax allowances are uprated automatically unless they are overruled by the Finance Act. Therefore that will come into that category. If I have any further information, perhaps I may come back to the noble Earl on Amendment No. 37.
With child tax credit being increased in line with earnings, and the working tax credit at present being increased in line with prices, I am not willing to make a commitment that that situation will continue in perpetuity. We may wish to rebalance that. The commitment for child tax credit for earnings is only until the end of this Parliament.
I do not know whether I have met the noble Lord's point about MDRs and deduction rates. First, he asked me a technical point about relevant income. The second more general point was about the asymmetry—it was the word I used in Committee—between drops and increases in income. I deal, first, with the technical point about the use of term "relevant income" in Clause 7. "Relevant income" is defined in Clause 7 but it was also used in Clause 17. It is no longer used in Clause 17. The terms "current year income" and "previous year income" are used instead. Noble Lords will understand that we tried deliberately to separate the two. But "relevant income" is still relevant. to establishing the level of a claimant's entitlement and is still used, therefore, in Clause 7 and in Clause 13 which deals with that.

315
On asymmetry, I accept that there is here a difference in treatment between the instance when people on very modest incomes become eligible for taxation and their eligibility for tax credit. There is an asymmetry. In Committee I sought to express my strong support for what we have done. The expectation is that anyone on tax credits will have his tax credits for the current year based on the preceding year's income. However, if his income in the current year falls he goes immediately on to the current year assessment. That is to help him. The last thing we want is for him to drop out of work because we are unable to top up his income in the course of that year. If anyone's income increases in the course of the current year the first £2, 500 of that income increase will be ignored for that current year. However, in the following year he will go on to the new adjustment.
Is it right to have that discrepancy between immediately topping up a drop in income in the current year while ignoring the first £2, 500 of increases in income in a current year, taking it into account only the following year? The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pursued me on that question. At the end of the day, it is a matter of judgment and information. The information is that there are probably twice as many changes in income due to income increases rather than decreases. There is a practical reason. Something like 1.3 million families who are likely to be affected by tax credit see an increase in their income of up to £2, 000 in the year but only about 0.7 million see their income fall by a similar sum.
People's incomes do go up. Second earners move into the household calculation. If they were to have their tax credits adjusted immediately, what would that mean in terms of administrative load and, more importantly, with regard to the message we are trying to get across that work pays? Often the increase is through increased hours. A partner, a second earner, may be tempted for the first time into work. Income will be assessed on gross income rather than net. Therefore, there is a relatively lower marginal deduction than would otherwise have been the case. We welcome that. We shall catch up with that the following year when people have established patterns of work and payment.
We think that it is right and decent—and generous—to have an asymmetry so that if people's incomes increase through their efforts in the current year they will go on to that adjustment only in the following year.
At the end of the day it is a philosophical debate. Above all, we seek to encourage people into work, to stay in work and to make them accept, with us, that work pays. We think that the best way to do that is to have an asymmetry so that any efforts they make to help themselves, certainly in the first year before possibly new patterns of work are bedded in, are not met with deduction rates. That will come into effect the following year because we also have a duty to the taxpayer as trustee of public moneys. But we think that this asymmetry is right and decent. It affects only those on modest income; in other words, those for whom
316
high MDRs in the year in which they move into increased earnings or increased work might serve as a disincentive.
The noble Lord may not agree with me. I am confident that I shall have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that it is right to have asymmetry here. It is decent; it is generous. I ask the noble Lord to accept that this is where we are coming from.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as always one is lost in admiration for the Minister's exposition on these issues. I was contemplating whether, when the Treasury takes over the whole of the Department for Work and Pensions, the noble Baroness will just about be ready to become Chancellor of the Exchequer—the first one in this House for a very long time.
Be that as it may, I understand the case for asymmetry. It is fundamental to the basis on which this system of so-called tax credits has been established. I am still not clear whether taxpayers not in receipt of tax credit will be fairly or unfairly treated. However, one can return to that point at a later stage. It may arise on subsequent amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 5, line 33, leave out "In this Part"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is part of a large group which we thought it appropriate to table so that we could raise the matter on the Floor of the House. In Committee, the Minister categorised the various amendments into five groups. These amendments seek to replace the relevant income provisions in Clause 17, although Amendment No. 26 affects Clause 7. That places them in category three.
We have just debated the relevant income definitions but we are not entirely clear why in Committee the Government wiped out the definition in Clause 17. The difficulty is that the reference in Clause 7 reappears—rather like the smile on the face of the Cheshire cat in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, after the cat itself has disappeared. Could the noble Baroness explain why the Government feel that the original reference to relevant income in Clause 17 ought to be knocked out?
Lord Freeman: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that because tax credit entitlement is based on the previous year's income—I entirely accept the point about asymmetry—unless the Inland Revenue becomes aware of the fact that there has been an increase in income during the course of the current year of entitlement to tax credit, the proposed £2, 500 threshold would effectively be lost the next year? That year will rely on the previous year's income, which may have risen more than the £2, 500 threshold. If that is not disclosed and no adjustment is made to reduce tax credit, the benefit of that threshold will be lost.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the £2, 500 threshold does not continue in perpetuity but only from the previous year. Normally, the individual's P60—which reflects his income in the current year—will form the basis of the following year's tax credit. The current year's P60 will include the rise in income of £2, 500, £2, 495 or whatever. I was making the point that the rise is not taken into account in the current year in which the income increases. As a result, the individual will not see a reduction in his tax credit in the current year.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, that is helpful but does not entirely answer the point. The P60 is issued at a specific point in time, shortly after the end of the tax year, and further adjustments may be made in relation to the past year.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is right that Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 arc, in a sense, an aberration because they refer to -in this Part". That is done so that the changes affect the correct part of the Bill, not just the clause.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, does "in this Part" mean "Part" with a capital "P"?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords, that is correct, rather like upper and lower case in "Inland Revenue". The substantive amendments are Amendments Nos. 45 onwards, which relate to Clause 17 and do exactly as the noble Lord said. Although it is helpful to have the concept of relevant income in Clause 7, one needs to specify in Clause 17 whether the reference is to this year's income or last year's income in assessing the individual's entitlement to tax credit. That is the reason for using in Clause 17 the terms "current year income" and "previous year income", not just "relevant income".
The expression "relevant income" is defined in Clause 7 and used in Clause 17. We are separating that expression into its two component parts of "previous year income" and "current year income" in Clause 17 because that is a more illuminating way of helping claimants to get the right tax credit.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I asked whether "in this Part" meant "Part" with a capital "P" because there are two parts to the Bill. If so, I am not clear why the change does not apply to both parts.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we need to clarify the terms for the purposes of the whole of Part 1, not just Clause 7. It has nothing to do with whether the terms are used in Parts 2 and 3 because they are not and never have been. They are simply not relevant to the rest of the Bill.
Earl Russell: My Lords, am I correct in thinking that in the Bill, "Part" is a term of art?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Probably, my Lords.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 28:
Page 6, line 6, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: This is a topsy-turvy amendment—and is not the least thing topsy-turvy in the Bill. The subsection states:
"Regulations may for the purposes of this Part make provision…as to what is, or is not, income, and…as to the calculation of income".
The Minister helpfully provided a number of draft regulations, so we know what the Government are likely to have in mind when the Bill is enacted. That precedent might well be followed in another place. No one there goes to as much trouble as the noble Baroness to provide draft regulations.
The power in question is rather wide but I assume that it applies only to tax credits, not to income tax. I do not remember any such provision in income tax legislation, giving the power to decide what is and is not income. What do the Government have in mind, at least in the initial stages, for the calculation of income? That crucial point can fundamentally affect the way in which the Bill operates.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, some power of this kind is needed. I am sure that the Minister remembers a great many discussions about CSA matters pointing out that former husbands have developed a remarkable skill in classifying things as not being income which might appear to the untutored eye to be income. So such a power is needed.
The question of what is capital and what is income has given rise to a good deal of debate. What is the income of a company and what is the income of one of its employees or directors is a matter on which there is a good deal of room for obfuscation. These matters must be cleared up somehow. Since the ingenuity of man when it comes to tax evasion is almost infinite, the need for flexibility—constantly invoked by Ministers—is a point which, in this case, even I must concede.
What I have been thinking about the question of flexibility and regulation is that sometimes we need not to object to the regulation-making power as such but to demand a tighter drawing of the vires under which the regulation-making power exists. There is an increasing tendency in drafting the vires to make regulations not to confine oneself to saying that one wants to take a power to deal with the particular problem that one has on the stocks, but, just in case something might turn up that one has not foreseen, to make the power as wide in extent as it possibly can be. I wonder whether the Minister might make some

319
provision for tightening the wording of these vires to see whether they can be more specific to the mischief which I agree we have to meet.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there are two questions here. One—which was rightly pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—relates to what assumptions we are making about what counts as income. The second relates to the need for what may be called the "topsy-turvy" clause to deal with the fallibility of human nature—which is one way of describing what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to.
As regards the definition of "income", it may help if I explain where we have arrived in our thinking. The definition will broadly be based on annual income which is taken into account for income tax. It will therefore include earnings from employment or self-employment, certain social security benefits and pensions and "other income" from savings, property, trusts and overseas sources, in line with the definition of such income in tax law.
I also point out that the Inland Revenue was working with interested groups in drafting the relevant regulations. These groups include not only what may be termed low income groups—CPAG, NCOPF, the lone parents' organisation, NACAB, the Disability Alliance, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, the Low Pay Unit, and the Women's Budget Group—but also the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Institute of Directors, which includes accountants. In other words, with a very wide group of organisations we are refining our definition for regulation purposes of what counts as income. But basically we are following income tax rules.
The second point related to the "topsy-turvy" element. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, in terms of social security I have been amazed at the number of people who run Porsches apparently on £90 a week, because the rest of their income is turned into other forms. I hope the House will allow me to repeat an obvious example that I have given previously. Someone may lend someone else a sum of money—£3, 000, which is the capital sum—and it may be repaid on a weekly, fortnightly or monthly basis. But for this rule, that could technically be regarded as income—which it is not; it is the repayment of capital. Equally, people leaving prison will receive a modest lump of a couple of hundred pounds to settle them. We do not want that lump sum to disqualify them from entitlement to income support or JSA according to their circumstances. So that is the nature of the rule. It is benign, but behind it lies not only the basic income tax rules but full consultation with a wide range of organisations leading to regulations which will be available to this House.
Earl Russell: My Lords, that was a helpful reply, but has the Minister any response to the point about the need to draw the vires rather more tightly in the regulation-making power?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my instinct is "No", but perhaps I may reflect further on the matter to see whether I agree with the noble Earl's point.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, we understand that there may be a need for regulations which enable the Government to vary the definitions of income and so on. The Minister referred to a particular item; namely, the repayment of a loan, which would not then be regarded as income. For the record, can she give us some idea of what the regulations contain in the first instance?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords, I am afraid I cannot do that at the moment. They are still under discussion. All I would say is that the model that we are following was followed by the previous Conservative government when they introduced family credit, disability working allowance and other benefits. So far as I am aware, there has always been such a provision for exactly the purposes outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. When the consultation regarding what is relevant income for these purposes has been concluded, I shall make sure that the noble Lord is notified of when the regulations will be available for inspection.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 13, leave out subsection ( 10).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 7(10) is concerned with the board making estimates. I found it a rather puzzling clause which it would be helpful to illustrate. The subsection reads as follows:
"The Board may estimate the amount of the income of a person, or the aggregate income of persons, for any tax year for the purpose of making, amending or terminating an award of a tax credit; but such an estimate does not affect the rate at which he is, or they are, entitled to the tax credit for that or any other tax year".
That seems a rather strange provision.
The clause suggests that the board can estimate the claimant's income, and it will do so for the purpose of amending or terminating an award. In that case, surely it affects the rate at which it is entitled to the tax credit. The fact that it makes an estimate clearly does not affect the tax credit, but if it does make an estimate one would have thought that it was for the purpose of affecting the rate of entitlement to the credit. I do not understand for what other purpose the estimate will be made; nor do I understand why the board will make estimates if doing so has no such effect. I am puzzled as to the purpose of this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): My Lords, I must tell the House that, if this amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 30.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thought that the Minister had explained this point in Committee. I believe that

321
this relates simply to the system that is used for the assessment of Schedule D income tax. If you do it all afterwards, you have a very large sum falling due to be paid at some time when people may not have made provision for it and it can be quite difficult to meet. So, with Schedule D income tax, there is an estimate at the beginning of the year based on the previous year's earnings. If you earn less than that during the course of the year, your next year's liability is reduced. If you earn more than that—if, as sometimes happens, editors, publishers and the people who buy copyrights for reproduction in anthologies suddenly remember you in the last three months of the year, you find a whacking great tax bill which you were not expecting.
There are, of course, disadvantages in this system. I do not see how you can have a system without disadvantages. Granted that that is the case, this may be what the Minister would describe as rough justice; but it seems to me that, even when it works against me, it works about as fairly and as reasonably as any system that I could devise to replace it. Under those circumstances, I see no purpose in complaining. Furthermore, since it is already a tried and trusted system, it is one area in which the workings of the Bill will not involve substantial innovation. It is just as well that there are a few of those.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the provision would not work against the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because over time it evens out lumpy sums—that is one of the phrases we were using. The noble Earl is right on the main argument; the amendment would remove the provision for the Inland Revenue to estimate a person's income for the purposes of the tax credit award during the year. We need to be able to do that because people's income may fluctuate during the course of the year; they may know that that is going to happen and we may want to, take account of that.
Current year income cannot be known until the end of the year, so the system would not really be responsive if adjustments to reflect current year income were made only at the year's end. Those who needed more help because their income had dropped would be waiting until the end of the year for a lump sum payment of tax credits. In contrast, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, those whose incomes had risen significantly would be overpaid and have to pay back much of that money at the end of the year. That clearly cannot be right if the overall aim is to give help to those who need it when they need it.
Subsection (10) therefore provides a mechanism for adjusting an award during the year based on an estimate or prediction of current year income. There will be no requirement to provide estimates of current year income as that would be impossible to enforce. So subsection (10) allows the Inland Revenue to estimate income in-year.
The question is, in what situations would the Inland Revenue wish to use that power as opposed to the self-reporting cases we have identified? First, as I have described, it could use it in response to a claimant providing an estimate—this is a benign version—of current year income because he thought his award
322
would eventually be based on current year and he wanted it—as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, described—on the correct footing as soon as possible. The Inland Revenue will encourage claimants to do that.
Secondly, subsection (10) can be used by the Inland Revenue as a safeguard against those who deliberately try to abuse the system. Because current year income cannot be known until the year's end, it is not possible to take action against those who deliberately provide false income information until the end of the year. However, that false information may be provided in the form of an estimate during the year. In such cases the Inland Revenue could choose to use its own best estimate of income to protect the Exchequer from making the wrong payments during the year.
I could conceive of an example in which someone gave a false, artificially low statement of his income, received a high payment, then protected himself against overpayment the following year by going back on benefit. While on benefit he would have no such liability. In such situations, the Inland Revenue may seek to make an estimate of the person's actual income, based on its experience and information, rather than rely on manipulation of the claimant's information or fraud.
But I must point out to your Lordships that subsection (10) makes it clear that the board's power to estimate has no bearing on the final entitlement to tax credits. That will always be dependent on actual income and will be settled at the end of the year. The power at subsection (10) merely relates to provisional decisions during the year made under Clauses 14, 15 and 16.
There is no mischief here. It is a sensible way of making mid-term adjustments, but with the additional benefit that it can protect in the case of outrageous fraud, which I hope will be rare.
Lord Higgins: My Lords. I fear I have forgotten the exchanges in Grand Committee to which the noble Earl referred. That is possibly because I do not envisage myself being in the circumstances covered by the subsection—my publications are very limited—whereas those in receipt of royalties may be affected. The noble Earl may be affected for his distinguished publications, as indeed may be the Minister. They have more reason to remember the exchanges in Grand Committee than I do.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is not the distinguished publications that bring in the money.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that belief is held dear by every academic.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we must not get too personal. My wife's three-volume work probably comes under that category.

323
I remain a little puzzled by the clause. I am not clear why the board rather than the individual estimates the amount. In one's self-assessment tax return there is a degree of estimation of one's likely income.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is exactly what happens. In the majority of cases the board will respond to information offered by the claimant.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I beg your pardon. Could the Minister repeat that?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we envisage that in the majority of circumstances it will be as the noble Lord said. He said that he did not understand why the Board of Inland Revenue would be estimating income rather than the claimant. The board would be responding to information provided by the claimant.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, in which case I presume the claimant is making an estimate which the board goes along with. Is that right?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the board makes the decision.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, that is not quite the same thing. I assume that in other cases the board makes an estimate that the claimant has not made.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that would be in the second of the possible fraud cases I offered to the noble Lord.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as the Minister rightly points out, at the end of the year the actual rather than the estimated income is relevant, so the fraud would be short-lived. The actual income figure may be fraudulent, in which case it is duly caught, but overriding a fraudulent estimate that expires at the end of the year seems rather pointless.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I tried to give the noble Lord an example where someone dropped down on to benefit the following year and was therefore in no position to repay the overpayment. Equally, someone might go abroad. I have seen child support cases where the moment the maintenance arrears mount up, the person disappears. He may have gone abroad, but he is certainly not around to pay the bill. I hope that such situations will not be frequent, but I can conceive that there the board might have difficulty in recovering legitimate overpayments because the claimant was seeking to avoid them, in whatever form.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have a sense of unreality at this point. Here is someone making an estimate that the board believes is fraudulent. As it believes the person will disappear before the end of the year, it makes an estimate and reduces his benefit accordingly.
324
I suppose that there may be such cases, but it seems rather a sledgehammer to crack a nut. But we are as much against fraud as the Minister.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords—
Lord Higgins: My Lords, if I could continue for a second, I will of course give way to the Minister. The clause goes on to state that the estimate does not affect the rate at which the claimant is entitled to the tax credit. I find it rather puzzling, but I am no doubt slowing down at this stage in the proceedings.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure how much further I can go. This is a helpful provision to allow mid-term adjustments where appropriate. It serves also as a stopgap on fraud where people are manipulating the system. The noble Lord says that he finds that in the world of unreality. All I can say is that from my child support experience, one of the most common causes for parents with care to go to the appeals system for a redirection on the amount of maintenance owed them is on the grounds that the non-resident parent—be it him or her—is leading a lifestyle inconsistent with declared income. I know that to be the case in an unfortunately large percentage of those who go for departures on child support arrangements.
You need think only of circumstances where a son is employed in his father's garage—or a similar small business—where all sorts of arrangements for income can be made; in this case to avoid paying maintenance. Often in small businesses the former wife or partner has kept the books and knows exactly what kind of double book-keeping is going on, often in terms of the Inland Revenue, I am afraid, as well as in terms of maintenance payments.
I am just giving examples to show that the issue is not as unrealistic as the noble Lord thinks. In some cases we may be talking about quite high value benefits, particularly if they are being paid in association with housing benefit or others. In such cases, fraud is likely to go across to high value benefits such as housing benefit.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I well understand the comparison with the CSA. My constituency experience from a former incarnation leads me to believe that many parents behaved in the way that the noble Baroness has described. I am a little unclear about the connection between that case and the one that we are considering here. I shall reflect on what she has said and the extent to which these are likely to be relevant cases. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 15, leave out "terminating" and insert "revoking"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are also in this group. This is another restructuring amendment that refers to the

325
amendments made by the Government in Grand Committee. It is in what the noble Baroness described in Committee as category two. The original government amendments deleted "revoke" and inserted "terminate". The reasons for that were eminently sensible. It suddenly dawned on the Government in a fit of inspiration that they could not revoke something that did not happen, so they suggested that a better way of getting rid of the problem was to "terminate" it. We realise that there is more joy in Heaven about one sinner who repents and we do not have any objection to the government amendments made in Committee, but perhaps the noble Baroness can explain their effect rather more precisely than I have done. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope that the Minister is going to resist the amendment. It relates to an essential part of the schedule D system about which we have just been talking. The point is not only to prevent fraud—although getting an interim payment on account helps to do that—but to prevent the building up of a liability that becomes such a big capital sum that it cannot be raised all of a sudden. That can be a real problem with an irregular income, from which many people other than authors—builders, for example—regularly suffer. It is a more general problem than is understood.
It is possible for someone to overpay one year because they earn a great deal less than the estimate and then find that, according to the estimate, they do not owe any tax for the next year. That terminates their liability to tax for the time being, but it does not revoke it. If they then receive £10, 000, they will find themselves paying quite a lot of tax in the next year. The distinction between terminating and revoking is vital, because once a tax credit is revoked, there is no entitlement.
We warmly welcome the asymmetry in the Bill. We do not want to lose the provision for dealing with the sudden loss of a job. The expenses that have gone with a job never disappear quite as fast as the job does. That seems to he a law of the Medes and the Persians. If someone in that situation cannot adjust their tax credit liability, they will he in a pretty poor situation. They will have to put in a new application from scratch, go through all the paperwork again and make the bureaucracy do all the work again. This system, which is borrowed from a tried and tested procedure that works, will simply let matters rest. It will terminate the payment of the tax credit for the time being, but if it turns out to be due after all, it will not have been revoked and can be got without further paperwork.
This is very good thinking. I welcome it and I hope that the Minister will not agree to delete it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has made my speech for me. I agree with every word that he has said and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I hate to say this, but I thought that the noble Earl was on about the wrong amendment. However, we are clear about the point
326
that was covered by the government amendments. They overcome the original fault in the drafting, and seem sensible. At least in that respect I can agree with what the noble Earl has said. I shall cogitate on his other remarks and work out—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I should have been slightly more serious. The point is that, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, terminating stops the current entitlement to an award, whereas revoking means that it is as though it never happened. That may not be what we wish to see established. That is the distinction. That is why substituting one word for the other seems to me a helpful clarification.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we are all agreed and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Maximum rate]:
The Earl of Northeskmoved Amendment No. 32:
Page 7, line 6, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is worth reading out the text of subsection (4), which states:
"The prescribed manner of determination may involve the inclusion of such other elements as may be prescribed".
At first blush, does not that state the obvious. along the lines of "The prescribed determination will be prescribed"? That said, it is an almost infinitely broad provision. In particular, it gives no indication of which elements might be comprised in the "prescribed manner of determination". Accordingly, we would be grateful if the Minister could shed some light on the matter. Specifically, how precisely do the Government intend that the maximum rate of child lax credit is to be determined? I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): If this amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 33.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have a great deal more sympathy with this amendment. In addition to the other complaints about the language of subsection (4), this principle is a tautology. It reminds me of the judge who once said that an irresistible impulse was an impulse that had not been resisted. The subsection simply says that we may do what we may do what we may do and that a rose is a rose is a rose. It is a classic example of the point that I made a few moments ago. When a regulation-making power is created, the vires should be rather more tightly drawn to allow the department to do what it wants to do and not to do absolutely anything that it happens to think of afterwards. If we give such a power, we are in danger of making Parliament redundant. We ought to have some idea of what we are allowing the Government to do. The amendment deserves strong support and it raises a principle that is applicable in a good many other places. I am glad that it has been tabled.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sure that it would also be helpful if the noble Baroness could

327
explain in what manner these prescriptions, especially of the other elements, are to be made. Are they to be made by statutory instrument? If so, what sort of statutory instrument? If not, how are they to be made?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I take the criticism of the wording. All I can say is that there is truth in a tautology by definition. I do not know whether that helps the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
The point is that the "prescribed manner of determination" includes the provisions in subsection (5)(a), (b) and (c). The amount of the family element may vary according to the age of the children or qualifying young persons, it may include provision for the amount of the individual element of child tax credit to vary according to the age of the child or qualifying young person, and so on. That has been prescribed. Subsection (4) gives some headspace so that primary legislation is not needed in order to adjust people's eligibility for child tax credit and working tax credit in the future.
The question upon which noble Lords are rightly pressing me is: under what circumstances might that additional flexibility be needed; and, basically, is it decent to have it? One of the best examples of that flexibility that I can give the House is on a personal level. I have been engaged in a good deal of work on child poverty. First, we know that the children who are most likely to be poor are those of workless families and children in families that should be receiving maintenance but are not in receipt of it; in other words, children of lone parents. We also know that the second group of poor children are those in disabled families. However, there is a third group of children about whom we know almost nothing—children in large families, those in families where there are four or more children. Very often, children in ethnic minority families are disproportionately poor when compared with most children.
At present, our benefit system concentrates help on the first child in the family, and not on the fourth, the fifth, or the sixth. In many waysx2014;and quite understandably—the rates of child benefit produce a higher rate for the first child than for the subsequent children. That is the system at the moment because one parent, usually the mother, is most likely to drop out of work after the first child is born and that results in a fall in the family's income. It is also clear that there is a real degree of acute poverty at the other end; namely, with large families and reconstituted families. As presently structured, the child tax credit system seeks to add to wages that element for the family that a market wage does not properly reflect, because it is independent of family circumstances.
We may have got it right. However, speaking in a personal capacity from experience derived through my own department, there may well be a time when, having carried out further research and work on how we address and meet the poverty of large families—possibly ethnic minority families—we shall want to adjust the relativity of the different parts that make up the child tax credit. We shall need a power to enable us
328
to do so. We shall need such a power to rebalance, for example, the elements in the child tax credit so as to redress need.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the legislation would say just that in the clause, I believe that it would meet most of our objections.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have given noble Lords an example of where I believe we may possibly wish to invoke such a power at some future stage, as and when research is completed and when we have a sensible strategy to underpin it. I am trying to persuade noble Lords that although this power is syntactically clumsy, if I may put it that way. it is also highly desirable in policy terms. Without such a power, we would freeze the existing component elements of the child tax credit. I had the support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, earlier when we discussed why we need the two new tax credits when compared with the previous history of change. I said then that we had learnt from research, from pilot schemes, and from experience derived through developing these new systems.
We are not freezing now; those changes will continue to develop. We may need to revisit such matters but not by way of a major new Bill, which I hope will not be necessary. I am hoping that we shall see some stability. We may need to adjust elements in the balancing between the working tax credit and, say, the child tax credit elements—and, indeed, within different elements in the child tax credit. That is what this power will allow us to do. I cannot predict how it will be used in the future. However, I am confident that we need such a power.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she would be good enough to answer my question. In essence, I can find nothing in Clauses 64 or 65, which deal with orders, regulations and statutory instruments, that covers the prescription method that the Minister has just outlined as regards Clause 9(4). Obviously, it will not be a matter of primary legislation; indeed, no one would ever expect it to be.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I understand that any new element introduced under this power will be covered by a statutory instrument and dealt with by way of the affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, it seems to me that the system is already complicated. If we are to have further tinkering year by year, surely the whole process will only become more difficult.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord is, unusually, being unfair. All I am saying is that we—I use the collective "we"—have done the best we can, based on the information available to us. We believe that we have met the circumstances, but we are

329
not saying that we have perfect or complete knowledge. We need a power in order to rebalance the relationship between working tax credit and children's tax credit in the future; in other words, all the constituent elements of what goes into childcare.
Perhaps I may give noble Lords another example. At present. we have had some very successful pilots on the education maintenance allowances for children aged between 16 and 18, which is in addition to child benefit. I can conceive that that scheme could be extended. If that were the case, that might have repercussions for child benefit, or for the family element involved. In such a situation, and if that were the policy push—I am not predicting it; I am just trying to give an example of where it could happen—we might need this power. Noble Lords need not worry: it is a benign power saying that we are not setting this provision in stone. It means that we can come back and make a judgment if, in the light of research arid evidence, we need to do so. However, if we do so, it will be dealt with by way of the affirmative resolution procedure and noble Lords will have ample opportunity to scrutinise it properly.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, and, indeed, for the examples that she has given the House. I am also grateful for the sympathy expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. I remain unpersuaded that the drafting here is anything other than infelicitous. I take the Minister's point about flexibility, and the necessity for it from the Government's perspective. However, as we seem to be seeing with orders under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, that flexibility should not he used to undermine, or contradict, duly arrived at decisions of Parliament. The drafting as it stands on the face of the Bill creates the potential for that situation—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this seems to misrepresent everything that has been said. I hope that I am not interrupting a pre-set wind-up here by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. I have been at great pains to say that if we knew what circumstances we might need to take on board in the future, we would have built them into the subsequent part of the clause. It is precisely because we cannot do so that we need a residual power to enable us to introduce sensible. decent and intelligent measures to meet situations that could arise. I have tried to give noble Lords examples of entirely decent circumstances that could arise. If they should arise, we shall return to Parliament for proper parliamentary scrutiny.
If we remove this power, we could be responsible for denying any possible help to large families, or, indeed, the interaction of education measures relative to child benefit, unless we return with a full frontal piece of primary legislation that would have to take its place in
330
the queue. I am sure that the noble Earl would not wish to deny possible beneficiaries of benevolent changes as a result of such opportunities.
Earl Russell: My Lords, could we perhaps consider this as a case where we need flexibility within guidelines? Would that get us anywhere near satisfying both sides?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have a dilemma here. If 1 could predict with any confidence where and when we might need such powers, I could insert one of those provisions used in the Chester case; for example, that "The Secretary of State shall have the power", and so on. However, I cannot do so. While thinking on my feet. I have been trying to give noble Lords possible examples of developments of which I am aware that could conceivably affect the appropriate use of tax credits in the future in ways that benefit those people whom we most want to help. Should we need to increase the support given to large families or ethnic minority families, I said that we may choose to do so. Alternatively, we may want to look at the elements surrounding working tax credit for those without children. Indeed, if we found particular examples in that respect, we might wish to reconsider the position.
I also gave a possible example of the interlocking of education maintenance allowances for those under the age of 16 with, say, either the family element or child benefit. The latter are all possible situations. I have absolutely no knowledge of whether government may wish to revisit that area in, say, one year, five years, or even 10 years' time. It must surely be wise to have a residual power to enable us to alter the constituent elements, provided that that power is subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny; and it will be, because it will be dealt with by way of affirmative regulations.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I ask whether she understands that her point on not foreseeing the circumstances applies also to the fact that we cannot foresee the circumstances in which future Ministers may wish to use the regulations, and that scrutiny without control is of limited use?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is the point that 1 was making. This is not a power for the Secretary of State to decide by guidance; the decision will be made by Parliament when it receives regulations for consideration under the affirmative procedure. Those regulations will be subject in the usual way to the publicity generated by lobby groups and to other factors.
This type of debate always arises when legislation provides for a power to make further provision. In this case, however, the alternative would be to deny the possibility of adjustments or alterations to benefit those we are seeking to help without joining the queue for primary legislation. Your Lordships are realistic about this. As we know, every department has a queue for primary legislation. Unless it can be parachuted

331
into other legislation, enacting a provision can take one or two years. Without this power, we shall for the foreseeable future be freezing development in the sphere of family social policy. It would deny my department and the Inland Revenue the ability to make representations to make adjustments in the light of information and experience. That cannot be sensible.
The objective should be to scrutinise the Government and to hold them to account for their actions. I believe that this Bill goes further than any preceding legislation in terms of publishing regulations in advance, scrutinising delegated powers and other protections. In social policy terms, I believe that it would be daft to remove this power. The important point is to ensure that the power, if exercised, is exercised subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. I do not think that I can say any more about it without repeating myself ad nauseam.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I fear that the noble Baroness was a little premature. I was going to say that we have some sympathy for the Government's dilemma. None the less, we still believe that there is a strong argument for tightening the drafting. I shall certainly have to study this very carefully between now and Third Reading, but I invite the noble Baroness to consider our perspective on the point. There is certainly a feeling in the House that the drafting is too wide and could perhaps be narrowed to the agreement of all sides of the House. As I said, we have some sympathy for the Government's dilemma, but I suspect that we shall have to return to the issue at Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Freemanmoved Amendment No. 33:
Page 7, line 7, at end insert ", with a view to ensuring that the amount of credit paid to all claimants supplements their household income to a broadly equivalent degree having regard to the different income levels and personal and domestic circumstances of different households"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we move from the general to the particular in subsection (4). My amendment deals with the principle of equivalency and the use of the McClements scales. The McClements scales might sound very much like an engineering device that the Indian Army might have used in the 19th century, but I assure your Lordships that they are a very important part of determining the relative need of families and other claimants for income-related and housing benefits.
The principle of equivalency, which I shall describe in a moment, does not seem to apply to tax credits. By "equivalency" I mean the commonly used definition of the term—that the same degree of support should be provided to households so that incomes are broadly equivalent, taking into account not only income but the composition of the family unit. I should give a concrete example. Let us assume the same household
332
income in two cases: a lone parent with two children; and a couple with two children of the same age as those in the first family, with all other family circumstances being similar. This Bill provides that the child tax credit, the relevant portion of the Bill, would be the same for the lone parent and the couple. I am sure that your Lordships will immediately appreciate the inequity in that. As I think stands to reason, in the raw definition of income need, two adults on low income will need more to support the family unit than will a lone parent.
The McClements scales have been used in the social security system as broadly defined in the past to provide equivalency by indicating how much extra is needed, for example, for a couple as compared with a lone parent, and vice versa, and in relation to the number of children in the family. However, that principle has not been used for either current tax credits or for those proposed in the Bill. I think that we need to probe why that should be so. I should add that I appreciate that, going back some years, both Labour and Conservative administrations have changed policy on the treatment and support of lone parents. This Bill is neutral in discriminating between lone parents and couples. I am also well aware that couples are mutually supportive in the sense that, unlike lone parents, one or both are more likely to be able to increase the family income.
I think that the House would appreciate any guidance the Minister can offer on this. We would also appreciate an explanation of the thinking behind excluding the principle of equivalency from the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Freeman has produced a very interesting amendment which introduces the concept of equivalence. I suppose that, in one sense, the Government are generally trying to achieve equivalency. The idea is that, once people are on benefit, all their personal circumstances will be taken into account, and the social security system should not be used to produce inequality rather than equality within that context. Thinking immediately of the situation with regard to hospital down-rating rules, I am a little worried as to whether such objectives are pursued as effectively as one might wish. However, that is a rather detailed point. I shall be absolutely fascinated to hear the Minister's response to the amendment, which raises some very interesting points.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there seem to be two conflicting goods—in the moral rather than the material sense—in this situation. It is clearly true that a second adult in a household will require more food, transport and so on. One might therefore conclude that extra allowance should be made in the working families' tax credit system and elsewhere to deal with those requirements. Conversely, as we know from previous arguments on withdrawing, reducing or levelling out the benefits that lone parents receive in relation to other families, lone parents are not only more likely to be poor than couple families, they are more likely to stay poor. Couple families are more

333
likely to receive financial support only for relatively short periods, usually when a job ends, work hours are reduced or overtime is lost. It is a temporary safety net from which they bounce back.
Unlike couple families, lone parents cannot trade low incomes for low hours. Men in couple families are particularly likely to make that trade. As lone parents have sole childcare responsibility, they must reduce their hours to cope, tending to work between 20 and 22 hours per week. Therefore, they remain on tax credits or in-work benefits longer, and consequently remain poorer, than couple families. That is the double consideration. In any particular week a couple family may eat more food and have higher outgoings, but over time the lone parent, whether in or out of work, is likely to be on benefit for longer and will experience both persistent and deeper poverty than will the couple family. It is that poverty that scars.
One cannot win in trying to get those two matters right whether one examines Family Budget Unit assessments or household income patterns. At one stage under a previous Conservative administration lone parents received a higher premium. That was a decent recognition of the problem. We are not saying that one family should receive a different level of support from another. The family premium and the lone parent premium were introduced in 1988 by a previous Conservative administration. I believe that that was a recognition that there is no right answer here. You are trying all the time to balance two considerations with regard to short-term and longer term needs. I believe that we have the matter right but I can see t hat there are arguments to the contrary. That is the thinking behind the measure. I could talk for much longer about different patterns of poverty experienced by workless couple families and lone parent families but this may not be the occasion for such a social policy extended speech.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. She is right to say that we shall have to come back to the matter, although not necessarily in this legislative round, and probably on the basis of further social services research. The amendment and the debate on it have aired the point. As I say, I am grateful for the Minister's comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Entitlement]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 34:
Page 7, line 39, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to delete subsection (2) of Clause 10, which states:
"Regulations may for the purposes of this Part make provision—

(a) as to what is, or is not, qualifying remunerative work, and

(b) as to the circumstances in which a person is, or is not, engaged in it".

334
We considered this matter earlier to some extent. Generally speaking, if a measure is in a sense transitory and may require bringing up to date from time to time, we consider that the use of a regulatory power is entirely appropriate. However, we consider that if a measure is not likely to change significantly, it is better to include it on the face of the Bill. 1 am not at all clear in this case why the Government think that they may need to make provision in regulations as regards what does or does not constitute qualifying remunerative work. One would have thought that that is not difficult to define. Similarly, one would have thought that it is not difficult to determine whether a person is engaged in it. If the work is remunerative, it is likely—unless the income gained is very low—that the Inland Revenue will already have the information which it requires to establish that someone is in remunerative work. As I say, we believe that such a measure could reasonably be included on the face of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can give us some examples of circumstances in which she envisages that the regulatory power may be needed. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, there were moments in the previous debate on regulations when I felt that it might be possible that we were making a little progress. There were moments when we saw chances of a faint degree of give and take. We have here two very legitimate interests. The Minister's interest in flexibility is clearly legitimate. But Parliament's interest in the control of legislation is clearly also legitimate. In fact, there is not much point in having a Parliament if that is not the case.
Once we get to the point where we are prepared to discuss compromise on this matter, I think that real progress between us may be possible. What we have to get away from is the idea, which each of us has I think been capable of having in the past, that our own point of view is the only legitimate one.
As regards applying that test to subsection (2) of Clause 10, it is, I think, a little more difficult than the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, suggested to decide exactly what is or is not remunerative work. Take, for example, giving one's children extra pocket money for running an errand. I am sure that a number of us have done that. To classify that as remunerative work within the meaning of the Bill would be excessively bureaucratic and would be so described in words of one syllable by one's offspring.
There has been a question about volunteering and how far that may be classified as remunerative work. There has been a question about therapeutic work in the context of disability. That is a matter we return to over and over again. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, brought us back to it recently. It is a real question.
The provision needs to change because from time to time the ways people find to get through the thicket of combining work with either disability or family life may change. So I think that there probably is room for a regulation-making power here. I do not immediately see how one would tighten this particular definition if one were to set out to do it. It is quite unlike the prescribed manner of determination which is completely open-ended.

335
We have to accept here that one person's flexibility is the other person's inflexibility. Once we have accepted that, we may get somewhere. Within that principle, this is probably a legitimate way of addressing the matter. I do not really see how, if I were sitting in the Minister's place, I would do it any better. When one says that, one has to take the consequences.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for those helpful comments. I do not want to go over ground that we covered in Grand Committee. I am happy to say what does not constitute qualifying remunerative work. As the noble Earl indicated, that includes voluntary work and other payment which does not count as income for tax credit purposes such as training allowances, sports awards and payments received by a person caring for someone who is not a member of his or her household but is temporarily residing in the carer's own home, provided the payments are disregarded in the calculation of the carer's income for tax credit purposes.
The basic test of eligibility for working tax credit is that at least one claimant in a household is engaged in qualifying remunerative work. Regulations will allow us to vary what is required of a person to enable him or her to fall within the meaning of qualifying remunerative work. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suspected, those variables could be the claimant's age, whether he or she has a disability or is responsible for a child or young person.
In answer to the question of why we are introducing regulations, all I can do is to plead that the matter is technically difficult to define, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, recognised, as patterns of work change. I refer to regulations that were introduced for income support, JSA, WFTC and DPTC. Regulations were introduced for family credit under the previous administration. There is nothing new here. We need that reserve power to accommodate different patterns of work and, if required, different ways of helping people to bring them within the eligibility criteria of working tax credit by virtue of their age, their disability or similar circumstances. I hope that with that information, which has been gladly received, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Minister has seldom been more convincing, although we still do not have a clear idea of what the Government have in mind. We will need to consider carefully the provisions relating to income tax, particularly the regulations that exist in other legislation, to which the Minister referred. We shall do so in some detail to establish whether we need to pursue the matter at Third Reading. For the moment, there appears to be a pretty convincing argument on the part of the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving that Motion, I suggest that we return to the Report stage at 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

St Ebba's, Epsom
7.31 p.m.
Lord Rentonrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the principles contained in their White Paper Valuing People (2001) and its subsequent official guidance will be implemented by allowing the retention at St Ebba's, Epsom, of 12 acres to form a village community for people with learning disability or mental handicap.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a vitally important matter, which affects the care and treatment—and lives—of mentally handicapped people of various ages and degrees of mental disability, many of whom have lived and been treated at St Ebba's Hospital in the recent past and whose families are anxious about their future.
Indeed, there is a St Ebba's parents and relatives group, which has been pressing for some years for St Ebba's to evolve into a village community for people with learning disabilities on what is an ideal site of about 40 acres within the town boundary of Epsom. We should perhaps bear that fact in mind—it shows that the site is not remote. The group has been supported throughout by the Mid-Surrey Mencap Society. St Ebba's used to care for about 400 residents, who required mental care. Most of them have now been discharged into small housing in the community. In many cases that happened against the wishes of their families.
Twelve of those 40 acres, which formerly had 400 residents, will continue to house about 60 remaining residents with the most complex continuing mental health care needs, challenging behaviour and so on. They will be under the control of Surrey Oaklands NHS Trust. In no sense will that be a village community. Indeed, it is intended by the NHS to sell the rest of the site, mainly, I understand, for housing development.
The proposal of the parents and relatives group is that another 12 of the 44 acres should be retained for a village community; for those who choose it, that would surely be a wise and helpful choice. The parents and relatives group would like the 12 acres to be set aside from what is intended to be a commercial development—it is not so at the moment—for a limited period of two years to see whether providers would come forward to create a village community there. That would demonstrate once and for all whether such a community was desired and viable. If, by the end of that limited period of, let us say, two years, no providers had materialised, the plot could be released once again for commercial or housing development. There is really nothing to lose with that

337
plan—nothing for the Government or society to lose— but there be much to gain. That is what we envisage at St Ebba's.
The village might ultimately accommodate many more than 60 people, as is the current intention. We know of many people who are currently in small housing but who would prefer village community life. Some of those who would come into such a community—a minority, I should think—are living with ageing parents. Some would come from other authorities, where they cannot live in a village community; they would come because they had chosen life in a sheltered village such as that which we propose.
I have a severely handicapped daughter—she is both mentally and physically handicapped—who has for the past 30 years been well looked after and has lived happily some miles from St Ebba's in a village community. As a former chairman of Mencap—I held that position some years ago—I know how very valuable such communities are.
It has therefore come as a shock that the local public authorities have refused to agree to the proposal of the parents and relatives group and that they have even refused to consider plans that were submitted to them by experts who have in the past come forward with finance and expertise and who were keen to develop and run a village community on the St Ebba's site.
That frustrating state of affairs has been repeated in recent years at other sites. We know of seven similar cases. One objection to village communities that is raised by local officials refers to the scale of finance and management that is involved in such a project. Yet that objection should fall away when outside providers are willing to shoulder those problems, leaving local officials with only an appropriate supervisory role.
The Government did a valuable service by setting out their policy in the White Paper, Valuing People, and its accompanying guidance. They made it clear that mentally handicapped people and their families should have a choice about where they live, and they spelt out in no uncertain terms that village communities are to be encouraged as a form of residential provision. I shall not read out a long quotation, but pages 70 to 75 of the White Paper set it all out. I merely quote the introductory sentence:
"Government objective: To enable people with learning disabilities and their families to have greater choice and control over where and how they live".
That is very good.
Surely it is worth remembering that in 1996 a research study commissioned by the previous government showed that there were between 20, 000 and 25, 000 fewer residential places available nationally than were required. Alas, that shortfall is increasing all the time. Paragraph 43 of the guidance urges neighbouring authorities to join together to develop a greater range of provision and to respect the preferences of individuals and their families.
Speaking on behalf of the families of the people who would be accommodated at St Ebba's, and, indeed, on behalf of many other parents and relatives groups
338
around the country who are campaigning to the same ends, I beg the noble Lord the Minister to implement the Government's policy by prevailing on NHS Estates, which owns the site, to accede to the parents' and relatives' proposal.
7.41 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for calling this interesting debate. While it refers specifically to the possible development of a village community at St Ebba's, it also touches on some fundamentals which underpin provision for people with disabilities. For it is not only about the range of different types of provision, their design, cost, quality, range and relevance; it also asks us to think more deeply about the purpose of such provision. What do we want for the disabled as we make provision for them and, more importantly, what do the disabled want for themselves and from life? It is all too easy to make decisions for people whose conditions of life we do not share and, in so doing, and with the best intentions in the world, to make decisions which may or may not enhance the lives of those whose experience we have not directly shared.
Thinking in this field develops and changes and goes through fashions. What is regarded as a "good thing" and becomes fashionable in one era can become outmoded and be discarded the next. Yet people's needs do not go through fashions or follow the latest thinking of successive generations of policy-makers or planners. In many ways, they remain absolutely constant and are shared by us all, however able or disabled.
We all have a core need for love, a sense of belonging and a community of peers. We need continuity and security and the knowledge of being really valued as human beings. That, in turn, feeds those vital ingredients of self-confidence and self-worth, which make life worth living. That also includes the families of the disabled, who share in the disability and who are often in the front line of care. They are inescapably involved and affected by the type and quality of provision being offered and yet all too often are left out of the equation.
I have some experience of disability both in my own family and in the school that I founded—the New School at Butterstone. The needs of our daughter led me to found the school 10 years ago for "educationally fragile" children. That means that ipso.facto I, too, as a parent, am fragile. I have experienced the difficulties of finding the type of provision which my daughter and others from my school want and need in order to live fulfilled lives in the community and of trying to mould such provision as we can find into a package which fits them as opposed to letting them be moulded into pre-existing packages set out by social work departments or voluntary agencies which have not necessarily been designed with our individual children in mind.
In education, thinking is now beginning to come round to the recognition that it is the diversity of provision which is important and which must be

339
responsive, flexible and tailored to students with special needs. If we then ask what we really want from provision for the disabled in the community, it must surely be equally driven by that same objective of diversity and range of choice which recognises that responsive, flexible and needs-led provision is fundamentally necessary. And, as we all know, "diversity" is one of the key watchwords of this Government.
In recent years, village communities have gone out of fashion and occasionally have even been demonised as "ghetto" provision. What is in fashion is the provision of supported flats or houses in the community for small groups of people. The thinking is that that approximates more closely to normality and is therefore more desirable.
"Care in the community" became the philosophy and fashion of the day in the late 1960s. Indeed, at the end of my social work training I wrote an enthusiastic thesis on the subject. Since then, we have all been trying to create the type of care needed in a community which all too often has been neither ready nor able to assimilate all those being thrust upon it.
I do not happen to favour people living alone and being supported by professionals, which is so often the case today. Nor would I favour for anyone, including my daughter, the option of living with an assortment of people whom she could not choose and whose needs might not fit in with hers. What I want for her, and indeed for everyone, including myself, is a sense of belonging with people of my own choosing, where there is choice and flexibility in how we live our lives, however much help may be needed in making such choices.
If people are to have choice, then it follows that a range of needs-led provision is absolutely essential. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to the guidance to the White Paper, Valuing People. The Minister at the time, John Hutton, stated that the role of public services is to facilitate choice, not to frustrate it. In the context of this debate, a village community must be an option in the range of choices open to users and their parents, if they so wish.
In Scotland, the range of Camphill communities bears impressive witness to the success of this kind of provision where users and carers share their lives. There must be in the hearts and minds of planners a recognition of the fundamental importance of having a truly accepted place in a community of peers—like your Lordships' House perhaps. That is something which such communities can offer.
You can be very isolated in a group flat of assorted disabled people in a street where you know few people, if anyone, and where you are cared for by carers in shifts and where your daytime is spent in a day centre. For some, it may be just right; for others, it may be the reverse. For them, a village community such as St Ebba's could well be the right option. I am certain that all young adults with long-term needs of all kinds should have that option and the right to choose according to their wishes and needs.
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Renton on initiating this debate. It is of great importance both for the specific issue of St Ebba's and for the more general issue of local statutory authorities promoting genuine choice for people with a mental handicap rather than frustrating it.
The case for village communities has been well made over the years and is accepted in principle by this Government. As my noble friend emphasised, the excellent White Paper, Valuing People, and its accompanying guidance affirm the principle of choice. I quote briefly:
"Local councils should … ensure that all housing options are considered … These options should include … village and intentional communities … None of these should be ruled out".
Those principles have also been endorsed by successive Ministers of Health over the past 15 years. But there is a serious problem in the disjunction between statements of principle and the reality at local level which confronts people with disabilities and their families.
I declare an interest as a patron of the organisation RESCARE, which promotes the right for people to choose the most suitable type of residential care, including village communities. Some years ago my noble friends Lord Pearson and Lord Renton and I wrote a pamphlet arguing the case for the retention of village communities and the development of new ones as a desirable option, for a number of reasons.
First, as RESCARE statistics clearly show, there is a widespread and long-standing demand by people with a mental handicap and their families for the development of new village communities on redundant hospital sites, not just at St Ebba's but up and down the country. Local officials often maintain that there is no such demand because they fail to take note of it. However, at St Ebba's over 90 per cent of families voted for a village community at a time when their relatives were being resettled, but their wishes were ignored. Surely, it is not up to local commissioning authorities to determine the type of residential provision to be offered without ascertaining what users and their families really want.
Secondly, as a nurse and a social scientist, I am deeply committed to the advantages of the village community in terms of the quality of both the health and social care which they provide for their residents. There is no clear dividing line between health and social care, and both must be available for people with mental handicap, who are often suffering from other forms of disability; indeed, who are multiply handicapped.
Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that I welcome the success of many of the developments in community care, which have resulted in many people moving from traditional institutions into homes in the community. I have visited many such homes and have been delighted to see the degree of independence and quality of life achieved by their residents. Therefore, I do not want to turn back the clock.

341
However, many people enjoy life in village communities. Those communities offer freedom of movement and freedom of choice within a safe boundary. There can be specialised services on site for occupation; training; medical and nursing care; and facilities for entertainment, recreation and sporting activities. People need not be isolated from the surrounding general community. Where appropriate, residents may work in the wider community and return to the peace and security of the village community at the end of the day. Alternatively, people already settled in the local community can come in and use the special facilities in the village community.
Also, people's needs change over time. For example, people with Down's syndrome often develop dementia in later life. A village community can offer a degree of flexibility in accommodation and continuity of care so that if circumstances change, residents do not need to be uprooted from all that has become familiar.
By contrast, for some people with disabilities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater said, life in a small urban dwelling may be restricted and lonely, with the problems of negotiating busy streets in order to reach facilities such as a swimming pool or shops. Their movement often depends on the availability of a careworker and perhaps a minibus.
I turn from social needs to health needs. Many people with disabilities need nursing care, such as help with continence, feeding, and general hygiene. Inadequate clinical care can lead to serious problems, such as pressure sores or urinary tract infections. It is clearly easier to provide a high quality of clinical care in the context of shared facilities in a village community than in the more dispersed conditions of so-called community care.
Finally, there is an argument for facilities like St Ebba's, which should appeal to the Government, and especially to the Treasury, because this is one of the rare occasions on which fulfilment of a principle of freedom of choice is cheaper than the alternatives. I believe that my noble friend Lord Pearson will speak about the relative costs of village communities and other forms of care. I should like to make the general point that communities such as St Ebba's fulfil the criterion of care effectiveness, which is obviously the most important one, as well as the criterion of cost effectiveness, which must also be an important consideration because inevitably resources are always limited.
Before I conclude I should like to address the position which I believe is adopted by Mencap. I understand that the national leadership is opposed to village communities, on what I can only presume to be ideological grounds, as I have not heard any convincing refutation of the case we have made for them. But, more importantly, many local Mencap societies strongly support village communities to the extent that I believe at least nine are officially affiliated to RESCARE, including Liverpool, the largest local Mencap group in the country, and mid-Surrey, which is in the area in which St Ebba's is located.
342
In conclusion, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Renton in his attempts to ensure that at least some of the St Ebba's site is preserved from commercial development so that providers can come forward and develop a village community without being constrained by the commissioning authorities. I also hope that a sympathetic and positive response to this particular case will serve as a precedent for the general promotion of the village community concept and its availability for all those who choose it. It would also provide a way forward which could turn the Government's commendable commitment to genuine freedom of choice into a living reality for some of the most vulnerable members of our society and their families. I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to reassure those very vulnerable people.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend Lord Renton for so eloquently introducing this timely debate, I should declare my interests as the father of a mentally handicapped 21 year-old daughter, who might well be a candidate for the kind of village community which is proposed in my noble friend's Unstarred Question, and also as honorary President of Rescare, the National Society for Mentally Handicapped People in Residential Care.
It seems to me that there are four important points to make in the debate about village communities. First, the Government support choice and village communities, as, indeed, did the previous Conservative government. Secondly, people with mental handicap and their families want them. Thirdly, they are care effective and cost effective. Fourthly, their development has been blocked at local level for many years. I propose to spend most of my time tonight confirming that village communities are, indeed, cost effective, especially when compared to the real and total costs of community care.
I take as my starting point the figures given in Made to Care, which was largely researched and written by my noble friend Lady Cox in 1995, with some assistance from my noble friend Lord Renton and me. It has since been reprinted three times; over 10, 000 copies have been sent out and none of its facts or relative costs have been seriously refuted, although some of its figures should now be adjusted upwards for inflation. Made to Care found that the capital cost of moving someone from a hospital into community care was £30, 000 more expensive than moving that person into a village community. I understand that there are now some 6, 000 people left in long-stay hospitals, presumably the more severely disabled, and so now that will be a minimum figure.
When we come to annual running costs, Made to Care found that village communities were about £50, 000 per annum per person cheaper than community care. But when everything is added together, that figure is very much larger. It is difficult to quantify those extra savings precisely, which tend to be hidden after the move from hospital to community care, but they include such things as housing benefit

343
and income support, the mobility component of disability allowance and, generally, a higher rate of disability living allowance.
In addition, villages provide the further substantial savings which stem from economies of scale for healthcare, education, recreation and all the other "day service" costs, which tend to be additional under community care, but which are included in the annual running costs of village communities. For instance, Brookvale Community provides a very high standard of care across a whole range of disability. It has a swimming and hydrotherapy pool; outdoor games areas; a cycle track; a gymnasium; a sensory stimulation unit which uses relaxing music and lighting effects, and other special services. It costs about £25, 000 per person per annum all-in.
All such facilities require separate assistance and transport under community care, so it is not surprising that transport can account for 14 per cent of the community care budget.
I do not pretend that I have precisely quantified the savings of villages over community care, but clearly they are very much more than £50, 000 per annum per person. There are some 160, 000 people in this country with severe learning disabilities. Rescare's national survey of its families suggests that at least half of them would choose a place in a village community for their relatives if it were available. Provided that we add all the budgets together, we would clearly be considering savings of thousands of millions of pounds annually if the choice of those families was even half met.
It is against that background I find it hard to understand the remarks of the Health Minister, Jacqui Smith, in the other place yesterday. She was replying to my honourable friend Mr Chris Grayling in whose constituency St Ebba's lies, who had made the same request about the 12 acres of land as has my noble friend Lord Renton tonight. The Minister made all the usual noises about the needs of service users being the Government's priority, but then said that she did not believe that the Government could,
"put off the business case"
that has been made for selling the 12 acres in question and that it would not be,
"sensible or efficient to lose the significant financial benefits from the sale of the land".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/02; col. 250WH.]
What business case? What significant financial benefits? How can such a paltry one-off property profit possibly stand up to the long-term financial picture that I have painted? I very much hope that the Minister's brief tonight does not contain similar arithmetic.
Even if there were a sound economic case for selling the land—which there is not—let us not forget that the St Ebba's land and all the land occupied by the "Epsom cluster" has been given over the years by ratepayers and philanthropists specifically to cater for mentally handicapped people. The land passed to the NHS in 1949, but that does not mean that it is free morally—or even, perhaps, legally—to strip those
344
assets and leave today's taxpayers with the burden of re-provision. I should also be grateful for the Minister's comments on that.
There are wider costs to our society when community care fails in the absence of suitable village communities. For instance, more than 40 per cent of our prison population is now classified as mentally disordered in some way. In that respect, I refer your Lordships to our debate on 27th March at cols. 305–6, when I suggested, not for the first time, that the whole concept of village communities and their cost-effectiveness should be examined at a meeting of the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security, the Department for Education and the Home Office—perhaps with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Paul Boateng, in the chair, because he well understood the case for village communities when he was in the Department of Health. Can the Minister tell us whether any progress has been made towards setting up such an inter-departmental meeting, which would be such a fruitful exercise in joined-up government?
I end by citing the excellent Health Minister, Mr John Hutton, on 20th December 1999. He said:
"We use the language of choice, but don't deliver it. That has to change. It won't be easy".
I wish the Minister and the Government well in their endeavours.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this is an interesting debate, and one that has been under way across the whole range of disability for as long as I have been in your Lordships' House. It has repercussions and contains arguments that go back to the idea of special schools, non-special schools and general integration. People always tend to come at the debate from their own background and with their own prejudice and baggage—we all do, on all sides. If we have a positive or negative experience of one system, we tend to carry it forward.
The general concept that is being attacked here is that we should try to bring people into the community as a rule, as opposed to as an option. The argument can get nasty because we are not arguing about much. That is always where the sharp bit is: it is when we are on the edge. What effectively scares both sides is that one side are thinking, "Thou shalt in all circumstances integrate" and that the other group are saying, "Thou shalt not integrate".
Many people with learning disability—an expression that I prefer to mental handicap—say, "I have one or two specific problems. I do not want to be put away or encouraged to be apart from general society for the rest of my life or large portions of it". Other people on the other side—often the parent, or a child who does not know any better or who is now an adult—say, "This person cannot possibly cope in the outside world".
Most people can step back a little and say, "Yes, there must be room for diversity", and there is a degree of room for diversity. Where we have, as here, an ongoing environment in which people have been placed,

345
the problem is more acute. Someone who has learned to live in a village community—a sheltered community with carers—will of course be scared. Many of them should not be removed from that position. But that is really where we are. There are areas of grey and areas of fear. I n the field of disability legislation—I have done this myself—we tend to hang on to what we feel works. We are defensive and go forward slowly, especially after major gains have been made. I have now made my little polemic about the arguments—although I wonder whether that is the right word.
When it comes to the idea of a village community, the fear that many people have is that once they go into it, they may never leave, even if they are capable of doing so. That is a real fear for many people and groups involved. Many young people with learning disabilities to whom I have spoken feel that that is what will happen. That is something that rattles around the argument. I freely admit that there are no absolute rights or wrongs here; but that is something that people worry about.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made a point about the economics. I encourage the Minister to say that the economics will not be the driving factor in the argument. The argument should be about meeting needs wherever possible. It is odd to say to a Minister, "Can you please try to tell us exactly what is the funding situation?" In some fields, if we are told that we should do something under law, we should really try to meet that need as opposed to simply saying, "We do not have the money". Indeed. I remember spending many hours wrestling with that problem with various departments. Can the Government confirm that for us tonight? That would be a help in future arguments.
We are here considering what is best in certain cases. I detect a hint here of a defensive action being fought—as I said, I have fought some myself in other fields when I have felt under threat. The argument may be that a type of living should be preserved because people feel that it is appropriate for what I think it would be fair to say is a small proportion of those people who come under the heading of "learning disability"—those at the more extreme end.
Will the Government tell us what proposals they have for government-run or government-funded provision if village communities are not considered to be the correct way forward in future? That is the real argument: what happens to those who have been brought up within such communities? While saying that people should be integrated where they can, I freely admit that there are certain people for whom, with the best will in the world and all imaginable support, such integration will be limited.
My noble friend Lady Linklater made the important and valid point that certain people will need a form of sheltering and respite care—respite care from society itself in certain cases of mental illness. But when it comes to learning disabilities, people who have a permanent condition are learning to deal with it, which is what we are trying to do with all disabilities. That must he the underlying philosophy: how can we become a full part of society with our disability and what does society do to allow us so to do?
346
I have not even attempted to go into the fine detail of this particular case, because I do not have the feel for it and I am afraid that I did not set aside the proper amount of time. We can always argue with statistics and quotations. The philosophy is something with which the Government may be able to help us tonight. We are in danger of entering a circular and sterile argument when we are all trying to achieve something positive.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Renton on raising this important subject. I know that the subject is close to his heart. I am also grateful to him for setting out so closely the position with regard to St Ebba's. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, with her educationally fragile daughter, and my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I declare an interest as the father of a mentally handicapped daughter.
On these Benches, we welcomed the White Paper Valuing People. We supported the objectives of the White Paper, and we want it to work. However, we are concerned at the lack of progress since publication. After all, the Government estimate that there are about 210, 000 people with severe and profound learning difficulties. John Hutton, the health Minister, said that they were among the most socially excluded people in the country, but the Department of Health's agenda seems to have been taken over by other issues, leaving learning difficulties vying for attention.
The Government decided not to legislate on the dream outlined in the White Paper. Without a legally binding duty to implement the proposals and meet the objectives, local authorities and health authorities will not consider them a priority. Furthermore, the Government did not back the proposals for change with any serious money, and there was no national service framework for learning difficulties. In the light of that, I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the House what plans the Government have to put some flesh on the bones of the White Paper.
Over the past 15 years, successive Ministers, from both parties, have affirmed the principle that people with a mental handicap and their families should have a choice as to where they live and that village communities should be one of the options. We particularly welcomed the fact that the White Paper and its accompanying guidance reaffirmed that policy, as my noble friend Lord Renton said. Local officials are required to rethink their policies on provision of residential care in the light of the guidance. It would appear that some are not doing so for villages. They are cherry picking, acting on the bits of the guidance that suit them and ignoring the rest.
As my noble friend Lady Cox said, many people with a mental handicap and their families want a village community. In their excellent booklet, Made to Care, my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Pearson of Rannoch pointed out that many people with a mental handicap live lonely, neglected lives in the community,

347
often in small houses in urban streets, often against the wishes of their family and sometimes with tragic results. My noble friend Lady Cox also mentioned the problems with traffic. It is not surprising that some are now resorting to judicial review to try to have government policy implemented. As my noble friend Lady Cox said, the case for village communities in which care can be provided for mentally handicapped people has been well made over many years. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch skilfully explained the cost-effectiveness argument.
There are opportunities to transform long-stay hospitals into village communities but, in many cases, they are being blocked. Redundant hospital sites, such as St. Ebba's, are often ideal for evolution into a village community, particularly if that is welcomed by the local community, as, I understand, is the case at St. Ebba's. The proposal of the parents and relatives group that another 12 of the 44 acres should be retained for a village community for 60 residents has great merit. The debate has taken place over several years, and, tonight, the Government have an opportunity to clear up the issue.
My honourable friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell made an interesting suggestion yesterday in the other place. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch mentioned that debate. My honourable friend asked the Government to give those parents and relatives an 18-month window and an option on the 12 acres so that they could come back with a solution. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that request. I agree that it is vital that resources are released from surplus NHS properties, but I feel that my honourable friend's suggestion is worthy of serious consideration.
8.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on securing the debate on Valuing People and enabling us to explore some of the important issues concerning village communities and the question of choice for people with learning disabilities and their relatives. The noble Lord is enormously respected for his experience with and support for people with learning disabilities, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who cannot be present tonight, has long been appreciative of the support that he has given to Mencap. The noble Lord's experience as chairman of that organisation was immensely valuable to the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
The context in which we debate the question of St Ebba's is the White Paper, Valuing People, and every noble Lord who spoke referred to it. It is to the credit of every noble Lord who spoke tonight that the White Paper was produced. I have no doubt that the representations made by noble Lords contributed to the work on the White Paper, which was widely welcomed in your Lordships' House when it was published.
348
Valuing People is the first White Paper on learning disability for 30 years. It is based on the four key principles: rights, independence, choice and inclusion. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that it is meant to be cross-government, a cradle-to-grave approach. It is also clear that the philosophy is one of involving people with learning disabilities in its development and implementation. That is the kind of philosophy that the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, suggested we pursue. It applies particularly to the issue of housing, which the noble Baroness mentioned. Housing is a key theme of the White Paper. The intention is to enable people with learning disabilities and their families to have greater choice and control over where they live. That issue is related to the general principle of increasing choice, independence and inclusion in society and community.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, expressed doubt about the progress made since the White Paper was published, and we always hope to speed up the introduction of new policies. However, progress has been made. Guidance has been commissioned on partnership working, person-centred planning, health action plans and the involvement of users in decision making. Decision-making guidance was issued in November 2001, and person-centred planning guidance was issued in January. Other guidance will follow. We have established learning disability partnership boards in each local authority area to take forward the Valuing People proposals. Those boards include representatives of a wide range of statutory and non-statutory interests. It is worth making the point here that it is the responsibility of each principal local authority to take forward this key task at the local level.
At the national level, we have established the Learning Disability Task Force. Members of the task force have extensive knowledge and expertise in the learning disability field. The force has met on a number of occasions. It has set up a number of subgroups to look at particular issues, one of which is housing. That sub-group will stand by to advise local authorities and the Government on the way forward in implementation. Furthermore, it will pick up some of the issues raised by noble Lords tonight in relation to village communities.
In addition, a Valuing People support team has been set up to provide advice and support at the local level. There is a director of implementation and workers are based in each of the former social care regions. Thus an infrastructure has been put in place to support local authorities in developing their own policies and implementing their plans.
I turn to advocacy services. The White Paper placed great emphasis on the need to ensure that people with learning disabilities are able to make their own views known as much as possible. Over £900, 000 was allocated to nearly 60 organisations during the past financial year to encourage such advocacy.
Issues have been raised in relation to the involvement of users and the parents and relatives group in the discussions that have taken place in

349
relation to St Ebba's. I shall turn to that in a moment. More generally, I think that we have set the parameters and conditions for greater user involvement.
I turn to the issue of village communities. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, spoke most eloquently about the potential of such communities. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, suggested, if we look at the different options that are available, we know that people with learning disabilities can live successfully in many different types of housing, in individual self-contained properties, in housing networks, in group homes and shared accommodation schemes, through to village and other forms of intentional community. We know that people with learning disabilities can cope with the full range of tenures, including home ownership. Expanding the range and choice of housing, care and support services is key to giving individuals more choice and control over their lives.
That is what is said in Valuing People and that is what we are working towards. Detailed guidance on the implementation of Valuing People was issued in August last year. It makes the same points about choice and goes on:
"Councils should respect the preferences of individuals and their families wherever the preferred options will meet individuals' assessed needs and are affordable. Where there is limited demand for a particular option, councils and housing authorities may need to consider joining with neighbouring authorities to encourage the development of a greater range of provision".
My reading of that is that village communities are an option for local authorities to consider, but the White Paper does not say that every local council or housing authority must provide them.
It is also clear that different views have been expressed about the relevance of village communities. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out that there were no absolute rights or wrongs in this matter. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to the views of Mencap at the national level. She rightly pointed out that Mencap nationally is not particularly encouraging of the use of village communities. It fears that there is a danger of repeating the policies that obtained during the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century: namely, of people being brought from all over the country to live in large institutions. Of course many noble Lords will know the history of the large institutions.
I do not seek to endorse the view of national Mencap and I know that it is not shared by some of the local branches, in particular the Surrey branch. All it does is indicate that different views are held on this matter.
Turning to St Ebba's, the redevelopment came about because of concerns that the residents' quality of life was not what it should have been. Concerns were expressed about the dormitory accommodation in turn-of-the-century buildings with little privacy, personal space or the ability to choose how and with whom residents spent their day. The plans resulting from what is described as the "New Directions" project began in 1997. They saw proposals for the development of a range of small care homes, each dedicated to the care of specific groups of residents, and the development of supported living flats.
350
Noble Lords have made the point that 61 places are planned on the St Ebba's site which, according to the commissioning authorities, would meet the expected need in the local community. This is important. Of the 61 places, three homes are already occupied, another is under refurbishment and some still await planning approval. It is hoped, I understand, that, subject to planning consent, redevelopment will be concluded by 2004.
I also understand that provision has been made within the redevelopment proposals for a limited expansion of two to three further homes, if they are required in the future. However, while those proposals have received widespread support in Surrey, they are not in line with the wishes of the St Ebba's Parents and Relatives Group, which has long campaigned for the development of a village community, believing that that would be the best setting for the residents.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, helpfully arranged for me to meet with representatives of the group. I understand why this group and like organisations across the country believe that the village community is the ideal option. Indeed I have no hesitation in saying that there are people with learning disabilities for whom it would be the preferred method of care. Those who support the concept of village communities argue that they are cost-effective—I shall come back to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on the question of funding, because he raised some interesting points—and that people with learning disabilities would enjoy a better quality of life in such a protected environment. Furthermore, authorities would build village communities if they were properly consulted, because that is what many parents want.
The commissioning authorities in Surrey have had to work together to ensure that there is a co-ordinated response. I understand that 30 of the 89 residents currently on the St Ebba's site are out-of-county placements. At the start of the St Ebba's project in 1998, the health authority wrote to all the other health authorities to ask whether they wanted to purchase places at St Ebba's. None expressed an interest in purchasing those places.
We then come to the responsibility of the local health and social care commissioners who have a ditty to carry out a full assessment of the care needs of St Ebba's patients and ensure that the appropriate arrangements are put in place. I do not believe that it is for Ministers to second-guess those assessments, but I have inquired and have been assured that die appropriate assessments did take place in relation to each of the residents.
I well understand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, suggested, that concerns have been expressed that the parents and relatives group has not been sufficiently involved in the discussions that have taken place at the local level. She will know that the county council and the relevant NHS trust issued a public consultation document; that the community health council involved was present at the public meetings; and that a large number of responses were received. Most of those responses supported the changes proposed. The

351
St Ebba's Parents and Relatives Group and Surrey Mencap expressed objections, wishing to develop a village community on site.
I understand the issue of the representation of the parents and relatives group on the Surrey partnership board. I have inquired into this matter locally and I have been informed that the size of the geographical area that the Surrey partnership board covers precludes the involvement of all interested groups. I know that a member of the parents and relatives group has been invited to speak to the chair of the mid-Surrey Valuing People localities group, which has representation on the main partnership board, but, in the light of today's discussion, I undertake to see whether there is some way in which the parents and relatives group can have some further engagement, discussion and involvement in these decisions. I would not wish the group to feel that it has not been listened to either by Ministers or by the local statutory agencies. I shall make sure that that does happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, raised some very interesting questions about the comparative costs. I have inquired into this matter. The research undertaken for the White Paper examined the differences in costs and benefits of housing options. My understanding is that the research did not find significant differences in costs. I shall be happy to send the noble Lord further information on that matter.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of the way in which surplus properties which had been given to the NHS in the past by local people were handled. He will know—this has been raised on a number of occasions—that all such properties are owned by the Secretary of State. It is in the Secretary of State's gift to decide how they should be dealt with. It is important to ensure that where surplus land is sold the money comes back to the NHS for the benefit of NHS patients.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is it really honourable that the money should come back to the NHS for the benefit of NHS patients rather than for the mentally handicapped, for which the land was originally given?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if one looks at the history of the giving of land and property over the many years of the National Health Service, it is very difficult to say that for all time every element and value of the property should go back into the service for which it was originally bequeathed. That would be a nightmare to organise. I accept that we need to ensure that money is invested in learning disability services. I certainly hope that the extra money that we are putting into the health service creates the conditions for investment in the future.
I was disappointed with the response of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, to the comments made by my honourable friend in another place yesterday. Ms Jacqui Smith, who has responsibility for this policy area, made a very significant statement. She could not make any commitments but said that she was willing
352
to consider the timetable for the sale of the land. That, indeed, is what the Government will do. But, equally, I cannot stand here and give hope that the Government will suddenly wave away the opportunity of the sale of that surplus. I believe that it is significant that she said that she would be willing to consider the timetable for the sale of that land. That is a commitment I repeat in your Lordships' House today.
I have spoken perhaps too long, but I wanted to respond to the important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I understand the issues raised in St Ebba's with regard to village communities. I believe that the local authority has gone about its business in a professional and effective way and has reached its decisions on the basis of proper, multi-disciplinary, professional assessment.
I conclude by saying that I shall ensure that the parents and relatives group has a further opportunity to put its case to the statutory agencies. As my honourable friend said yesterday, she will take another look at the proposed timetable for the sale of the land, but without any commitment.

Tax Credits Bill
8.35 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 10.
Lord Freemanmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 8, line 1, at end insert ", and in particular whether the application of the 16 hour rule can be flexibly interpreted for those disabled persons who remain at work during a period of treatment"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment concerns entitlement to working tax credit for disabled people. Clause 10(3)(b), to which my amendment is addressed, covers the category of disabled people; and paragraph (d), under the description "any other factors", covers the very broad range of options available to those who draft and interpret the regulations for entitlement to working tax credit for those who are disabled.
I support the Government's view that the working tax credit mechanism should be used as far as possible for disabled people, both those who are able to continue in work and come back to work. I understand that the final draft of the regulations dealing with entitlement has yet to be considered. It may therefore be appropriate to probe a little further what the Minister said in Grand Committee. It would be very helpful if the Minister could add to and amplify some of the comments made.
I am not suggesting for one moment that the 16-hour rule, which is fundamental to the definition of "qualifying remunerative work" in relation to, for example, disabled people, should be in any way amended or broached. But flexibility is provided for on the face of the Bill and it may be helpful if I probe a little further the flexibility, its interpretation and imposition.

353
I wish to stress that I am addressing the issue of people with short-term disability problems; not those suffering from long-term disability and inability to work anywhere close to the 16-hours per week. So I am not talking about those who would qualify for the longer term disability benefits together with the income disregards associated with that. I am dealing with short-term problems.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. It may be that a course of treatment—I believe that certain categories of renal dialysis would fit this example—which might not last more than a few months, would enable a patient to work three days a week for one week, two days a week the next, perhaps even only one day the week after, and then a full week. So there may be for those who fall into the category of "disabled" but who are having treatment which lasts for a few months—but certainly not beyond six months— a rather irregular pattern of work.
I have two questions for the Minister in anticipation of looking at the regulations in greater detail when we come to them. First, what is the degree of flexibility in determining whether or not the 16-hour rule has been met, if not in the letter each week but certainly within the spirit as a result, perhaps, of averaging? Secondly, how can we communicate this welcome flexibility to the disabled and to the organisations which care for and help disabled people? Some foreknowledge of how the working tax credit system might work for the disabled would be of enormous help. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting down the amendment. It is an important point. It was raised at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. It is one which calls quite urgently for attention. The stress on therapeutic effect is valuable. The stress on short-term conditions is also valuable.
While the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, was speaking I was thinking, for example, of slipped discs. When one is suffering from a slipped disc, one may be quite incapable of working for a month, then capable of working perhaps a half a day or a quarter of the day for another month, and three-quarters of a day for a third month and then be perhaps fully fit afterwards. If one tries to telescope that process one ends up unfit to work. I remember being told by a doctor, "Either you accept this discipline or you have this condition for life". Fortunately my employers took a generous view of the matter and I was able to accept the condition; otherwise I might not be here now. There could be real value in the amendment.
When in Opposition the noble Baroness dealt with the Jobseekers Bill. She raised the question as to whether one had necessarily to go by the number of hours in deciding what was full-time work. I do not know whether that question is worth revisiting. I can see difficulties in the way of it. But I could see then what the Minister was after and why. I felt considerable sympathy and tried to support her where I could. The issue is worth thinking about.
354
Exactly how the principle would be applied will be difficult. The principle needs attention. Consultation with the disability organisations about how exactly it should be done and contact with the medical profession could be extremely valuable. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for raising it.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I support my noble friend. Clearly it is an important issue. As the noble Earl pointed out, it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, at Second Reading. Although his preoccupation over many years has been concerned with Mencap and so on, the issue may well affect other disabled people. It is particularly important in a period of treatment—it may be a temporary situation—but it would be inappropriate for the tax credit to be withdrawn during a period which is likely to be of a transitory nature. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will respond favourably.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope very much that I shall be able to allay concerns. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said that he was not seeking to change the 16-hour rule. That has read-across implications on the supportive, permitted work which has replaced therapeutic earnings. One may end up possibly with more losers than gainers among people who might be in the 10 to 16-hour range if they have, for example, a severe learning disability. I am glad that he did not go down that route. I may be able to meet his concerns on his substantive point.
With the support of other Members of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord sought to provide that disabled people who are receiving medical treatment should be able to satisfy the remunerative work test even if they cannot always work at least 16 hours a week. He gave the example of someone with fluctuating hours being given renal dialysis.
The working tax credit will look at the hours that a person usually works. That does not mean that a person has to work 16 or more hours every single week. For example, being off work and in receipt of statutory sick pay, which can run for up to six months, will not mean that the person no longer qualifies for working tax credit. That is substantial. I use the genderised "his"; I am sure noble Lords will allow that. If his usual working hours were at least 16 hours a week before the onset of the illness, and provided he expects to return to work once he has recovered, he will continue to be eligible for working tax credit because his "usual" working hours will not have changed.
As I said on Amendment No. 6, whether or not an employee's hours have changed will tend to be governed by the arrangements between the employer and his employee. In other words, if the employer expects someone in the normal course of events to be working 15 hours a week but there is a period in that timescale when the hours are less but the arrangement still exists between employer and employee the working tax credit will continue to be paid under those circumstances.

355
Clearly if the situation continued beyond the statutory sick pay period one is getting into a very different situation relating to total incomes and total hours worked. But the situation in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, is already met. Given that one can be on statutory sick pay for up to six months, it is more than generously covered. With that assurance I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. It spells out to your Lordships and on the record in clear terms how the matter should be interpreted. I am sure that will be welcomed by the organisations concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Rate]:
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 36:
Page 10, line 9, at end insert—
"() shall provide that the rate at which tax credit is withdrawn combined with the rate at which housing benefit and council tax benefit are withdrawn shall not exceed 75 per cent of any increase in a person's relevant income"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at this stage Amendment No. 36 is only a probing amendment. But it deals with a problem which we must get right if the Bill is to have the effect we all hope that it will. It deals with the housing and council tax benefit tapers. The purport of the amendment is to ensure that deductions under those shall not be above 75 per cent. In all conscience, that is a large enough proportion of anyone's tax credit.
The housing benefit and council tax benefit tapers can be very steep on occasion. If one gives people a great deal of tax credit and then takes it all away again in reductions in housing benefit, one has simply gone in for the process which the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, used to describe as churning: one sent the money round in a circle and is no better at the end of it. Some of it always has to stick to the fingers of the people who have the sweat of treading out the corn. That cannot be helped.
At present I understand that the tapers for housing benefit and council tax benefit are 85 per cent which is fairly steep. That is laid down in legislation other than tax credits legislation. The Minister may well wish to raise this question. If those are to be altered, in what legislation should it be done? I should be a little disappointed if she were to say that we would have to wait for a general review of housing benefit. I know that such a thing is in contemplation. But I am inclined to say of housing benefit what Churchill said of democracy: that it is the worst system except for all the others.
Flaws in housing benefit have been talked about for a very long time. They are real and serious. But every time anyone comes up with an alternative to housing benefit, and we have a good, long, hard, serious look at it, it turns out that it is worse than the housing benefit
356
system we have at present. If the Minister were to say that, I should take it as a reply that this was to be done at the Greek calends; and I should like to see it happen a little sooner than that.
I understand that under the Bill the taper would be reduced so that it got only to 90 per cent of withdrawal. That would mean that one was only 10p better off for every £1 of tax credit. That is not a very magnificent result of really quite generous expenditure.
The Minister tore my amendment to pieces in Committee by saying that it would lead to a deduction rate of 125 per cent, to which I replied that I had said when I introduced it that I had never had any intention of pressing it. I say the same about this amendment. I am not certain of the exact costs of the amendment. But I have an estimate from Shelter, a source worthy of some attention, that only about 5 or 6 per cent of all the families covered by the tax credit would be tapered out of the tax credit at the same time as they were being tapered out of housing benefit and council tax benefit. If the Government could estimate the cost of the amendment, I should find that extremely helpful. We shall have to return to this issue at some stage.
It is suggested that changing tax credits every April will alter also everybody's housing benefit. The fear has been expressed that that could produce a serious bunching of work at housing benefit offices. As they are heavily worked most of the time, a massive increase in work in one week could have an unhelpful effect. I do not purport to know the answers but we must find some. If the Minister can help, I should warmly welcome it. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, my recollection is that we have long been promised a review of housing benefit. Perhaps the Minister can remind us of the present situation. I have previously expressed concern at the way in which housing benefit is administered, given the variety of different forms that local authorities employ. None of my attempts to encourage the Government to sort out that matter has been successful. Can the Minister say whether there is a still variety of housing benefit forms? That would clearly impact on the noble Earl's amendment because presumably local authorities would have to co-operate in any such exercise.
I heard on the radio this morning the latest report that something like one-third of housing benefit payments are not made on time. If that is so, perhaps the Minister could say so. We are envisaging the amendment against an unsatisfactory housing benefit scene.
As to the difficult issue of tapers, I am not clear about the implications of the marginal deduction rate not exceeding 75 per cent for housing benefit, council tax benefit and tax credit all taken together. My understanding is that that would mean a substantial reduction in the marginal rate, which would be imposed on the benefits individually. No doubt the

357
Minister will clarify that point. The situation is not satisfactory and there should be a general review of housing benefit as soon as possible.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to talk about housing benefit structures generally. I take the noble Lord's criticism of housing benefit administration. He is undoubtedly right. I should be surprised if there is much difference between us in our concerns about the inadequacies of housing benefit administration in many local authorities. We have just issued a set of key performance standards for good administration, backed by a programme of inspection and active support—including help teams, which are almost like shock teams. They go into local authorities and work with them to improve their performance. We are trying to pick up on smaller items, such as mail redirects, which have been discussed on the Floor of the House more generally.
Much as it hurts me to do so, I must disappoint the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is almost impossible to resolve the housing benefit tapers issue with the current structure of housing benefit interlocked with rent structures as they impact on other benefits. If the housing benefit structure is not changed, the choice is between steep, sharp and short tapers and long, gradual tapers in which the MDRs go much further up the income scale. That is what one is stuck with in any system based on the withdrawal of housing benefit.
There is a continuing review of housing benefit. How much of that can be completed in advance of housing rent restructuring—which in terms perhaps implies some readjustment of the housing stock—is a big and long-term question.
One of the problems of targeting benefits according to financial need is that if all the benefits are on the same taper, that produces a sharp cliff edge. If the benefits are on different tapers, that produces fluctuating MDRs according to which benefits coincide as they get withdrawn—which adds to the complexity for the recipient.
The amount of overlap between those on housing benefit and those on tax credits is much smaller than one would have expected a priori. I suspect that that is because many pensioners are not in the system and they are great users of housing benefit. Only around 5 per cent of people on tax credits will be on the housing benefit taper. To put it another way, only 10 per cent of housing benefit recipients are also on the tax credit taper. High deduction rates, although unacceptable, affect only a relatively small proportion of recipients.
The noble Earl was right that where people have tax credits withdrawn alongside housing benefit and council tax benefit, there is a marginal deduction rate of more than 90 per cent. If working tax credit were not taken into account, that would result in an MDR of 125 per cent, which is even worse.
The amendment addresses not just the tax system but also national insurance. There is a whole series of tapers. Taking the amendment at face value, reducing
358
the combined tax credit, housing benefit and council tax taper for existing recipients to something less than 75 per cent would mean reducing the HB/CTB taper to 60 per cent, which would be at significant cost. Reducing the HB taper to 45 per cent and the CTB taper to 15 per cent would cost £520 million in 2003–04, rising thereafter, and would bring a further 100, 000 on to housing benefit—a high-cost response to benefit a modest number of people. That is partly because of the relatively small overlap, which would still produce high MDRs. The cost would be half a billion pounds, and recipients would still have MDRs of 75 per cent or more, which would not go far to meeting the problem.
Reducing the HB taper may not be particularly well focused on moving people into work. Currently, only around 50 per cent of people on the HB taper have any earnings. Those without earnings have other sources of capital or income or are in receipt of other benefits. I shall probably be shot for saying this, but because HB is such a high cost but variable benefit across the country, it is like an iceberg that keeps emerging to wreck the taper or MDR effects of a whole series of benefits. Whatever the benefit, suddenly in comes the housing benefit taper. Because it can he a high-value benefit on a regional basis, it is not one that can be played around with lightly without having serious, if not catastrophic, effects on people's ability to manage their finances or which alternatively may render them homeless.
We may be stuck on this. All that I can say is that, ultimately, most people's response to the new tax credits will not be to work out their MDRs—some may do so—but to recognise the better-buy package of going into work, compared with not being in work, and the extra money that they will get for extra hours worked, compared with not being in work.
However unhappy I am about the taper as regards housing benefit—this is where I am so proud of this benefit—what I am pleased about is that, in just the same way as working tax credits were a significant improvement on the generosity of family credit, so the new tax credits are a significant increase in generosity on the existing tax credit system. So, although high MDRs will remain—and I honestly cannot see a way through without a major overhaul of the housing benefit structure—it has to be remembered that this still affects a relatively small percentage of people, although it is difficult for them. Secondly, even so, those recipients of high MDRs will still be considerably better off than they would be under the present system. At the end of the day, I hope that that will help to reconcile them to the fact that housing benefit is an area where, certainly in this Bill, we cannot play around with the tapers.
9 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I cannot help admitting to being disappointed, but it is no use railing at the Minister for the facts of the case. I am afraid that I found much of what she said abominably persuasive. But we cannot leave the matter there.

359
The point that surprised me most in her remarks was the low proportion of people on housing benefit and in receipt of the tax credit who are actually in work. But we should not assume that that will remain permanently the case. In fact, I imagine that it might have been part of the object of the Bill that it should not remain permanently the case. One should not be too fatalistic and abandon people to a perpetual life on benefit. I know that that is more the Minister's language than mine, but there are cases where it is true and valid, and this might be one of them.
It is all very well saying that we must have a review of housing benefit, but if we say that before we have any idea of what type of change we want to introduce we are putting the cart before the horse. We could well end up—as is often the case if one goes in for change just because there has to be a change—with something a great deal worse than we started with. It is the most dangerous way of undertaking political change that I know.
So perhaps the points made by the Minister that we really need to be thinking about are those relating to the housing stock. It is extremely maldistributed. The Minister talked about the danger, if this amendment were adopted and we had a gentler taper, of housing benefit creeping up the middle-class scale. But, of course, that is happening already. I am told that in the London Borough of Kingston a newly appointed police constable is on housing benefit. Whether that problem should be solved by the Home Office or by the Department for Work and Pensions is a matter on which I imagine interdepartmental exchanges may already be taking place. Certainly, something should be done about it. It is not what one expects to see. It is not the way to get the kind of police force we need.
Perhaps my most frustrating experience in the service of my party was serving on the policy working group on housing. We had many good ideas, but we could not put it all together. A real problem was created by the initial success of the policy of the sale of council houses. I remember Frank Field's book, Losing Out, published in 1989, in which he pointed out that only the people who were in effect unsuccessful were remaining in council estates—which were therefore becoming much more undesirable places to live and much harder places from which to become employed and were much greater poverty traps in themselves. So the apparent success of a policy has left a very big problem behind it. This may be one of the problems from which to start. I suppose that even on the Front Bench one must be allowed, if one is not committing anyone to anything, to think aloud sometimes.
The geographical distribution of work is another issue that we need to think about. I do not know whether the Minister was in the Chamber when my noble friend Lord Greaves raised the problem of houses in Burnley and Oldham, which are going almost literally for a song. No one can be found to buy them because there is no work anywhere near them. Then you listen to my honourable friend Mr Rendel complaining that he is not going to have the whole of
360
Berkshire concreted over in order that people should find work in Newbury. There is a maldistribution. It may be that getting the work to the houses is in some places rather more practical than getting the houses to the work. It means a lot less concrete and far fewer ruins—all of which might be commended.
We need a general review of housing policy, not merely of housing benefit. Reviewing housing benefit without reviewing housing is a sure way to get into another set of figures. Looking at public expenditure figures on housing over the past 20 or 30 years is quite revealing. I do not have the figures to hand. but I think that that is because my hand cannot reach low enough down! If the Minister wants to tell me the figures, I shall be glad to hear them. It is certainly the area where public spending has dropped fastest. As always, economy turns out to be a very, very expensive habit. I remember one of my colleagues remarking that Charles I was not rich enough to afford economies. We are in danger of getting into that situation.
However, I shall clearly get nowhere by pursuing the amendment by itself. I hope that there will be discussions not only within the Department for Work and Pensions but also on an interdepartmental basis about how any future housing policy and any future housing benefit policy should interlock. If these matters are not worked out jointly, neither will work. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Initial decisions]:
The Deputy Chairman (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, Clause 14, Amendment No. 38: the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38 standing in my name—I believe that I am right in saying that we should be debating Amendment No. 38A.
Noble Lords: Amendment No. 38.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38. I apologise for the confusion.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord. My understanding is that Amendment No. 38 has already been debated and therefore needs formally not to be moved. We have moved on to Amendments Nos. 38A and 43 dealing with initial and final decisions.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, that is what I understood. I thank the noble Baroness. I think that we are in agreement. We are now on Amendment No. 38A, as I understand it, not having moved Amendment No. 38.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 38A:
Page 10, line 22, at end insert—
"() The Board shall not require the person or persons making a claim to provide information which is already in possession of the Board"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should explain that Amendment No. 38A is effectively in place of Amendment No. 43, which was wrongly drafted.
The amendment suggests that the Inland Revenue should not require information already in the board's possession. We discussed this matter in Grand Committee on 23rd May. My noble friend Lord Saatchi moved the amendment, then I intervened to complain about Inland Revenue form P161, which demands a reply from individuals to provide information that it already holds. That undoubtedly happens from time to time. The amendment seeks to ensure that it does not, particularly in regard of tax credits.
On reading the debate I was somewhat puzzled by the Minister's reply. The amendment states that the board shall not ask for information it already possesses. The Minister rejected the amendment on the grounds that the Inland Revenue did not yet have a great deal of the information it would need, which is the mirror image of my amendment. She said,
"It takes time for the income tax system to get all that information. Employers must return details".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. CWH 150.]
and so on. She argued that, as a result, people would not receive their tax credits on time. That is all fascinating, but it has nothing to do with the amendment, and that is true of the general thrust of the Minister's reply on that occasion.
She pointed out that under Clause 17 the Inland Revenue will send claimants details that it already holds, which is to be welcomed and will no doubt assist in filling in the form, but that is not the point. I merely suggest that if information is already available—a national insurance number or whatever it may be—the board should not ask for it again when its records should show that the information is available on the official record. The amendment still has substance. The Minister's reply in Committee is not really relevant to its rejection. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I know that a body corporate has a legal personality, but it does not necessarily have a physical personality. Information known to one part is not necessarily known to another part. One part of a body corporate is not necessarily culpable for the behaviour of another part. Within my college I occasionally have to explain to people that I am not personally to blame for the behaviour of a warden of a hall of residence. Information in the possession of one part of a college is not necessarily in the possession of another part of the college.
So it is not always possible to be certain what information is in the board's possession. At times it may not be possible to access the information at great speed. There have been times when I knew some information existed within my own papers, but I found
362
it much quicker to come here and look it up than to find it in my papers. Although the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is after something extremely desirable, he may for once have been a little utopian.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord did not find my answer helpful, illuminating or relevant to the amendment. In that case, I am puzzled as to why he did not pursue me harder at the time. Perhaps he was busy doing other things.
I can see where the noble Lord is coming from and why the amendment appears to have a shallow logic. I put three problems to him. First, the Inland Revenue has information on individuals, but these claims are joint claims. Someone has to collate the information. Because tax credits are based on joint household income, it is right that both parties who are jointly and severally liable for the correct information need to cosign the form and provide the information.
A partner may not even be paying tax because his earnings are so modest. He may not be known to the Inland Revenue in that capacity, but his earnings will still come into play in terms of household income and therefore we need that information.
That is the first point. We are dealing with household income, not individual income. The Inland Revenue may be able to match partners, but if they are of different names the Revenue would have to do it by reference to address. There would then be added complications of working out whether those two people represented a cohabiting household for Inland Revenue purposes. The Inland Revenue will also not know whether they have children. I could go on about a series of complexities for some time as the imagination catches hold.
The second point is the one that I tried to pursue with the noble Lord at the time. When a claim is made, the Inland Revenue will have only partial information. Claims may be made at the beginning of the financial year, but even so, a lot of my information about books and royalties comes in several months late. I suspect that the same applies to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and to the wife of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. As the Inland Revenue will possess only partial information for the individual, it is probably safer on the initial claim for working tax credit to ask the individual or the couple to fill in a complete across-the-waterfront form about their income rather than presuming that the Inland Revenue has some information that it may or may not have, according to the efficiency of banks and other savings bodies in providing it.
The third point is that this is not as big a problem as the noble Lord seems to think. Only on the first claim for working tax credit are we dealing with piecemeal information. Thereafter, the basis will normally be the preceding year's income, which is reflected in tax forms. The applicant will be asked to confirm only that the figures are still valid for them. Payments in subsequent years will be made only as part of the end of year reconciling process. The problem should he fairly minuscule after the initial year.

363
For those three reasons—that we are dealing with joint claims, not individual claims, which is the information that the tax system has; that the Inland Revenue will have only partial information about income at any point in time; and that after the initial year the amount of work involved is minimal, because the previous year's income figure is simply being uprated or confirmed—I hope that the noble Lord will think that this reply is slightly more relevant and helpful, if not more persuasive, than the previous one.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, two thirds of the reply was more relevant. The other third is the noble Baroness's previous reply, which was not relevant. She was also rather more persuasive this time.
I am intrigued by her point that Clause 17 will set out the details of all the family circumstances and income that are currently held by the Revenue and the claimant must then check the notice and correct any details that need correction. If we are working on a household situation, I assume that the Revenue will send out all the details that it has on both individuals and ask them to correct it jointly. That may lead to some surprises for one partner or the other. However, that is a separate point.
I shall think about the noble Baroness's reply. I gave an example in Grand Committee to show that the Revenue seems inclined—I put it no more strongly than that—to ask for information that it clearly ought to have had in the first instance. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Other revised decisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Final notice]:
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 53 not moved.]
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 54:
Page 12, line 36, at end insert—
"(8A) Where the person is, or persons are, within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (8), the Board must decide again whether the award was correct and, if not, may decide to amend or revoke it; but a decision must not be made under this subsection—

(a) before a statement has been made in response to provision included in the notice by virtue of subsection (8), or

(b) if that has not happened by the date specified for the purposes of that subsection, before that date."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are a considerable number of other amendments linked with this one. We have had a series of discussions about what I have called restructuring amendments. The Grand Committee agreed to categorise them to simplify our discussions. This group of amendments
364
comes into what we then described as category four, which was designed to split Clause 17, separating provisions on the notice on the end of year statement from the decisions that the board makes after the year end.
If I understand correctly, this series of government amendments were not foreseen, but are not of the same kind as the previous ones. They are effectively simplifying amendments rather than being crucial to the operation of the Bill. Some of the previous government amendments that we considered were designed to ensure that the Bill worked. No doubt the noble Baroness can clarify that for us. I look forward with interest to her reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. We have already discussed amendments tabled by the noble Lord to reverse the changes made by "category 3" of the Government's amendments. That category of amendments made various improvements to Clause 17. In the process, it made Clause 17 too unwieldy and, therefore, as the noble Lord rightly said, "category 4" was produced, which is designed basically to restructure Clause 17 into two clauses: Clause 17 will deal with notices, and Clause 18 will deal with "Decisions after final notice".
Perhaps I may retrace my steps and point out to the House that, originally, Clause 17 covered both aspects of the process of finalising awards at the end of the year: first, the process of issuing notices to claimants. Claimants will then confirm that the information held by the board is correct—or, if it is not correct, will provide up-to-date information; and, secondly, the subsequent decisions about claimants' entitlement made by the board on the basis of the information that it holds, once claimants have been given the opportunity to confirm or correct that information.
However, now that Clause 17 has been split, it covers only the first of those two aspects of the end-of-year process—the issuing of notices to claimants so that they can check the validity of the information. The second aspect—the making by the board of final decisions about entitlement—is now covered by Clause 18. Although there is no change in substance, the drafting reflects the new restructuring processes. I wonder whether I need say any more. Indeed, the noble Lord was exactly right in his description. I hope, therefore, that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I believe that the Bill will now be clearer to those who read it as a result of these changes.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I entirely agree with the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Decisions after final notice]:
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Power to enquire into awards]:
[Amendments Nos. 58 to 73 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Decisions on discovery]:
[Amendments Nos. 74 to 85 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Information etc. requirements: supplementary]:
[Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past nine o'clock.

  Prime Minister: Hospitality Costs
  Prime Minister: Hospitality Costs
  Intelligence and Security Committee: Annual Report
  Intelligence and Security Committee: Annual Report
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984: Codes of Practice
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984: Codes of Practice
  Colombia: FARC
  Colombia: FARC
  NHS: Information Management and Technology
  NHS: Information Management and Technology
  Porton Down Volunteers: Epidemiological Research
  Porton Down Volunteers: Epidemiological Research
  War Widows Pilgrimage Scheme
  War Widows Pilgrimage Scheme
  Reserve Forces
  Reserve Forces
  Ofcom: Board Appointments
  Ofcom: Board Appointments
  Children and Young People: Departmental Action Plans
  Children and Young People: Departmental Action Plans
  School Exclusions: Pupils of Black-Caribbean Ethnic Origin
  School Exclusions: Pupils of Black-Caribbean Ethnic Origin
  Consumer Products and the Environment: Internet Information Service
  Consumer Products and the Environment: Internet Information Service
  Mahogany Imports
  Mahogany Imports
  DEFRA: Horticulture Research
  DEFRA: Horticulture Research
  London Wholesale Markets: Review
  London Wholesale Markets: Review