Sitting of 13 June 2002

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading Read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 20 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    EU Enlargement
    David Cairns: What assessment she has made of the impact on British business of EU enlargement. [58215]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): European Union enlargement will benefit British business by creating the largest single market in the world, with nearly 500 million consumers, and a level playing field for business across Europe.
    Yesterday, I urged British business to seize the opportunities created by EU enlargement at a joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office/Department of Trade and Industry business press briefing.
    David Cairns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. She will be aware that tremendous goodwill towards the United Kingdom exists throughout the applicant countries. In fact, they would rather do business with the UK than with any of our competitors. She also knows, however, that those new jobs will not fall into our laps but have to be earned. In addition to the advice that she gave yesterday, will she outline what further advice and support the UK Government are able to give to British businesses to ensure that they can fully exploit the undoubted potential that will arise post-enlargement?
    Miss Johnson: We have given a wide range of advice and much help to British business. Indeed, as a result of British Trade International's opportunity central Europe campaign, an extra 1,000 companies registered an interest in being involved in central Europe—that is in addition to the 15,000 companies that Trade Partners UK estimates are already exporting to or investing in the region.
    982
    The website that I launched yesterday provides a number of links to key support and help for firms interested in that development.
    Michael Fabricant: I am sure that the hon. Lady is right when she says that we can only benefit by enlargement of the European Union, but the question concerned what assessment she has made. Is she aware that the Minister for Europe told me in a parliamentary written answer that the Government have made no assessment, nor have they any intention of ever making one, on the costs or the benefits of our membership of the European Union, whether it be enlarged or not? Will she please go to her colleague, the Minister for Europe, who is responsible for these matters, and ask that the Foreign Office for the first time conduct such an assessment without any further delay?
    Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is talking about membership of the European Union, not about EU enlargement. The point is that that enlargement will create 2 million new jobs in the candidate countries, and we estimate that it will create an extra 300,000 new jobs in existing EU member states. Indeed, the estimated gain to the United Kingdom's gross domestic product is £1.75 billion.
    Michael Fabricant: Where does that figure come from?
    Miss Johnson: It is from independent research conducted in 1997.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Does my hon. Friend agree that our country's many creative industries, for example film and broadcasting, are one of the areas of British business that would greatly benefit from EU enlargement into central Europe? I am sure that she is aware of the excellent proposals that the British Council is putting forward to allow our creative industries to expand their contacts and networks in central and eastern Europe. Will she join me in welcoming those proposals and could she give her Department's support for them?
    Miss Johnson: Indeed I can join my hon. Friend in welcoming that initiative. It is another example of the many benefits that will accrue to us and the industries concerned through enlargement. The Department will give its full support for just that sort of enlargement activity.
    Mr. Derek Foster: I have been a pro-European for 40 years, enthusiastic about enlargement as it will underpin the emerging democracies of eastern Europe, but will the Minister take into account the problem that the one-size-fits-all single currency implies a huge transfer of funds from the more successful economic regions of Europe to the less successful, such as my region in the north-east? Would not enlargement make that problem that much more difficult to solve?
    Miss Johnson: As I said, there will be real gains both to the candidate countries and to existing EU member states because of the economic benefits of enlargement for all parties. Obviously, it is a matter for individual

    983
    countries that accede to the EU under enlargement when and how they join the euro, just as that is a matter for debate and consideration in this country.

    Coal Industry
    Paddy Tipping: What estimate she has made of the amount of coal produced in the UK during the last financial year. [58216]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The UK coal industry produced a total of 32.8 million tonnes, including slurry, in the last financial year. Deep mines produced 18.1 million tonnes and opencast sites produced 14.2 million tonnes.
    Paddy Tipping: Does the Secretary of State agree that the current coal aid operating scheme has helped to sustain that level of production? She will know that the scheme finishes on 23 July. Will she outline the very welcome new framework agreed only last week by the EU, and does she propose any measures to link the two schemes—the one that finishes on 23 July and the new one that will come into effect in 2003?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the enormous help that the existing coal aid scheme has given to enable pits to survive the difficult price and trading conditions that existed between 1999 and last year. I am also delighted that last week at the Energy Council we agreed a new framework for support for the coal industry, including a new framework for investment aid—something that my hon. Friend has been pushing for and for which we argued strongly. We are urgently considering how to take advantage of that new framework in order to ensure the future survival and success of our coal industry.
    Adam Price: The Secretary of State may be aware that the management of Betws colliery in my constituency are meeting her officials this afternoon to inform them of imminent mass redundancies at Betws colliery in the absence of continued support after 23 July. Can she confirm that the option of extending the existing scheme until the end of the year is still under consideration, and that Ministers will meet the management at Betws before any final decision is taken?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction is himself meeting the management and work force at Betws colliery shortly. That is in addition to the meetings with officials that are already taking place. I must stress to the hon. Gentleman that Betws colliery has already received nearly £3 million in coal operating aid which, under the terms of the operating aid scheme, was granted on the understanding and condition that the mine, like other mines, was viable beyond July 2002. Of course we are looking at all the options and we will discuss the issue with management before final decisions are made.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a continuing problem with the coal industry in providing money that, in some ways, finishes up in the back pocket of the owners? We decided
    984
    in respect of Railtrack, some time ago, that we should not continue to pour public money into the pockets of the shareholders who were making a fortune out of it. Would it not make a lot more sense when we save the coal industry—or the remnants of the Tory operations of the past 18 years—to take it back into public ownership? We could buy the shares for a song; we would not be putting money into the pockets of the shareholders; and the chances of survival would be much greater than if we leave the industry to people who are concerned only about themselves.
    Ms Hewitt: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend by saying that renationalisation of the remaining pits is not actually on the Government's agenda, but he makes a very important point about the danger, with some forms of aid, of subsidising companies rather than ensuring the future of the work force. There are difficult decisions to be made, especially in the case of those pits where geology makes it impossible for the pit to have a viable economic future. We are working closely with the industry and its work force to deal with those situations.
    Richard Ottaway: Does the Secretary of State agree that the net effect of the EU Council meeting and the new framework announced recently is that the Germans can subsidise their coal industry, in effect, by billions until 2010, which will result in subsidised coal and electricity coming into this country, affecting our own producers and suppliers?
    Ms Hewitt: No. The Germans certainly pour a great deal of public money into their coal industry but none of that subsidised coal is exported, and we have worked closely with the Commission to ensure that there is no distortion that would undercut our own coal industry.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: I heard my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but may I point out that Tower colliery, which is owned by the men, is more successful? Within the framework for new aid, will my right hon. Friend consider the involvement of the Coal Authority so that proper direction can be given to the investment that will follow the new aid scheme?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the success of Tower colliery. Of course we will consider the point he raises in deciding what kind of investment aid support we may be able to put in place under the new framework that we have successfully negotiated.

    Company Directors
    Mr. Michael Jack: What measures can be taken against company directors who persistently default in their financial and legal responsibilities. [58218]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): A number of measures can be taken, including investigating the company and disqualifying and/or prosecuting the company's directors.
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. A constituent of mine has been the victim of a serial liquidator, as has Customs and Excise. During the past few years, the individual concerned has put five companies into liquidation, leaving my constituent out of pocket by some £20,000 and Customs by £38,000, yet nothing seems to have been done so far to stop that individual continually walking away from his obligations.
    Michael Fabricant: Name him.
    Mr. Jack: I am advised that, if I do as my hon. Friend suggests, the individual could well go to ground, thus making it more difficult for the authorities to get hold of him. May I ask the Minister, first, what powers can be deployed to deal with such people and, secondly, whether, if I furnish her with a file of the cases that I have in mind, she will give me an undertaking to investigate them with all speed?
    Miss Johnson: I take the right hon. Gentleman's comments very seriously. Such cases need to be looked at, and I will, of course, ask the appropriate authorities to look into any details that he can furnish me with so that the matter can be dealt with appropriately.
    In relation to the further issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises about the forms of redress and penalty that can be used, there are a number of different ways to tackle such issues. Obviously, directors can be disqualified as being unfit—indeed, 12,000 have been since the Insolvency Act 1986 was put in place, and in the year to March 2002, 1,750 directors have been disqualified. Companies can also be wound up and other measures can be taken, as I said earlier.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but will she also bear it in mind that one of the problems that small businesses have faced in recent years has been the culture of blame attached to insolvency? The Government have been trying to change that culture so that businesses and those who finance them are prepared to take a chance on people, so that we get a better balance. Always focusing on the defaulters when businesses go wrong is to get the balance wrong. The focus should be on trying to help people back into business. Those who deserve punishment should get it, but the emphasis must be on supporting those businesses that get into difficulty.
    Miss Johnson: I completely agree with my hon. Friend on this issue; it is a matter of striking the right balance. Indeed, that is what we shall do through the current Enterprise Bill, which will be considered on Report later today. In fact, we are considering making a distinction between bankruptcy for those who are not reckless and those subject to bankruptcy restriction orders, which can last for between two and 15 years and will recognise the reckless nature of bankruptcy where that occurs. In that way, a distinction can be made between those who have unwittingly become bankrupt and should be given a fair chance to start again without stigmatisation and those who rightly should be stigmatised and kept from running companies because of their previous track records.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does not the Minister agree that the Government's proposals in the
    986
    Enterprise Bill to make bankruptcy easier, to remove the stigma from it and dramatically to reduce the scope for investigating bankruptcies will make it easier for rogues or well-intentioned incompetents to leave a trail of financial wreckage in their wake?
    Miss Johnson: That is absolute nonsense, for the reasons that I have given in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill). The hon. Gentleman misses the point: there are penalties of between two and 15 years under bankruptcy restriction orders. Indeed, in relation to the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), the previous record of bankrupts will be taken into consideration by the courts in looking at bankruptcy restriction orders, so serial bankrupts will be very much an issue for those in the courts who consider imposing bankruptcy restriction orders and the very serious penalties that they involve.

    Social Enterprises
    Mr. Colin Challen: What plans she has to support social enterprises in the UK. [58219]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): We are preparing a Government strategy for social enterprise at the moment. We want an environment in which social enterprises flourish, because of their benefits in boosting productivity and competitiveness, in contributing to the regeneration of communities and in developing new ways of delivering public services.
    Mr. Challen: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I congratulate the Government on setting up the national social enterprise unit, which is a great initiative. I want to tackle the issue at a local level and have us focus on what happens on, say, council estates, many of which were designed in the 1960s and 1970s with no provision for the possibility of enterprise. They consist of just housing and perhaps one pub, one chippy and one shop.
    We need to consider how we can build the capacity of local populations. I want the Government to consider how joined-up thinking might help local people create accredited community safety schemes in the social enterprise arena. In considering capacity-building structures, we ought to look at places such as west Yorkshire where, for example, there is no co-operative development agency for local people to consult.
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes some important points. Our aim is for enterprise to be centre stage in community regeneration in every part of the country, particularly in some of the areas with the characteristics that he describes. We want in every area a sustainable base for business and jobs in order to provide income and services for people locally. We see social enterprises alongside conventional enterprises as key to bringing communities out of decline. That will be at the heart of our social enterprise strategy, which will be published in the summer. A wide cross-section of the social enterprise sector has been involved in working on that.

    987
    I agree with my hon. Friend about increasing capacity through community development finance intermediaries, and of course the community investment tax credit in the Budget will be helpful in achieving that.
    Judy Mallaber: Does my hon. Friend agree that post offices are a very good example of social enterprises benefiting the local community? Will he assure me that the announcement this morning by Allan Leighton—now, I am pleased to say, of Royal Mail—will not lead to further closures of post offices in rural areas and market towns?
    Mr. Timms: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of post offices in rural areas. We have made it clear that we are absolutely committed to the postal network. Post offices provide a lifeline in many of the communities to which she refers. That is why we placed a formal requirement on the Post Office to maintain the rural network and to prevent avoidable closures. That is not affected in any way by the announcement this morning. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have more to say about the Post Office in a few minutes.
    Miss Anne Begg: I recently visited three businesses in Aberdeen—Printability, Turning Point and Square One—which have adopted the social enterprise model to deliver work placements for people with mental health problems. I was very impressed by what I saw. It should be a model for the future as it not only provides a supportive work environment but keeps people out of hospital, gives them an important role in society and eases them back into work. What help can the Government give to such enterprises to ensure the provision of that valuable work and that the schemes fit the model of welfare to work for disabled people put forward by the Department for Work and Pensions?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend describes an excellent example of exactly what we want to encourage with the social enterprise strategy, which will be published in the summer. We are taking a range of measures to encourage such enterprise. As she says, the benefits are in providing employment opportunities and in delivering services to local communities, often where those services are not available otherwise. That will be the aim at the heart of the strategy. I draw her attention to the community investment tax credit, which will be a big help in that regard, although there will be a number of other measures in the strategy. I would be interested to know more about the example in her area.

    Cefn Croes Wind Farm
    Mr. Roger Williams: If she will make a statement on the Cefn Croes wind farm application. [58220]
    The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): Consent was granted on 23 May. Copies of the decision letter are available in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Williams: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am sure he will accept that there is considerable disquiet
    988
    in Wales about the way in which the application was handled. Groups of people still wish to contest the decision. However, I wish to move on.
    There is cross-party support in the National Assembly for Wales for decisions on all power stations to be devolved to the National Assembly. I believe that there is considerable cross-party support for that in this House as well. Is the Minister willing to enter into discussions with the Secretary of State for Wales and appropriate Ministers in the National Assembly to see how devolution of decision making could be achieved? Will he report back on the outcome of those discussions?
    Mr. Wilson: The short answer to the main part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. The discussions are going on.
    This issue remained a reserved matter at the time of devolution because the transmission system for England and Wales operates as one. Therefore, it was more appropriate to deal with it on an England and Wales-wide basis. Scotland has a separate grid system, so responsibility for it was devolved to Scotland.
    Discussions are going on to get the balance right, and I have no strong feelings about the issue. The current system depends on the way in which devolution was arranged. If it is suitable to change it at some future time, let us look at that. However, at the moment, we operate within the rules as they are laid down.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The Minister will know that I supported this application which is in my constituency. However, the way the application was decided left a sour taste in the mouths of many people in my area and it left many people in Wales feeling that they had been treated as infant children who were not able to take planning decisions for themselves.
    I welcome what the Minister has just said about looking at the issue again. He can do that at the stroke of a pen. In the previous Session, I introduced a Bill to change the electricity legislation and to allow changes to happen, so I hope he will consider that to see how he might easily change the system. Notwithstanding the applications that will come to him from my constituency and elsewhere in south Wales, will he give an undertaking that this is the last time he will take such a decision and that in future he will leave it to the people of Wales to decide?
    Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is having his wind farm and eating it. He agrees with the decision, but he is moaning about the way in which it was taken. I am a strong believer in local democracy and an important point is the fact that the local authority voted 18:3 in favour of the wind farm. That fact is totally ignored in most of the coverage of the issue—all that is talked about is the vociferous minority who have better access to the media and, indeed, to the House of Lords. I make no apology for the decision or the democratic input into it.
    I am not suggesting that the present system is wrong. I have given the rational basis for it, but other, wider factors are coming into play to create a UK-wide transmission system and they might make it appropriate to consider the issue in a different context.

    Gender Pay Gap
    Julie Morgan: What plans she has to address the pay gap between men and women. [58221]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): As well as the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the provisions in the Employment Bill to strengthen the Act, we have the national minimum wage and we are spreading good practice on equal pay through the fair pay champions and castle awards. On top of that, all Departments will carry out an equality audit by April 2003 and we taking forward recommendations from the Kingsmill report.
    Julie Morgan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure she is aware that in Wales women's hourly earnings are 87 per cent. of men's. As the pay reviews are voluntary, can she tell me what the Government are doing to encourage employers in the public and private sectors to undertake them so that we have a detailed picture of the gap?
    Ms Hewitt: I welcome the progress that has been made in Wales where the pay gap is somewhat narrower than it is in other parts of the country. As I said, we are taking a lead in the public sector by ensuring that equality audits take place in all Departments and agencies. We have also given the Equal Opportunities Commission an extra £100,000 to do work with employers to ensure that effective tools are available to them to carry out the pay reviews which are a fairly new idea. I welcome the fact that many private sector employers have already started to carry out those pay reviews to uncover the real underlying problems that give rise to the persistent pay gap.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the equal opportunities policy extends to the highest levels of Government? In that regard, will she say whether there are any unpaid lady Ministers? If there are not, would not it give rise to a claim to the Equal Opportunities Commission from unpaid male Ministers?
    Ms Hewitt: There is rightly a statutory limit on the number of ministerial salaries at the Prime Minister's disposal. I understand that there is an unpaid Minister who is a man and, in the past, at least one unpaid Minister was a woman. I do not think that that situation will give rise to a claim for unequal pay.
    Caroline Flint: A new report shows that more than a third of female workers are earning more than their boyfriends or husbands. However, nine out of 10 women say that they are worn out with the demands of work and home. That suggests two things: first, that men are still not pulling their weight in the home even though their wives and girlfriends may work the same hours and have the same responsibilities; and, secondly, that not enough attention is given to the work-life balance and child care. One of the disincentives for women to go for higher-paid jobs and longer hours is the belief that the support is not available for them to balance their family life with their work life. Can I urge my right hon. Friend
    990
    to ensure that that part of the picture is attended to within the Department of Trade and Industry and the economic agencies?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who raises an extremely important issue. Women who do very low-paid jobs often work at night. Their partner is at home looking after the children and they get no sleep because they have to look after the children and the home during the day. Those women face the biggest problem of juggling work and family.
    Of course we are looking at how we can help women and men to balance work and family more effectively. That includes an enormous investment in child care. It also includes pressing employers to make part-time and flexible work available in the full range of jobs so that women in particular no longer face the choice of either trading down from their skills and qualifications to get the hours they want, or continuing in a job that uses their skills and qualifications properly but which does not allow them the time they need to get on with the rest of their lives.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: Can the Secretary of State say whether measures to address the pay gap between men and women will be included in the wholesale review of workers' rights, which we understand her Department is intending to undertake later this year? Can she confirm reports that that will also include consideration of full employment rights from day one and a further lowering of the threshold for trade union recognition? Is that the way in which the Secretary of State intends to meet the objective that we are told she set out to her third way colleagues at the weekend, that there should be absolutely no danger of the Labour party being seen to have too close a relationship with business?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is a bit behind the curve. We made it plain when we introduced the Employment Relations Act 1999 that there would be a review of its provisions after it had been in force for a couple of years. We said in our manifesto last year that we would conduct that review as promised. I anticipate that we will publish a discussion document in the summer to take that review forward in full consultation, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, with employers, employees and their unions.
    Mr. Whittingdale: The Secretary of State may claim that that has been forecast for a long time, but she does not seem to understand the despair in the business community that the announcement of the review has caused. The Confederation of British Industry called it "totally inappropriate" and the Forum of Private Business said that it is "completely unworkable" and "unnecessary". Is it not proof that the Government have finally given up trying even to pretend that they are seeking to relieve the burden on British business and that, instead, they have swallowed the trade union agenda hook, line and sinker?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is talking complete rubbish. I remind him of the recent report by the Economist Intelligence Unit which found, once again, that thanks to our outstanding management of the economy and to the pro-business and pro-enterprise climate that we

    991
    have created, the United Kingdom remains one of the best places in the world for entrepreneurs, ahead even of the United States of America.

    End of Life Vehicles Directive
    Chris Grayling: If she will make a further statement on the implications of the end of life vehicles directive. [58222]
    The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): We continue to analyse carefully all the implications of the directive in order to ensure that we get the implementation of this complex measure right.
    Chris Grayling: I thank the Minister for that response. Does he not realise that the continuing delay in establishing the premise on which vehicle manufacturers may or may not have to meet some of the costs of recycling vehicles in future is creating instability in the motor industry and uncertainty about future investment and will do the manufacturing sector in this country no favours whatever?
    Mr. Wilson: No, I do not agree with any of that. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest in this issue. I think that the company in his constituency, like every other manufacturer, will be much happier if we get this right than if we get something introduced quickly that proves to disadvantage the British motor manufacturing industry. We are in the same boat as everyone else in the European Union, where there has been delay in implementing the measure because it is complex and because it is important to get it right.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Are we to understand that under the directive it is the last owner of any vehicle who has to pay the costs of putting things right—of the destruction of the vehicle? In that case, is it not the poorest among our constituents who will have to bear those costs? Can it possibly be right that someone with an old banger should have to carry costs that should rightly be carried by the first owner, who got the vehicle new? In those circumstances, can the Department look again at a ten-minute Bill that I tried to introduce to make manufacturers responsible for the death of a vehicle at the design stage? Is not that the right way to do it?
    Mr. Wilson: We are talking about two separate phases. From 2007, exactly the kind of producer liability that my hon. Friend refers to will operate. The question is how that is implemented. I think that that is a matter of particular interest to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). We are therefore talking about an interim period until 2007. We have not made an announcement yet on how that is to be conducted, but we are anxious that during that period we do not put British manufacturers at a disadvantage relative to manufacturers in other EU states. Things may well go in the direction that my hon. Friend suggests, but the major problem of the last owner paying and the problem that already exists of cars being dumped are primarily registration problems.
    992
    That must be addressed at the same time. It would have to be addressed anyway, whether the directive were coming into force or not.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: In view of that response, can the Minister explain the public claim this week by the British Motor Manufacturers Association that he has accepted its proposal for 2007 to do precisely what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) fears, effectively imposing a poll tax on low-income final owners of the car? Do the Government accept the judgment of the all-party Select Committee, which concluded in clear terms that such a proposal would not work "in practice" and that
    "there would be strong incentives on owners of old cars simply to abandon them"?
    Does the Minister accept the reasoning, based on Home Office figures, that the current cost of abandoned cars to councils and emergency services of about £400 million would double or treble if the manufacturers' proposals were accepted?
    Mr. Wilson: I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about the situation before 2007, not post-2007 when producer liability will apply, but the question implies recognition that there is already a problem with dumped cars—a very big problem in some areas. As I say, that would have to be addressed whether the directive were coming into operation or not, through action on the registration system and traceability, which is at the root of the issue. We will announce very soon what we will do in the interim period, but I stress again that the key motivator will be to ensure that British car manufacturers are not disadvantaged vis-à-vis manufacturers in other EU countries.
    Ms Meg Munn: My constituency, like many others, suffers from a lot of abandoned vehicles. I am told by the local fire service that some 55 vehicles a month are set on fire there. A number of small businesses are looking to help the local authority with the recycling of abandoned vehicles. Will the Minister ensure that appropriate advice is made available to such companies, so that they can carry out their duties properly under the directive?
    Mr. Wilson: Absolutely, and my hon. Friend makes a couple of important points. One is that good schemes are already being operated between local authorities and the private sector in some areas. The introduction of the directive will give a further stimulus. It points to the fact that there is an existing problem that must be addressed before the directive comes into operation. We must ensure that the industry has time to adapt and that there are places where vehicles can be taken. Above all, we must ensure that there is a strong disincentive to dumping. That approach will be effective only if it is possible to trace owners. Measures must go hand in hand. We must make sure that there is a penalty that can be applied if people dump vehicles.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: It has been reported that the Government are to delay imposing the burden of the end of life vehicles directive on the motor industry until at least 2007. Is it not inevitably the conclusion that in saving the motor industry

    993
    £450 million a year by leaving responsibility with last owners of vehicles, the Government are effectively imposing a £450 million highly regressive tax on motorists who are least able to pay it—those who are driving end-of-life vehicles? Can the Minister honestly tell the House that he thinks that that is the best way to tackle the problem of abandoned vehicles?
    Mr. Wilson: The best way to tackle the problem is what will happen from 2007, when there is producer liability. It is an interesting view from the Tory party if the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should be immediately penalising British motor manufacturers vis-à-vis their competitors on the continent.
    The basic point is that the directive is a good thing. It will lead to a large increase in recycling in this country. If properly implemented, alongside the measures on traceability, it will get rid of the growing social and environmental problem of dumped burnt-out cars in our community.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Wayne David: What further measures she is taking to tackle the problems caused to small businesses by late payment of invoices. [58224]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The Government take the issue of late payment very seriously. That is why from 7 August we are giving all businesses a new right to claim interest on late payments, a new right to claim a fixed sum of compensation for debt recovery costs, and a new right to have a trade federation or other appropriate organisation to challenge any attempt contractually to reduce the right to statutory interest.
    Mr. David: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I am pleased that the third phase of the 1998 legislation is being introduced. Will my hon. Friend say how effective current legislation has been in reducing late payments?
    Nigel Griffiths: The latest information that we have from the European business survey by Grant Thornton confirms that the average time taken to pay invoices is down from 50 days before legislation came into effect to 41 days. That is a cut of almost 20 per cent.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome the Minister's response to the main question, but does he not agree that smaller businesses are squeezed at both ends? Often, a large business will squeeze them because it uses them as what I would call a cash-flow till. At the other end of the scale, the banks levy substantial charges against smaller businesses. Is it not important that we ensure that the acorns that we hope will produce the big businesses of the future are allowed to use their money to expand, rather than allowing bigger companies to use them as a cash-flow mechanism?
    Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Member puts the point well. I think that the whole House greatly welcomed the action taken by the Secretary of State in ensuring that there was a proper inquiry into bank practices. The banks have been instructed to modify those practices to the benefit of small businesses.
    994
    The hon. Member is also right about the issue of a minority of irresponsible large businesses who regrettably seem to follow the advice of a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, then President of the Board of Trade, in his previous business career of delaying payment to the last possible moment. That is deplorable advice, and it is not the advice being given by the Government.
    John Mann: The small business community will undoubtedly welcome that further improvement. Some of the worst culprits are Government Departments and agencies. Will the Minister monitor them and name and shame those that cost the Exchequer money because of interest levied as a result of their failure to pay up on time?
    Nigel Griffiths: Yes, and my hon. Friend makes a particularly good point, as we now publish information on the time that Government Departments and agencies take to pay. The target is 100 per cent. prompt payment. Government Departments and agencies achieving that now exceed 95 per cent, so there is room for improvement, but they are setting quite a good standard. However, we want them to achieve the full target.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Does the Minister accept that beyond the changes that will take place then, the overwhelming priority for most small business organisations is the promotion of best practice in credit management rather than the imposition of new regulatory controls?
    Nigel Griffiths: Of course, but small businesses and small business organisations tell me that they need tough action to back that up, perhaps contradicting the messages from one or two people, and regulations are necessary to achieve that. If we are going to introduce measures on 7 August, which the hon. Member welcomed, we need regulations. To my mind, those regulations do not impose any burdens but, I hope, help to liberate small businesses and allow them to play the vital part in the economy which the House knows they need to play.

    Clean-Coal Technology
    Mr. Eric Illsley: If she will make a statement on her Department's support for clean-coal technology. [58225]
    The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): The Department is supporting cleaner-coal technology by providing some £17 million over the period 1999 to 2005 for research and development and technology transfer, as well as assisting with the promotion of United Kingdom exports of clean coal.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. At a time when our whole energy policy is under review, it is essential that we maintain our coal industry, especially with increasing gas prices and certain nuclear power stations coming to the end of their life. Will my hon. Friend press for more investment and the application of research and development of clean-coal technologies to provide extra markets for our coal industry?
    Mr. Wilson: The short answer is yes to all of that. Clean-coal technology is important domestically—if we are to continue to have a coal industry, it must be based on cleaner coal—but it also has tremendous export potential. Probably the best thing that we could do globally for the environment is to make sure that clean coal is used in countries that are heavily dependent on coal and in most cases on old and dirty technology.
    David Burnside: The Minister should be aware that the cleanest coal is not the black stuff but the brown stuff; it is called lignite and is used extensively by a number of our colleagues in continental Europe, especially Germany and Spain, for power production. Near my home in Ballymoney we have extensive lignite resources close to the surface; there are extensive resources in the west of my constituency at Crumlin and Lough Neagh, and there is lignite throughout the United Kingdom. Will the Minister give a commitment in any review of energy priorities that may be in production that lignite will be given precedence? Will he liaise with his colleagues in the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments to see that lignite, the clean coal, is used for power production in the UK in future?
    Mr. Wilson: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman said. In the context of the consultation on the White Paper and the emphasis on cleaner-coal technology, I am pleased to give the undertaking for which he asked.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government supported the new IGCC—integrated gasification combined cycle—for clean-coal technology in particular, that would result in a long-term future for our coal industry? It would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the need to transport coal—because plants can be sited on colliery premises—and the need to quarry limestone. It would also provide new opportunities for our engineering industry.
    Mr. Wilson: I have no quarrel with any of that. As my hon. Friend knows, I have been having discussions with interests that are particularly relevant to his constituency.
    Mr. John Smith: Will my hon. Friend remain mindful of the special needs of coal-fired power stations such as Aberthaw in my constituency, which was designed exclusively to burn coal from south Wales, in particular from Tower colliery, with a high sulphur content? In future, the pressure will be on those power stations to increase limitations on their emissions.
    Mr. Wilson: I realise that. One option that we are considering in the clean-coal programme is retrofitting to reduce emissions from existing power stations.

  MINISTER FOR WOMEN
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Private Clubs (Discrimination)
    Mr. Robert Walter: What plans the Government have to deal with discrimination against women members of private clubs. [58250]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I understand that the hon. Gentleman intends to introduce a private Member's Bill on this subject later in the month. I have already welcomed a Bill on the same issue that has been introduced in another place. I can of course make no commitment in regard to parliamentary time, but we will certainly keep the matter under review, because there can be no justification for treating women who are members of mixed-sex private clubs as second-class citizens.
    Mr. Walter: I am somewhat disappointed by that reply. When the Sex Discrimination (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill was proceeding through the House of Lords—it is due to have its Third Reading on Monday evening—it was supported by the Government, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches. I hoped that the Minister would be able to give us a clearer indication that Government time would be made available when that Bill came to the House of Commons and took its place alongside my virtually identical Bill. It seems to me that the Government are more interested in the welfare of foxes than in the welfare of women.
    Ms Hewitt: Until that point, I was full of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman. As I think he knows, there are technical problems relating to Lord Faulkner's Bill and the Bill that the hon. Gentleman intends to introduce, connected with, for instance, amendments to the Licensing Act 1988 and aspects of the drafting. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I shall be happy to ensure that my officials discuss the drafting of his Bill with him; I shall certainly continue to discuss the issue with the business managers.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Russell Brown: What she is doing to encourage more women to enter the construction industries. [58253]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): We are continuing to work with the construction industry, particularly through the rethinking construction initiative—using demonstration projects, case studies and best-practice dissemination to help companies improve their productivity and competitiveness—especially by making better use of the people available to them. One strand of that initiative aims to demonstrate the business benefits of diversity in the workplace, including of course the employment of women.
    Mr. Brown: Like my right hon. Friend, I am well aware of the number of women who are becoming involved in civil engineering in particular. There is, however, a major skills gap in the construction industry: there is a desperate need for electricians, plumbers and bricklayers. May I urge my right hon. Friend to have discussions with the trade unions, particularly the Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians, to establish exactly where the gaps are and what the unions can do—in conjunction with her own good work—to achieve the aim of bringing more women into the construction industry?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely share my hon. Friend's desire to see more women moving into the construction and civil

    997
    engineering sectors. We will never overcome those skills shortages if companies continue to recruit and promote only half the talent that is potentially available.
    I will ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Construction picks up on the discussions with the union, as well as those with the companies concerned. I remind my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is ensuring that, through the training and new deal programmes, we reach out to bring more women who are currently not in work into the very jobs to which he refers.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Given the importance of the role of women in industry, does the Minister realise that the number of women directors in the top 100 FTSE companies has fallen for the second year running? According to the Cranfield school of management, 64 per cent. of Britain's leading companies had women directors in 1979; that figure has fallen to 57 per cent. today. What do the Government propose to do to arrest that decline in the role of women in British business?
    Ms Hewitt: It is disappointing that at a time when more women are taking up senior positions in business and in government the number of women in the boardroom in so many leading companies has fallen. I recently asked Derek Higgs to undertake a review of the role of non-executive directors. He and I are most concerned about the failure of companies to appoint a wide range of people to the boardroom. Getting more women there is high on our agenda.

    Gender Pay Gap
    Hugh Bayley: What progress the Government have made in narrowing the pay gap between women and men. [58255]
    Mrs. Betty Williams: What initiatives she is promoting to reduce the gender pay gap. [58258]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): As I said earlier, we are taking steps to tackle the pay gap between men and women, which currently stands at 18 per cent.—slightly down from 20 per cent. in 1997. The national minimum wage has made a genuine difference to the pay of more than 1 million low-paid women. We are also strengthening the Equal Pay Act 1970 through the Employment Bill, working with the private sector to promote equal pay audits and ensuring that that happens throughout the public sector.
    Hugh Bayley: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the pay gap between men and women is even greater for older women? That is not simply because older women tend to have fewer qualifications than younger women; the pay gap between male and female graduates of a
    998
    similar age is even greater than that among non-graduates. What are the Government doing to investigate the reasons for the problem and to tackle it?
    Ms Hewitt: We have already published useful research on the underlying causes of the pay gap. My hon. Friend's point about the difference in the pay gap for younger and older women is correct. The gap between younger women and men is narrowing significantly. The big challenge is ensuring that as the younger generation of women start to have families the pay gap that has afflicted older generations does not reopen.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: If the Equality Opportunities Commission is combined with the Disability Rights Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality in a single body, can my right hon. Friend assure us that women's pay will not be sidelined?
    Ms Hewitt: I readily give my hon. Friend that assurance. As she would expect, my hon. Friend the Deputy Minister for Women and I will ensure that, as we consult on the proposal for a single equalities commission and if we subsequently decide to accept it, we have a structure that enables women's pay and the broader issues of work-family balance that lie behind it to remain high on the agenda.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: The Minister said that the pay gap had narrowed from 20 per cent. to 18 per cent. in the past few years. Instead of warm words, will she give us a target to reduce the gap even further in the next few years?
    Ms Hewitt: As I have said, we are continuing to act on the causes of the problem. As an employer, the Government ensure that every Department and public agency conduct a proper equal pay audit to tackle the pay gap in the public sector. We are also working with the private sector to ensure that it takes the same steps and, beyond that, to provide the child care provision in which the Conservative Government never invested, to ensure that women can make choices about balancing work and family.
    Sandra Gidley: The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) has already highlighted the problem of the graduate pay gap. Will the right hon. Lady ensure that our own House is in order? Figures that I have recently obtained show that 21 per cent. of senior officials in the House of Commons are female. That figure has remained static for the last four years. Will the Minister ensure that this is not, in effect, exacerbating the pay gap by stealth and that the House of Commons is an equal opportunities employer beyond reproach?
    Ms Hewitt: That is a very important point. It is a matter for the whole House, and one that I hope all parties will take seriously and take appropriate action on. I am glad to say that, in my own Department, the number of women in the senior civil service is increasing significantly. The arrangements for pay, recruitment and promotion within the House of Commons are, however, a matter for Parliament and not for the Government.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House to let us have the business for next week, please?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 JUNE—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Enterprise Bill.
TUESDAY 18 JUNE—There will be a debate on European Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 19 JUNE—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day-2nd Part]. Until 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the reduction of world poverty through trade, on an Opposition motion. Followed by a motion to concur with their Lordships on the establishment of a Joint Committee on the House of Lords.
THURSDAY 20 JUNE—There will be a debate on Energy: Towards 2050 on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 21 JUNE—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 24 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Export Control Bill.
TUESDAY 25 JUNE—Opposition Day [15th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 26 JUNE—Consideration Of Lords amendments that may be received to the Tax Credits Bill.
THURSDAY 27 JUNE—Estimates [3rd Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on public-private partnership for London underground followed by a debate on individual learning accounts.
At 7 o'clock the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates in accordance with Standing Order No. 54(5). The list of estimates to be agreed will be advised in due course.
FRIDAY 28 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that on Monday 17 June 2002, there will be a debate relating to reception of asylum applicants in European Standing Committee B.
On Tuesday 18 June, there will be a debate relating to broad economic policy guidelines in European Standing Committee B.
The House will wish to know that I hope to make an announcement regarding the summer recess dates next week.
[Monday 17 June 2002:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document: 8351/02; Reception of asylum applicants. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 152-xxxi (2000–01);
[Tuesday 18 June 2002:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union Documents: 8389/02; Broad Economic Policy Guidelines. Stability and Convergence Programmes: SN 1107/02; SN 1108/02; SN 1109/02; SN 1111/02;
1000
SN 1112/02; SN 1113/02; SN 1319/1/02 REV1; SN 1320/1/02 REV1; SN 1321/02; SN 1322/02; SN 1323/02; SN 1324/1/02 REV1; SN 1325/1/02 REV1; 2002/C 51/06; SN 1361/02; SN 1382/1/02 REV1; SN 1383/1/02 REV1. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-xxiii and HC 152-xxxi (2001–02)].
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for letting us have the business. May I ask him when the Government intend to bring forward proposals, or a resolution, to enable the Select Committee structure to reflect the recent changes in the structure of Government Departments? Given the right hon. Gentleman's respect for the Select Committee system and the known desire of the House to maintain and strengthen it, we are all keen that those proposals should be introduced as soon as possible.
Given the excellent ten-minute Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) yesterday, may I ask the Leader of the House when the Government intend to do something about the Data Protection Act 1998? My hon. Friend should be praised for bringing this matter to the attention of the House in such a positive way. I know that it is in the mind of the Leader of the House to do something about this, but a lot of time has now passed and hon. Members are getting anxious about it. We would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us when the Government are going to seize the issue and deal with it.
On the debate on energy next Thursday that the Leader of the House has just announced, does it not seem a little odd that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will be on a fact-finding visit to China next week? The oddity is that the Government should select next week to debate energy, because one of the documents relevant to that debate is the Trade and Industry Committee's report on energy. I would not dream of accusing the Government—or, indeed, the Leader of the House—of sinister motives or any sort of dodgy conduct in this regard, but, given that we now know that the Select Committee will be away, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again, even at this late stage, at the timing of that debate, to give the relevant Committee members an opportunity to participate in this long-awaited debate on a subject for which that Committee has responsibility. I hope that he will agree that that is not an unreasonable request.
On 20 October 1998—I refer to column 1071 of Hansard—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) asked the Deputy Prime Minister to confirm that, in June 1997, he had said:
"I will have failed if in five years time there are not…far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order but I urge you to hold me to it:"
In reply—this is set out in Hansard—the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"The hon. Gentleman quoted both the question and the answer and I agree to keep to that commitment: judge my performance in five years."—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1071.]
All that I ask the Leader of the House is this: when will he give the Deputy Prime Minister an opportunity to come to the House and be judged, as he invited us to do? That is a very straightforward question. It is straight out of Hansard—there can be no question about it.

1001
In that context, I am sure that the House will welcome the widely quoted words of the Leader of the House yesterday. Among many other excellent statements, he said:
"we have failed if we allow presentation to become more important than substance."
He went on to say that he was always a close admirer of John Smith, whose strength was
"the blunt honesty of his political style."
I am sure that everybody in the House will welcome the right hon. Gentleman's words and that he speaks for all of us in this respect. The trouble is that that seems slightly at odds with what seems to be going on even now inside the Government and in several Departments.
For example, following on from the comments that I have just quoted from the Deputy Prime Minister, why were many newspapers quoting Whitehall sources as having denied what he had said? How does blunt truth and honesty come into that? Or to take a different example, when will we get to the bottom of the case of Mr. Hood, that special adviser from the Ministry of Defence who now has a highly paid and cushy job on the back of having been a special adviser? Apparently, on Monday, the Cabinet Office was saying that it had not been part of the process and that there was no need for it to be so, but that is directly at odds with what the Prime Minister said yesterday in column 858 of Hansard. He said that the process of dealing with Mr. Hood
"was done in consultation with the Cabinet Office in the normal way."
Despite the words of the Leader of the House yesterday, we have examples of how a Department is saying one thing on the one hand, and the Prime Minister is saying something completely different on the other.
To give yet another example, what about the bizarre episode involving the Press Complaints Commission" Without going into the details—I am sure that the House would not want me to do so at this stage—all that I ask is this: who should we believe? Perhaps the Leader of the House can tell us. Should we believe No. 10 Downing street or Black Rod'? It is a pretty simple choice. I do not know which one the right hon. Gentleman believes; perhaps he will tell us. Perhaps we should have an opportunity to debate the matter in some detail, because it touches on some very important issues.
There was another bizarre episode just yesterday. In column 862 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
"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."
Almost immediately, in column 867—you will recall what was said, Mr. Speaker, as you were in the Chair—my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said:
"the correct figure is 244,000."—[Official Report, 12 June 2002; Vol. 386. c. 858, 862–867.1
Someone is wrong and someone is right, so all I ask is that the Leader of the House give the Prime Minister the chance to come to the House as a matter of urgency and tell us whether he was right in saying that the figure was 4,500 or whether my hon. Friend the Member for Havant was right in saying that it was 244,000. There is a discrepancy and I think that we are owed the truth.
1002
Leading directly from what the Leader of the House said yesterday—and we want to support him in what he said—all that we are asking is that he give his colleagues opportunities to come to the House to correct the record, tell the truth and put an end to all this spin and deception.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What a load of crap.
Mr. Cook: I am not quite sure how that will he reported in Hansard tomorrow. I was about to begin by welcoming the support of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for what I am trying to do.
Obviously the right hon. Gentleman has missed our weekly exchanges over the past two weeks, because he has given me a real multiple choice question this afternoon. I shall try to address all his points as briskly as I can.
On the changes to Select Committees, it is a cardinal principle of our departmental Select Committee system that the Select Committees should track the Whitehall Departments. It is therefore necessary that we should put the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee on the same footing as those Departments that now exist in Whitehall. I am keen to make sure that when we do, we do so in a way that ensures continuity of scrutiny of those Departments. For instance, the DTLR Select Committee has just commenced the study of the draft local government Bill that was published yesterday, and I would not want to see that work disrupted.
Before we rise for the summer, I intend to bring before the House a motion that will establish new Committees, but I will do so in way that ensures that there can be continuity of scrutiny and no break between one set of Committees ending and new Committees starting.
Mr. Forth: And the Chairmen?
Mr. Cook: It is not for me to decide on the Chairmen. I am very grateful to say that it is for the House to decide on the members of those Committees and for the Committees to decide on their Chairmen, thank heavens.
Moving swiftly on to safer territory, on data protection, I can say to the House that I anticipate that before the summer recess we will bring before the House a statutory instrument, and it would be my intention to address the two big problems affecting Members in their constituency work. The first is the rather bizarre argument that we should not be empowered to pass on to any third party what a constituent says to us in our surgeries. That seems topsy-turvy to me; constituents come to our surgeries in order that we then tell someone about their problem. Secondly, we want to remove from those to whom we write on behalf of the constituent any impediment to their replying frankly and openly about what they may know about that constituent's case. That would be of great assistance to Members on both sides of the House and I hope that we can take that step.
On the debate on energy, the right hon. Gentleman has been here as often as me when I have been lobbied from both sides of the House, but particularly from my right hon. and hon. Friends, on the importance of having such a debate. When I announced that debate three weeks ago,

1003
there was a broad welcome from Members in the Chamber that we were to have an opportunity to explore energy-related matters.
Mr. Forth: The Select Committee will he away.
Mr. Skinner: There's always somebody away on a junket.
Mr. Cook: I was going to express it with more dignity and respect for the Select Committee than my hon. Friend, but it is open to members of the Select Committee to be here for the debate rather than elsewhere if they choose to do so, and there will be plenty of Members who will wish to take part.
I looked at the possibility of delaying the debate but, as the House will see, the subsequent week is crowded. If I were to delay the debate, I would need to delay it for some time. That would not be welcomed by the majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends who want to proceed with this important debate.
On the question of the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the terms of the reshuffle and he will know that the Deputy Prime Minister has assumed a responsibility which will, I am sure, involve him in more exchanges in the House. If hon. Members wish to question him on any matter, they will have the opportunity to do so. However, I have to say that the key reason why we have seen increased mobility within Britain and the increase in the number of journeys is because of the remarkable success of the Government in running a sound economy with fast growth, for which we make no apology.
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's support for the speech that I made yesterday to the Press Gallery. I shall try to make sure that, on future occasions, he is in the audience in order that he may vocally support and applaud me in the course of what I say. I remind him that one of the passages that he might have found more difficult to applaud had he been there was that in which I expressed pride in the record of the Government, particularly in the way in which we have secured a sharp drop in poverty among children and, at the other end of the age spectrum, produced a sharp rise in the income of the poorest pensioners.
It is perfectly true that I offered the Press Gallery a deal, and the right hon. Gentleman accurately quoted part of it; it was that the Government should cut out the spin and cut down the packaging and that the media should concentrate more on reporting content and substance, rather than the Westminster village gossip. I very much hope that since the right hon. Gentleman is persuaded by one half of the deal, he might buy the package as a whole. Our people out there want to hear about how politics are affecting their lives, not about the lives of spin doctors and press officers.
On Andrew Hood, I should declare an interest—Andrew Hood worked for me for some eight years as a special adviser, in opposition and at the Foreign Office. I would not wish any Member to be mistaken about the interest that I have in his welfare, his future and the success of his career. The approval of his appointment to
1004
a private sector firm was indeed handled in the normal way. The Cabinet Office was consulted about the procedure—
Mr. Forth indicated dissent.
Mr. Cook: It was consulted. I am not saying that it approved the outcome, but it was consulted about, and approved, the procedure. The decision was taken not by Ministers but by officials, in full agreement with the permanent secretary. It should be stated that Mr. Hood had no dealings of a commercial character with commercial firms, and he was not closely involved with suppliers to the Ministry of Defence. Nor does his appointment at Brunswick involve his working with clients. Having said that, as somebody who wishes Mr. Hood well and who has a very high regard for him, I am not at all surprised at his securing a position of high status in the private sector. However, I am always mildly ambivalent about seeing a good man go into public relations. [Laughter.]
On the numbers involved in the new deal, what the Prime Minister said yesterday reflects entirely accurately the number of long-term young unemployed who have been unemployed for more than 12 months. Whatever definition the right hon. Gentleman chooses to apply—6 months or 12 months, new deal or otherwise—any figures that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister produces for long-term young unemployed people will be lower than those recorded when the right hon. Gentleman's party were in office. That improvement is another thing of which I am proud.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I suggest to the Leader of the House that we could all have been in his audience if the speech that he made to the Press Gallery had been made in the House? Why did he choose to talk to the media about their role in sleaze, spin and funding of democracy? Surely such a speech should be made only here. Why has he denied on several occasions on Thursday afternoons that the Government have any new proposals on the state funding of democracy? As recently as 23 May, he told me at business questions that there was no such proposal, but he seems now to be saying that there is a new proposal. Can we have an urgent statement and a debate in the House on the funding of democracy?
I also remind the Leader of the House that, on 23 May, he promised me that he would examine the outcome of the war pensions appeal tribunal's decision in the case of Shaun Rusling. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, according to a tribunal report, the Ministry of Defence changed the terms of the submission to avoid any responsibility for Gulf war syndrome. May I ask him to expedite a statement from the Secretary of State?
The Leader of the House will be aware that, next Tuesday and Wednesday, the US congressional sub-committee on national security, veteran affairs and international relations will hold unprecedented hearings in Parliament—in Portcullis House—on Gulf war veterans and Gulf war syndrome. I ask that we have the Secretary of State's statement on the Rusling case before those hearings take place, given that they are material to it.
In view of the squalid little conspiracy between Conservative and Labour Whips on 16 May, which defeated the right hon. Gentleman's own proposals for

1005
more transparent and open appointments to Select Committees, has he received appropriate assurances that appointments to the new Transport Select Committee will not be interfered with in that way, and that the appointment of the Chairman will not be subject to such interference?
Mr. Cook: The simple and straightforward answer to the question of why I spoke to members of the Press Gallery is that they invited me to do so. Indeed, I should tell the House that there may well be future occasions when I accept invitations to speak outside this House. I stand entirely by what I said to the hon. Gentleman in our previous exchanges: there are no Government proposals for state funding of political parties, nor did I pretend yesterday that there were. However, as I have said, there is a debate as to whether there should be such funding.
As I observed to the Press Gallery yesterday, its members have put beyond all doubt the fact that business donations are open to innocent misconstruction, and that has certainly been the role of the press in this matter in the past six months. Donations by, and funding from, the electorate as a whole are not open to such misconstruction. It is my personal view—I do not claim to speak for the Government collectively—that the credibility of Parliament is being undermined by the current argument over funding of political parties. We cannot have parliamentary democracy without political parties, and we cannot have political parties unless they are funded. I believe that the best, most secure and most transparent way to fund political parties that is least open to misconstruction is from the public purse. I have no doubt that, in future, we will return to the issue on several occasions in the Chamber.
As I recall, when the hon. Gentleman asked me about the tribunal ruling and Gulf war syndrome before the recess, I said that the Ministry of Defence will want to consider carefully the judgment and respond in due course. I shall certainly draw Ministers' attention to the hon. Gentleman's view that due course has now arrived and that it is time that the MOD expressed its view on the tribunal ruling and gave its response.
Little new can be said about the vote in May. I am pleased that a majority of Labour MPs voted for reform, and I regret that I did not have a majority of the Labour Whips voting with me for reform. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip was a paragon of virtue on that occasion. As for any future appointment to a Select Committee that will arise from the orders that I shall put before the House, I remind the House that the Labour party has already changed its procedures and the decisions will be made by the party, not by just the Whips.
Mr. Derek Foster: Within the context of five years of outstanding management of the economy, when will the Government tackle the problem of the two-speed economy, which discriminates against areas such as the north-east that are strong in manufacturing, to the extent that despite continuous growth we have fallen further behind the nation as a whole? May we have a debate on that issue?
Mr. Cook: I would stress to my right hon. Friend that the Government have placed strong emphasis on regional policy. That is why we have introduced the regional
1006
development agencies and recently published a White Paper on the potential for regional government for those regions that wish it. On economic policy, it is a remarkable and substantial achievement of this Government that unemployment in every region of the UK is now lower than the EU average. I share my right hon. Friend's concern about manufacturing and he will be aware that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made a specific statement on her strategy for manufacturing. The issue is at the front of her concerns and we will continue to do all that we can to ensure that manufacturing shares in the remarkable growth and success of the British economy.
Sir George Young: Can the Leader of the House tell us how the Chancellor is getting on with his comprehensive spending review? Can he give a date when the Chancellor will make a statement to the House? Against the background of what the Leader of the House has just said, can he assure us, first, that the outcome of the CSR will not be trailed, leaked or spun to the press and that the House will hear it first and, secondly, that we will have an adequate opportunity to debate it?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the spending review will be of great importance to Government, Parliament and the nation and, therefore, must be adequately considered in the House. I have no doubt that that will take place. However, I would be in grave difficulty with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and many other members of the Cabinet if I were to reveal now what will happen in the spending review. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his invitation, but I will resist temptation. As for the date, I anticipate that it will be before we rise for the summer recess, but I cannot go further than that now.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: On Wednesday night, we will be presented with a list of names for the new Joint Committee that will consider the reform of the House of Lords, but no one has asked me if I want to join the Committee. I feel that I have something to contribute, and I think that my hon. Friends would agree with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I would like this to be taken as a formal application to join the Committee and I look forward to hearing the response from the Leader of the House.
Mr. Cook: I am delighted to respond by saying that I take note of my hon. Friend's application, although I hope that it will not be a precedent for the remainder of the business statement to be turned into applications for membership of the Joint Committee. I anticipate that the names will be tabled on Monday night and will appear on the Order Paper on Tuesday, so that we may have a full debate on Wednesday.
Mr. Forth: It has all been decided. It is long done.
Mr. Cook: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing has been decided and will not be decided until Monday when we table the motion. However, I draw the House's attention to the fact that we have provided—by agreement with the Opposition, for which I am grateful—for a three-hour debate on the motion on Wednesday.

1007
That is right, given the importance of that Committee and the Government's innovation in proposing a Joint Committee and asking Parliament to decide that important policy question. The House should welcome the opportunity to express a view.
Mr. Mark Francois: I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his kind remarks and I welcome the announcement by the Leader of the House that he will introduce a statutory instrument to solve some of the problems with data protection by the summer recess. As the Member who moved a ten-minute Bill on the subject yesterday, I am grateful to hear that. In the right hon. Gentleman's negotiations—presumably with the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Information Commissioner—will he concentrate on the question of so-called sensitive personal data, as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998, as that appears to be the principal sticking point, in particular in correspondence with social services departments and national health service trusts?
Mr. Cook: I am well aware of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I thank him for having ventilated it in the Chamber in a way that received support from both sides. The sensitive information is the nub of the problem. In truth, we cannot serve our constituents when they come to see us about matters to do with the health service, for example, if we cannot have a free and frank exchange with the relevant authorities about such sensitive data. That is why we will be introducing a statutory instrument that will enable us to carry out a representational function that none of us thought would be impeded when we passed the 1998 Act.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Following last Monday's welcome statement, may we have further opportunities to consider India and Pakistan? May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 633?
[That this House urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to seek to resolve their differences peacefully and to reduce the risks of nuclear conflict.]
That motion has already attracted the support of 417 Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum, including prominent supporters of each of those countries. It reflects the extent to which Parliament shares the Government's grave concern that, notwithstanding recent progress, there remains a high risk that confrontation could turn into war, which could go nuclear, bringing terrible suffering and death to many millions of people in southern and even central Asia.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that that remains a matter of concern and that too much tension remains within the subcontinent. I very much welcome the steps that have been taken recently on both sides to reduce that tension. I hope that we can accelerate those steps so that it is clear that both sides have backed away from any attempt at a military solution to a problem that can be resolved only through diplomatic progress and a greater rapprochement between the two countries, both of which we regard as our friends. Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary
1008
will be considering developments carefully. Should there he a requirement for a further statement, I am sure that he will wish to make one to the House.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Leader of the House will be aware that on Tuesday, Mr. Speaker kindly allowed me to raise, under Standing Order No. 24, the redundancies at Fisher Foods, where 400 people have already been made redundant and there may be another 1,000 job losses in the community. He has also kindly allowed me an Adjournment debate on the subject next Thursday. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Government Departments are involved, namely, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? What mechanism exists to try to co-ordinate the approach of those Departments and what advice would the right hon. Gentleman give me?
Mr. Cook: If I remember correctly, the company to which the hon. Gentleman refers is the same company that was involved in the closures at Peterhead, with which we dealt in a business statement just before the recess. As I said then, Government Departments are very willing to assist in any way that is valuable or relevant to find alternative buyers and an alternative future for the employees. I fully understand his concern and that of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that the plants that are at risk—and the work force who face redundancy—are highly profitable, successful and have made a large amount of investment. It is important that we do all that we can to ensure that they can continue in production if at all possible. In the first instance, that is a matter for the private sector, but we stand ready to help in any way we can to find alternative management so that production can continue and to assist the work force should they face redundancy and loss of employment. There is a well worn and well trod path of co-operation through which those Departments will put in a joint task force to assist the work force and the local economy. Since the hon. Gentleman invited my advice, I suggest that he discusses that with the DTI and the DWP.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that today the United States formally withdraws from the anti-ballistic missile treaty so that it can develop its national missile defence system. I draw his attention to early-day motion 1279, in which hon. Members express their concern about the matter.
[That this House notes the death of the ABM treaty in mid-June owing to USA withdrawal and recognises that the United States Government is now free to request use of Menwith Hill and Fylingdales as part of its proposed missile defence system; further notes that any use of these bases for a missile defence system will directly affect the people of the United Kingdom and that as yet their representatives have had no chance to express their views on the proposals in parliament; and urges the United Kingdom Government to call an urgent debate in the House before any such system is considered.]
Given the awful effects that the development of that system could have on world peace and the threat to this country in particular if the facilities at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill are used, will he assure the House that those

1009
facilities will not be made available and that time is allowed for an urgent debate on the matter, which surely affects all of us?
Mr. Cook: We have had no request for the use of those facilities for any such new purpose. Should such a request be made and should the Government reach a view on it, I am sure that the matter will be debated and explored in the House. In the meantime, surely we must all welcome the recent historic agreement between the United States and Russia to achieve historic cuts in their nuclear arsenals, taking us to levels that we had never hoped to secure. I very much welcome the agreement that has been reached between those two countries, which are of course the only signatories to the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
Mr. Roy Beggs: As we Ulster Scots would say, "There's mair than yin moose loose aboot this Hoose". I have seen a mouse in the Terrace cafeteria, in the Members' Tea Room and, indeed, in the House of Lords. Is the Leader of the House taking seriously early-day motion 1393?
[That this House is concerned at the large number of mice which currently reside in the Palace of Westminster including the dining rooms; believes that it would be fiscally prudent for the Sergeant at Arm's Department to invest in a House of Commons cat to try to tackle this problem; and calls upon the House of Commons Administration Committee to investigate this matter.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman address the problem? As a cat lover and with some experience, I know that, as the mice do not discriminate between the Lords and the Commons, the problem will have to be addressed in similar ways. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my advice that the females of the species are much better hunters than tom cats?
Mr. Cook: I understand the concern that prompts the hon. Gentleman's question. The Chairman of the Catering Committee, with his characteristic vision and foresight, suggested some years ago that we might employ a cat in the House. I have some sympathy with the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that if there was a House of Commons cat it would rapidly become spoilt and overfed and would compete with us for the use of the sofas in the Library. As the proud owner of two Scottish terriers, I might move the modest amendment that we should try a Scottish terrier.
Llew Smith: The Leader of the House will be aware of concerns that terrorist groups can obtain materials to produce nuclear weapons. He will also be aware that Governments of different political philosophies already have such weapons and that if they are used they would be just as catastrophic as if they had been deployed by terrorist groups. Because of the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons, can time be set aside for a debate on weapons of mass destruction?
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that I can promise the House the opportunity for a specific debate on weapons of mass destruction, although the issue frequently arises when we debate other matters—notably, for instance, in relation to our anxiety to ensure that Saddam Hussein does not
1010
succeed in his ambition to acquire such weapons. I am sure that my hon. Friend would back the Government fully in our efforts to ensure that that does not happen.
I wholly share my hon. Friend's view as to the importance of ensuring that we guarantee that the non-proliferation regimes are as healthy and strong as possible. I also share the view that, as we have managed to secure an end to the cold war and a reduction of tension in the northern hemisphere, we may be becoming complacent about the degree of risk from nuclear weapons elsewhere. It is in the interest of us all to ensure that nuclear weapons are not used in any circumstances, whether by Governments or non-governmental bodies.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Prime Minister or, even better, a debate on early-day motion 1412?
[That this House is concerned to see the name of the honourable Member for Swindon North still listed on the official 10 Downing Street website as one of eight former Government ministers who had resigned; notes that the honourable Member was reported by the media as long ago as 2nd June to have been appointed Minister for Information Technology and Criminal Justice at the Home Office, but that this appointment had still not been listed on the Home Office Ministerial Team page of the official Home Office website by 10th June; and calls upon the Prime Minister to consult with other relevant Cabinet ministers to clarify the position.]
The early-day motion concerns the status of the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills). The Leader of the House may be aware that on 29 May the Government reshuffle announced that the Queen had accepted the resignations of eight Ministers, including the hon. Gentleman. On 2 June, however, the press reported that the hon. Gentleman had been appointed a junior Home Office Minister, yet for a full fortnight after the first announcement the official No. 10 website recorded that the hon. Gentleman had indeed resigned and that the Queen had accepted that resignation. Only yesterday, after the tabling of the early-day motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), was the official website altered. It now states that the hon. Member for North Swindon has indeed been appointed an Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and that he is
"driving forward the reform to business processes and working practices … to deliver a modern and joined up Criminal Justice System".
It does not sound very joined up to me. Even today, when one enters the words "Michael" and "Wills" on the search engine of the Home Office website, why can one find no trace of him?
Mr. Cook: I have to confess to the hon. Gentleman that I have not had the leisure to peruse the websites as frequently and with such diligence as he has, and I am sure that the House is grateful to him for his explanation of his experience of surfing the Home Office website. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) is indeed now at the Home Office, and I understand that he will be in action next week when he presents a Home Office statutory instrument.
If I may allude to an earlier exchange in the House, I have found my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon extremely helpful in the matter of data

1011
protection. If we are successful in carrying that statutory instrument, I would want my hon. Friend's role to be properly recognised.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Greenpeace has responded to the Prime Minister's speech on science by suggesting that the application of science in the future should become some sort of popularity contest, ignoring completely the fact that, unless scientists are allowed to get on with their research, we will not have any technology to apply in the first place. When will we debate science? When will we debate the Prime Minister's speech? When will we get an opportunity also to put ideas such as creationism firmly in the file marked "crackpot"?
Mr. Cook: I am very firmly of the view that those who teach science in our schools should stick very closely to established and agreed scientific fact and that we should not confuse that process by offering our school children an alternative perspective that has no sound scientific basis. I am not sure that one can readily argue that it is good teaching if children are offered as equally valid a scientific and a non-scientific explanation, and my hon. Friends at the Department for Education and Skills have to reflect on that matter with great care.
On the central point that my hon. Friend makes, I totally agree with him on the importance of our pursuing and providing every opportunity for scientific research. None of us, sometimes including those who are involved in the research, knows what may come of it at the end of the day, and we should not prejudge it before we start.
I entirely share my hon. Friend's wish for science to be debated properly. I particularly welcome the bid for the House to debate the Prime Minister's speech; I am always happy to consider such bids favourably. Given the crowded schedule of legislation that we have to clear before the summer recess, I cannot promise that that will be possible on that timetable, but we shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's wish, which the Prime Minister will share, to consider carefully his very good speech on science policy and its importance to our nation.
Angus Robertson: I am not certain whether the Leader of the House has been able to read the excellent report, published this week by the European Scrutiny Committee, entitled "European Scrutiny in the Commons", among the conclusions of which was the concern of members of that Committee, including myself, that
"not all information about EU discussions relevant to the devolved administrations and legislatures has been forwarded to them by UK Departments."
The Committee has received some documentation from various Departments in which they confirmed that they had not been forwarding key documents about Council of Ministers' meetings. That contradicts parliamentary answers, stating that information is shared, to written questions that I have tabled, as well as assurances by the United Kingdom Government and Ministries that agendas would be distributed, and it breaches the spirit of the concordats signed with the devolved Administrations.
Since the publication of that report, the European Scrutiny Committee has received information from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
1012
about who will receive the agendas for this week's Council of Ministers' meeting on fisheries, but it does not mention the Scottish Executive, nor the Administrations of Wales or Northern Ireland. That is of great concern to members of the European Scrutiny Committee and hon. Members from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Will the Leader of the House find the time for us to debate that matter?
Mr. Cook: I have read the Committee's recommendations. I regret to say that I have not yet had time this week to read the full argument leading up to those recommendations, but I thought that that would be a satisfying way in which to pass part of this weekend.
On the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raises, as Foreign Secretary I oversaw the agreement of the concordats between ourselves and the devolved bodies. I am very keen that we ensure that we honour not only the letter but the spirit of those agreements. By and large, relations between central Government and the devolved bodies over presentation in Brussels have worked well, and it has been a good partnership, but we shall certainly look carefully at whether there is any way of improving the distribution of documents as part of that process.
Mark Tami: Will my right hon. Friend allocate time for an early debate on the actions of e-SURE, the internet insurer, which has announced that it will be considering withdrawing the option of cover for up to 10 per cent. of its customers because of where they live? Does he agree that that breaks the moratorium that has been agreed with the rest of the industry? Will he consider how the industry designates a flood area? Sealand in my constituency has not flooded to any serious extent for more than 200 years, yet it is considered at high risk.
Mr. Cook: I am not an expert on the areas to which my hon. Friend refers, but 200 years seems to be a fairly solid basis on which to make an insurance judgment for the future.
The matter came up yesterday during Prime Minister's questions, and I remind the House that the Government are investing several hundred million pounds in trying to ensure that we improve flood defences in order that no substantive population should have to experience the difficulty to which my hon. Friend refers.
As we work hard to try to ensure that we secure the future of properties and communities, and that no household is disadvantaged by its location and the flooding that we have come to expect over recent years, I hope that the private sector will consider how it can assist, and that the insurance industry in particular will reflect on whether it is wise to act at the very time that we are trying to ensure less flooding rather than more.
Mr. Mark Simmonds: Will the Leader of the House please find time for a full and urgent debate on the crisis in national health service dentistry? In my constituency, particularly in Boston, 2,000 people have recently been deregistered from an NHS dental practice, others are having to wait more than three years to be allocated an NHS dentist, and both adults and

1013
children are not able to access dental care—either routine or urgent. In a low-wage area such as my constituency, the crisis is causing great hurt to those who are hardest hit.
Mr. Cook: We are seeking to put more money into NHS dentistry, as we are into all parts of the NHS, and we are trying to ensure that members of the public have access to NHS services. The hon. Gentleman is sadly mistaken if he imagines that the problem has arisen only recently. I do not know what he was saying to his own Government when they were in power for 18 years, but during that period, particularly latterly, they dramatically increased charges for NHS dentistry. It was perfectly clear to those of us in opposition at the time that there was a clear strategy to make NHS dentistry so expensive that more and more dentists and patients would be driven into the private sector. We saw the problem coming for the public; it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge it until it was happening.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Could time be found for a debate on the appalling behaviour of some loan sharks—in fact, all loan sharks? I refer to that because one has had a particularly terrible impact on one of my constituents, Doris Armstrong, who has successfully seen him off through the courts. He was an appalling example of the sleazy end of the financial services industry. If it were not for the courage of Doris in taking him through the courts, she would now be homeless due to a loan for £2,000 that she took out 10 years ago and has repaid—I think—three times over.
Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituent on her courage and determination and her success in the courts. At the bottom end of the financial services market, unscrupulous people are charging wholly intolerable interest rates that would never be contemplated by those who had sufficient income to pick and choose from whom they were taking money and the borrowing undertaken. It is right that those unscrupulous people should be exposed, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on having raised a very important issue in the Chamber.
We have just reorganised financial services regulation and I hope that will result in proper and proportionate attention being paid to those at the bottom of the market who exploit the poverty of the most desperate.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Will the Leader the House find time soon for a discussion on the availability of advanced drugs in the national health service? To give two examples, visudyne can prevent blindness in cases of macular degeneration and glivec halts the progress of myeloid leukaemia in seven out of 10 cases. Both drugs are readily available in most European countries but are not readily available in the United Kingdom. That must be wrong. As one consultant has said:
"When we have one of the hest drugs that was ever invented nobody will let us use it. It is bonkers. This policy is costing lives "
Could be therefore have a debate on the terms of reference of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence?
Mr. Cook: It was a decision of the Government that we should make sure that decisions as to whether drugs can be prescribed on the NHS should be taken not by politicians, but by medical and scientific experts. That is why we set up NICE. Not all NICE's recommendations
1014
have met with universal political and public approval and some have resulted in controversy. However, I still believe that the principle is sound and right. As a member of the Cabinet, I have not the least scientific qualification by which I can judge a prescription or a drug. It is right that we should have an independent body to advise us, and we should be very careful before we depart from the advice that it offers us after careful consideration.
Alan Simpson: May I repeat the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for a debate on the implications for the United Kingdom of today's American withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile treaty? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House legitimately says that we have currently received no requests from the American Administration for the use of Menwith Hill or Fylingdales for their national missile defence programme. However, when asked the same question, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence points out that, although there are existing budget lines in the American budget for upgrading work at both establishments for the new star wars programme, the Ministry of Defence says that it is a matter for the United States Administration and not for the United Kingdom. Surely, it is important that the House debates the wisdom or folly of any UK involvement in the nuclearisation of space and the consequences—catastrophic as they may be—for our involvement in that process.
Mr. Cook: I do not deny the importance of us having a debate on an important issue for our country that has wider repercussions for the state of arms control on the globe. However, when we have that debate, it must be founded not on something that may be proposed by the United States in its budget but on a request that it makes to the Government. When we receive a request, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will respond and I am sure that any response will be a matter for debate and exchanges in the House.
Dr. Evan Harris: I should like to ask the Leader of the House a question about the use of the Parliament Act, a tool that is used to ensure that the will of the elected House is not in the end blocked by the House of Lords. Is it his and the Government's view that the procedure should be used to ensure that votes on large majorities in this House can find their way into legislation even when they are delivered in a free vote? Or is the tool to be used only to defend Government-backed policy and Government Bills? In other words, can the Government be trusted to use the Parliament Act to defend the will of the House as expressed in a free vote or is it used to defend just Government Bills and Government policy?
Mr. Cook: I will need to do some research in my weekend reading. However, as I recall it, the Parliament Act does not make any distinction between a vote in the House on a party basis and a free vote. It would therefore apply equally to both.
The hon. Gentleman's question is slightly elliptic, but the Government are seeking a consensus on a way forward on—if I can use a word he avoided—hunting.

1015
Whether we shall be able to secure that consensus remains to be seen, but we have promised a free vote in the House. Thereafter, the legislation will take its course.
Dr. Brian Iddon: May I also welcome the Prime Minister's speech to the Royal Society on 23 May in support of science and the remarks by the Chancellor echoing that speech at the Amicus conference in Blackpool? However, not everything is rosy in the arena of science. The Roberts report brought some of the problems to the notice of the House. There are also problems with science teaching in schools, and science departments in universities continue to close. Salford university had the largest chemistry department, in which I used to work, in Britain in the 1970s. Last week, it announced its closure with a terrible loss of resources, including staff and library facilities. May I underline the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) that we have a debate on science? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will allow that to happen as soon as possible in the autumn.
Mr. Cook: I shall certainly put down the interest in a debate on science as something for us to consider when the opportunity arises. I welcome what my hon. Friend says in praise of the speeches by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I always welcome the opportunity to support and agree with as many speeches as possible by my Cabinet colleagues.
As my hon. Friend underlines, there is a commitment to science at a high level in the Government. We certainly want to ensure that we maintain the strong, excellent and necessary infrastructure that we have in science teaching and research in this country.

Consignia
1.21 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I should like to draw the attention of the House to my declaration of interests contained in the register.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement to the House on postal services in Britain. This morning, Allan Leighton, the chairman of Consignia, announced the second phase of the company's restructuring plans. He announced that the Royal Mail would save £350 million a year by moving to a single delivery at a consistent time, six days a week, and that those plans would result in a further 17,000 redundancies over the next three years. He said:
"The underlying loss from operations … graphically shows why we need to restructure the company and embark on a three-year renewal programme to restore profitability".
Thousands of postmen and women now face an anxious and difficult time. These are very painful decisions for the work force, who have shown their commitment to serving the public and who have often been frustrated and angered by poor management and failure to invest in better ways of working. Allan Leighton has made it clear that the company aims to achieve the reduction in jobs on the basis of voluntary redundancy and by offering alternative jobs within the company. Early indications from the Parcelforce restructuring, which I reported to the House on 25 March, suggest that that can be achieved. We will, of course, do everything that we can through Jobcentre Plus and other agencies to help people who leave the Royal Mail to get new jobs as quickly as possible.
The need for radical action is underlined by the company's financial results for the last financial year, published today, in which it announces a £1.1 billion pre-tax loss. Much of that loss comprises exceptional costs from restructuring, but the company made an underlying loss of £318 million on its day-to-day operations.
Central to the programme to restore the Royal Mail's business to profit, and to improve customer service and efficiency, is the reorganisation of mail deliveries that Allan Leighton announced today. The Communication Workers Union has said that it, too, supports the ending of the second delivery.
Twenty years ago, 15 per cent. of all mail arrived by the second delivery; today it is just 4 per cent. But that 4 per cent. of mail accounts for 20 per cent. of delivery costs and 30 per cent. of delivery time. Most other European countries, with far higher postal prices, make only a single delivery each day and none of them has a target of delivering before 9.30 am.
In future, customers who regularly receive 20 or more items of mail a day will get their delivery between 7 am and 9 am. That will include people working from home as well as businesses. All other customers will receive their mail by lunchtime. These changes will mean that 1 million more first-class letters every week should arrive on time. The changes will also mean that within a six-day delivery system, postmen and women will be able to work a five-day, instead of a six-day, week.

1017
Let me put Consignia's announcement into context. This morning, Allan Leighton said:
"These losses did not happen overnight. Unresolved issues and problems stretching back for up to a decade are reflected in these results".
When this Government came to office in 1997, we immediately took steps to fulfil our manifesto commitment to give the Post Office what management and unions had long been arguing for—greater commercial freedom. The Postal Services Act 2000 completed that process, creating a public limited company and giving it the freedom to borrow for growth investment. We cut the dividend to normal commercial levels and announced the appointment of a new finance director in October 2000.
In April 2001, Lord Sawyer was appointed to look at deep-rooted industrial relations problems in Royal Mail. This year, we strengthened management further by appointing a new chairman, Allan Leighton, and securing a new chief executive for the Post Office network.
Greater commercial freedom is the right policy, but in exercising those new freedoms, decisions were made that, with the benefit of hindsight, we can now see were wrong. In his announcement, Allan Leighton said:
"management mistakes have been made over a number of years".
The company decided, for example, to expand internationally, a strategy that was supported by many distinguished observers, including the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. But other European postal operators were already ahead of the game, and in the meantime, disastrously, Consignia lost control of its costs at home. Costs went on rising at a time when revenue growth was slowing. In 2001, the growth of mail volume, at 3 per cent., was half that of 1999.
The financial results published today show that, over the past year, overall turnover grew by 3.6 per cent., but that was outstripped by a 4.8 per cent. rise in costs. The result is that the company is now running at an underlying loss of £1.2 million a day. Those losses cannot continue, and over the next three years, under the renewal plan, the losses will be eliminated and the company returned to profit.
I can also inform the House that the company announced this morning that the group chief executive, John Roberts, will retire later this year once his successor has been appointed. The search for his successor will begin immediately.
Let me stress that today's announcement, like the Parcelforce restructuring, is not the result of any decision by the regulator. Both announcements are about stemming the losses and creating an efficient company. Today's announcement would have been made whatever the decision by Postcomm. However, I would like to put on record the fact that I welcome the announcement by Postcomm a few weeks ago about the adjustments to the timing of its proposals for market opening, the change in the definition of bulk mail and the decision to monitor the market closely to ensure that the universal service, its first statutory objective, is not put at risk. In reaching its decision, it is clear that Postcomm has listened to the many representations made by hon. Members as well as by other stakeholders, including the CWU. The challenge now for Consignia is to improve the quality and reliability of its services, so that it can keep its customers rather than losing market share.
1018
Let me deal next with the financial issues associated with today's announcement. I have agreed a package of measures to put the company on the right financial footing to enable it to deliver this renewal programme.
Consignia plc has reserves on its balance sheet of £1.8 billion, which represents accumulated past dividends and cash generated by the business. These are more commonly referred to as the gilts. We now propose that the £1.8 billion of gilts will be held by the group holding company as reserves while the business is being turned around. Those reserves will be available to back the investment required in the mails business to implement the renewal programme and to support the nationwide network of post offices, subject, where necessary, to the relevant state aid clearances.
As I explained to the House on 25 March, the Government have agreed to forgo the projected dividend for 2001–02, releasing an additional £64 million for the company. I told the House then:
"A decision on dividends for other years … will be taken in the context of the strategic plan."—[Official Report, 25 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 571.]
I can tell the House today that the company will be allowed to retain the notional dividends for the previous year, as part of the overall £1.8 billion of reserves.
In addition, in case there is any doubt, I can confirm that the Government do not expect to take cash out of the business by way of future dividends during the three years of the renewal plan.
As part of the decision on the gilts, we have agreed to fund the Post Office network's historic losses. David Mills, the new chief executive of the Post Office, is working up a strategic plan for the network that will look at new ways of increasing revenues from commercial activities. As we informed the House on 26 April, we have also committed up to £210 million for compensation for sub-postmasters in the urban networks who are planning to leave the business, and for investment to improve urban post offices. The House will have a further opportunity to debate this when state aid clearance is granted.
I welcome today's announcement by the company that it intends to change its corporate name to Royal Mail Group by the end of this year. I can inform the House that Her Majesty the Queen has agreed in principle to this name change. I do not think that any of us will mourn the disappearance of the name Consignia.
Allan Leighton and his colleagues have shown that they are willing to make the very tough decisions that are needed to turn the company round. But the company is now set on a course for renewal and recovery. It will not be easy, as today's announcement shows, but it is essential if we are to have a Royal Mail that the work force can be proud of and that delivers the service that customers deserve.
Mr. John Whittingdale: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me good notice of the statement that she has just delivered. However, does she agree that the figures that have been announced by the Post Office today are truly shocking?
Three years ago, the Post Office was making annual profits of about £500 million. The then Secretary of State was boasting that it had a golden future in the public

1019
sector and that it was set to become a major global player. Instead, its performance has steadily deteriorated, morale and industrial relations have plummeted and it is now losing, by its own admission, £1.2 million every trading day. Yet this disastrous collapse has occurred during a period when the Post Office still has a monopoly in its core business, and when the volume of mail has gone on rising every year. It is an extraordinary achievement to have turned a highly successful business into a financial disaster, when turnover has gone on rising and it is protected from any competition.
As the right hon. Lady says, part of the blame lies with weak management. It lies also with militant trade unions. Ultimately, however, responsibility must rest with the Government, who remain the sole shareholder in the Post Office and who have been interfering in its management on a daily basis. Yet in her statement there was no acceptance of any blame on the part of the Government. Instead, as usual, she tried to suggest that somehow the fault all lay with the last Conservative Government. Will she at least accept that her Government must take some responsibility for this disaster and express some regret?
The measures that have been announced by the Post Office today are undoubtedly necessary. They will not have come as a surprise to the work force, who learned before Christmas that up to 30,000 redundancies were in prospect. At the time, we were told that that was speculative arithmetic. We now know that that forecast was entirely accurate, although we welcome the fact that it has been stated that it is intended to achieve the redundancies by voluntary means.
The Secretary of State said that the cost is to be met by utilising the money invested in gilts by the Post Office over many years. However, until now, that money was regarded as a payment to the Treasury under the requirements of the negative external finance limit. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that in essence the Government are giving the money back to the Post Office? Will she confirm also that that will require clearance by the European Commission under the provision for state aid?
I turn to the other elements of the restructuring proposals. The Secretary of State did not even mention that the Post Office has applied for a price increase in the cost of first and second-class mail. Will she give an indication of the Government's attitude towards that application? Is she satisfied that the Post Office will not simply try to increase its prices in the area in which it still has a monopoly to subsidise its heavily loss-making operations in areas where it is subject to competition?
The Secretary of State said that the changes would mean that in future up to 1 million more first-class letters should now arrive on time. I have to say that that is not much of an accomplishment if the target time for delivery is to be moved from 9 am to lunchtime.
The Post Office has sought to justify its decision to drop the second delivery on the ground that it accounts for just 4 per cent. of the mail, but 20 per cent. of its costs. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the fears of some small firms, many of which operate from home, that rely on the post for their cash flow and orders and are worried that the decision may lead to a significant drop in the standard of service that they receive and add
1020
a significant extra cost? Will she ensure that people who are concerned that they may not qualify for the protection and additional priority given to those who receive 20 items of mail a day have some capacity to apply to the Post Office for priority treatment?
The Secretary of State made brief reference to the regulator's proposals to open the postal market to competition, which is clearly a crucial factor in the Post Office's long-term prospects. I welcome the fact that the Government have resisted pressure from Labour Back Benchers to abandon the commitment to introduce competition and that the revised timetable issued by Postcomm involves only a slightly longer delay before full liberalisation takes place.
Does the Secretary of State agree that liberalisation offers considerable additional opportunities to the Post Office, including new sources of revenue, by allowing other operators access to its delivery network? However, if that is to be achieved, it is vital that sensible network access charges are agreed, so does she share my regret that the Post Office has so far been unwilling to negotiate realistically with those who wish to set up competing services? Does she agree that if there is to be true competition, it should be on an equal basis, which requires the issue of VAT to be addressed? Does she accept that, under the present arrangement, the Post Office has a 17.5 per cent. cost advantage over its competitors for about half its business, which acts as a barrier to the development of fair competition?
What are the Government's long-term intentions for the Post Office? When the Postal Services Act 2000 was passed, we were assured that it would remain a fully state-owned corporation, yet we now know that just a short time afterwards, negotiations were opened to sell it to the Dutch post office, TPG, and that that would have happened had negotiations not broken down. Are any negotiations currently under way and are the Government still willing for the Post Office to be sold to a foreign operator such as Deutsche Post? What do the Government intend to do to maintain and sustain the post office network, particularly in rural areas? The Secretary of State barely mentioned that in her statement, yet it is now just nine months until payment of benefits across post office counters ceases, which will deprive sub-post offices of up to 40 per cent. of their revenue. Even now, the Department for Work and Pensions is preparing letters to benefit recipients informing them that in future they should get their benefits via bank accounts.
The recommendations of the performance and innovation unit report have not been implemented. The "Your Guide" project was successfully trialled in Leicestershire, but has now disappeared completely. The Postcomm report on supporting the rural network has been sitting on Ministers' desks since December, yet nothing has been done. The Government must make clear what they intend to do to maintain the rural network and prevent the closure of thousands of sub-post offices that are under threat.
Finally, I welcome the one piece of good news that has been announced today—the decision to drop the name Consignia and revert to Royal Mail. Will the Secretary of State admit that the decision to drop a name trusted and respected across the country and replace it with an utterly meaningless name that has become the object of mockery and derision was one of crass stupidity? Is it not typical of the Government that, rather than tackle the underlying

1021
problems, they preferred to waste money on a re-branding that has cost millions and persuaded no one? Is it not the case that when the history of the Government is written, the name Consignia will always be remembered, along with the Jo Moore e-mail, Tony's cronies and the millennium dome, as a symbol of all that is rotten about them?
Ms Hewitt: Until that last comment, I felt that the hon. Gentleman was treating this matter with exactly the seriousness that it requires.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the £1.8 billion of gilts. As I have said, we made it clear to the company that we had pledged that money to back the investment in Royal Mail's business to turn it round and to support the nationwide network of post offices. I can add that we have said that we will work with the company to help it to ensure that its borrowing requirements for working capital will be met from the national loans fund on appropriate commercial terms.
The point about the gilts is that, particularly under Conservative Governments, the company was forced to exchange the dividends—at a rate of 90 per cent. of the profits—for gilts. That reserve was never available to the company so that it could invest in the modernisation that was required. We are now making it available, to support the necessary investment and restructuring.
Royal Mail is discussing the application that it intends to make for a 1p rise in the prices of first-class and second-class stamps with both the regulator and Postwatch, the consumer body. It hopes to make the application before the end of the month.
It would have been quite wrong to agree price rises in the past simply to mask and compensate for the company's inefficiency. Some years ago, Lord Heseltine, the former President of the Board of Trade, confessed to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that in the case of a publicly owned monopoly there was always the temptation—indeed, it was a reality—to go on raising prices rather than dealing with underlying losses and inefficiencies. I hope that, now that the company has grasped the seriousness of the problem and established the necessary restructuring, the regulator will look favourably on this modest application.
The hon. Gentleman raised important questions about the need to ensure that small businesses and people working from home, who do not necessarily qualify for the 20 items per day, will nevertheless have their requirements met by the tailored delivery service. That is exactly the kind of issue that the company will bear in mind when the pilot schemes start next month.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of serious points about market opening and the role of regulator. As we made clear in the Postal Services Act 2000, we believe that the regulator's first duty must be to preserve the universal service obligation. Subject to that, however, both Royal Mail and customers can gain real benefits from market opening and the competition, innovation and greater choice that will result from it.
In Germany, where the bulk mail sector has been open to competition for some time, there has been a substantial increase in the amount of bulk mail. That has benefited Germany's former monopoly company, not only because it is securing its own share of that growing market but because it can sell network access to its competitors.
1022
That is precisely what will happen in Britain as the bulk mail sector is opened up. The company must of course negotiate fair and non-discriminatory pricing for network access with new entrants to the market. I believe that it will do so, but if it does not, Postcomm will be able to adjudicate.
The hon. Gentleman clearly forgot that his question about VAT was dealt with in the sixth VAT directive, which I am sure he knows well. It requires VAT not to be levied on public postal services.
The hon. Gentleman asked about long-term intentions. As the then Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander), made clear to the Select Committee some weeks ago, the company was reviewing all its strategic options last year, including partnerships with other companies. As part of that, it entered into discussions with the Dutch mail, TPG, about the possibility of a merger. It was not possible to reach an agreement or common ground and no decision was made by Ministers because no proposal for a merger was put to us. The vision and the intention is simple: we want a successful, publicly owned postal service.
I stress that imposing on the company a duty not to close rural post offices, except when unavoidable because no one can be found to do the job, has slowed down—indeed halved—the rate of sub-post office closures in rural areas. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, we are implementing the important recommendations of the performance and innovation unit report. The universal banking service is on track for next year. It is important to remember that when people cash their benefits at the sub-post office, whether through the new post office card account, a basic bank account or an ordinary bank account using one of the automatic teller machines, the sub-postmaster or mistress will receive a transaction fee and benefit from the fact that customers are coming to the post office.
As the hon. Gentleman said, there was a useful pilot of "Your Guide" in Leicestershire and Rutland. It is currently being evaluated, and I expect to receive the report in a few weeks. We shall shortly announce our decisions on payment, which cannot be met commercially, for the social services that rural sub-post offices provide.
The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that we are considering major decisions by a company that is determined to turn itself around. I hope that he will recognise that the source of the problems that have caused today's great losses goes back a long way. It is important not to indulge in finger-pointing, name-calling or trying to allocate blame but to support the company in its difficult decisions, and support the management and, above all, the work force in taking the company forward. The Government and Labour Members are doing that; I hope that the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members will give the company the support that it deserves.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, and emphasise that some of us who argued for according greater commercial freedom to the Post Office underestimated its management's lack of commercial awareness at the time. That is a major consideration in Allan Leighton's new approach, which most of us welcome.
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the redundancy targets are ambitious? In London or Edinburgh, which have a high staff turnover, it may be possible to

1023
secure the figures through voluntary redundancy or even early retirement. However, in places such as the town of Alloa in my constituency, where working for the Post Office continues to be regarded as a good job, albeit not an especially well-paid one, people will hold on to the jobs desperately. The package must contain far greater flexibility to ensure that the trust and commitment of people in areas of high unemployment, who look to the postal services for secure employment, will not be betrayed at the stroke of a pen.
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. This morning, Allan Leighton again underlined that he is determined to achieve the job losses through offering people other jobs in the company or through voluntary redundancies. We all know that the problems are not the workers' fault.
I understand the specific problem of securing the redundancies in more remote areas, where fewer alternative jobs are available, and I shall discuss it with Allan Leighton. However, he is confident that all the necessary job losses, though painful, will be achieved through redeployment and voluntary redundancies.
Indeed, because the union and management have quite rightly negotiated a generous redundancy package, he rather fears that, if anything, he will he oversubscribed in relation to the number of redundancies actually required.
Dr. Vincent Cable: I echo the earlier comment that our first concern should be for the families of the people who are to be made redundant. As it would appear that these redundancies will be funded from public funds, will the Minister give the House an estimate of the total cost of the redundancy package? Is it, as I believe, something of the order of £1 billion?
Is not the real scandal of today's statement the fact that the money that has been taken out of the Post Office in the form of dividends over a long period should have been invested to accumulate financial assets that are now going to be liquidated, not for investment purposes but to make people redundant? That is a terrible comment on the way in which the Post Office has been managed over many years through the Government.
I want to ask several specific questions. On the second delivery, why have the pilot studies not yet been conducted, in response to the petitions from small business? Can I have a reassurance that, when they are conducted, the concerns of many small businesses about the second delivery will be fully taken into account?
On the price increase, does the Minister acknowledge that one of the relevant factors is that the real price has actually been falling for some years? That now needs to be addressed. The price of stamps in British post offices is now significantly lower than the price in comparable European countries, including those with privatised postal services.
Does the Minister not now believe that the regulator's discussions about competition need something more radical than adjustment, and that they should probably be shelved? With the Post Office in its current dire position, it would be totally inappropriate for private sector companies to come into the industry, without paying an entry fee, and to cream off the few remaining profitable
1024
bits of the business. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be much more appropriate to allow the European Union liberalisation rules to apply?
Does the Minister acknowledge that the biggest losses—£160 million last year—occurred in the Post Office Counters network, and that, on top of that, there will be a further loss of £450 million next year because of automated credit transfer? Can she explain why the Consignia statement contains no estimate for banking income, and no mention of "Your Guide"? When do the Government intend to produce a clear business plan explaining where these additional sources of income are to come from, so that the counters network does not collapse in the same way as the rest of the Royal Mail system?
Ms Hewitt: First, on the issue of the use of the gilts and the cost of restructuring and redundancy, provision is made in the accounts that have just been published for £682 million in redundancy and restructuring costs. Further provision will be made in the current financial year's accounts, when they are published next year, for the additional redundancy and restructuring costs of the Royal Mail. The provisions in last year's accounts, just published, relate to the Parcelforce restructuring.
The hon. Gentleman's central point that the profits accumulated over many years of operation should have been used for investment and modernisation is absolutely right. On that we are completely at one. If the modernisation and restructuring had been done much earlier, the process might well have been less painful. We must recognise, however, that whenever the restructuring was done, it would have involved a certain number of job losses and redundancies in any case, because the process would have involved making the company more efficient. The important thing, however, is not to worry about the past but to determine how to get out of this situation and to ensure that the company now has access to those reserves—that £1.8 billion of gilts—to take forward its restructuring and to support the post office network.
So far as the price of stamps is concerned, we do, indeed, have almost the lowest postage costs in the European Union. As I suggested earlier, however, I do not think that there has been any justification for a price rise at a time when the company has shown itself unable or unwilling to deal with its underlying inefficiencies and with what were, frankly, appalling industrial relations. We have to remember that almost I million days were lost in strike action in 1996 and that there were very deep-seated problems, which I am glad to say that the company is now sorting out in partnership with its trade union. It is only now, in the context of the renewal plan, that the company can quite properly go to the regulator and seek a price rise.
On the broader issue of competition and market opening, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the proposals and decision that Postcomm has made should now be shelved. I am surprised to hear him blowing hot and cold on competition. One might have thought that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of competition and of encouraging new entrants to the market in the interests of consumers. [HON. MEMBERS: "That was yesterday."' However, as I hear Opposition Members saying, that was yesterday; today is today, and opportunism is never far away when the Liberal Democrats are present.
If the opening of the market, which is already taking place in many other European Union countries, is done sensibly and at a sensible pace, it will benefit consumers

1025
and also the Royal Mail, by ensuring that it does not fall back into the bad old ways of a protected monopoly that relied on price rises to cover up its inefficiencies. The hon. Gentleman has got the situation the wrong way around. One of the paradoxes of Royal Mail's current situation is that, in many cases, it is making a profit in the parts of its business that are open to competition, but has, extraordinarily, none the less succeeded in making a loss on its monopoly business. Of course, that will have to change.
On Post Office Counters, as I have indicated, we are on track to create and deliver the universal banking services. The Royal Mail and the Post Office are in discussion and reaching a conclusion to their negotiations with the banks and the Department for Work and Pensions. Those negotiations are commercially confidential, which is one reason why figures have not been published. On "Your Guide", as I have said, we will get the evaluation report very soon. We will then make a decision about whether rolling out "Your Guide" across the country as a whole would provide the value for money and new income for sub-postmasters, new customers and service to citizens that it has the potential to deliver.
As I said, the new chief executive, David Mills, is conducting a strategic review of the post office network and looking not only for opportunities to provide services for government, but for new commercial opportunities. It is quite extraordinary that the household insurance that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are now selling very successfully is the first new product that the Post Office has rolled out since it invented postal orders decades ago. We will be looking to David Mills and Allan Leighton to come forward with a strategy for the network that includes a significant expansion of its commercial opportunities, as well as, quite properly, a role for government in supporting its social function.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The House has important business to transact this afternoon, so I appeal to hon. Members to put very brief questions. I hope that they may get brief answers.
Caroline Flint: The matter with which we are dealing goes back many years, and it is to this Government's credit that we have seized the issue since 1997 and tried year on year to tackle serious problems. May I ask my right hon. Friend about the provision of local post offices and, in the decisions that are being made, her views about how consultation with local communities should take place, bearing in mind low-income communities in which people do not have cars in which they can travel to the nearest urban centre? Also, can I ask her about the viability of post offices—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is not getting us off to a very good start, first with a prefatory statement and then two questions. I think that that is quite enough.
Ms Hewitt: The question is extremely important. In the reorganisation of urban post offices that has just begun, we have told the company that as the restructuring is taken forward, it must ensure that at least 95 per cent. of people living in urban areas are still within one mile of a sub-post office after the reorganisation. Of course, the majority should be within half a mile of a sub-post office. But no
1026
sub-post office in an urban area will close until there has been consultation not only with sub-postmasters, but with Postwatch and, above all, the local community.
Mr. John Redwood: Will the Secretary of State promise that there will be no further redundancies and no further reduction in service quality after this statement? When will the Post Office be back in profit? Does she agree that the third way idea of a not-for-profit corporation has been taken to extremes by Consignia?
Ms Hewitt: Allan Leighton made it clear this morning that there should be no further redundancies in the front line work force. He was not willing to make the same promise to management. The renewal plan that he announced this morning includes £100 million worth of savings in management and administrative overheads. I hope, and he expects, to be able to find further savings in that direction. Far from representing a reduction of service quality, the renewal plan will enable the Royal Mail to improve its service standards.
Many hon. Members know from their constituents' experience that, in parts of the country, the mail is not arriving on time and it is pretty haphazard as to whether people receive it within a few days or a few weeks. That has to change and the renewal plan will enable the company to increase its service standards, I hope dramatically, over some years. We expect the company to be back in profit by the end of this three-year renewal plan.
John Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is very difficult to see how the universal delivery service can be maintained on the back of thousands and thousands of swingeing redundancies of this type? Does she also accept that the difference between profit and loss in the Post Office is between 2p and 3p on a first-class stamp? She says that the director of Postcomm has been listening to the comments of hon. Members; you could have fooled me. Would it not be better to clear out the director of Postcomm and his loony plans and to bring in a regulator who cares about public service?
Ms Hewitt: There is no threat whatever to the universal service from the changes to the delivery specification and, in particular, the ending of the second delivery. The second delivery has never been part of the universal service. The union itself has been arguing for the ending of the second delivery, and quite right, too. As I have said, 4 per cent. of mail is costing 20 per cent. of the total cost and 30 per cent. of the hours walked by postmen and women. That is not sensible.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend's comments about the Postal Services Commission. I welcome the fact that, as it spelled out in its decision, Postcomm has clearly listened to the representations made to it. Although, as it says in its decision, Postcomm was reluctant to reward, as it saw it, an incompetent management by slowing down the introduction of liberalisation, it none the less appreciated the real risks of introducing competition too quickly and has therefore scaled back and delayed the introduction of that competition.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: May I be certain that I understood the Secretary of State? Will she confirm that

1027
a business that receives an average of more than 20 items of mail per working day will receive early delivery? Will she confirm that that would apply to a sole trader and to businesses in rural areas as well as urban?
Ms Hewitt: I can certainly confirm that the early delivery-7 o'clock to 9 o'clock—will apply to a sole trader as well as a larger business. The size of the business is not the issue here. There are obviously greater difficulties, particularly in very remote rural areas, in making the delivery by 9 o'clock. That is one of the issues that the pilots in rural areas will be specifically designed to address to ensure that businesses and sole traders in our rural areas get the service that they need to succeed in their business.
Geraldine Smith: Will the Secretary of State explain why the Post Office has been allowed to slip from being a very profitable business for many years? Despite poor management, bad industrial relations and lack of investment, it constantly made a profit until quite recently, when it became a loss-making industry. Does she share my view that perhaps it is easier for a loss-making industry to make huge redundancies and to sack 30,000 people than it would be for an industry that was seen to be in profit?
Ms Hewitt: As I explained a few moments ago, a number of different factors have contributed to those very large losses, and my hon. Friend has referred to some of them. In addition to a lack of investment over the years and bad industrial relations, there was also a failure to appreciate the effect of the growth in e-mail, faxes and courier services. The company did not anticipate the slow-down in the substantial annual growth in mail volumes on which it had relied for years. Above all, since being given commercial freedom it has simply lost control of its costs. At a time when revenue growth was slowing, costs were rising massively, and it has now to deal with that situation. The job losses, which will be achieved through re-deployments and voluntary redundancy, are the means of eliminating a large part of the company's underlying inefficiencies, and ensuring that it is once again the profitable business that it ought to be.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The statement is rather disappointing, inasmuch as it appears to water down the idea of universal service obligation. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady shakes her head, but in many areas in my constituency deliveries are not made before lunch as it is. With fewer postmen delivering, one wonders when—if ever—people will receive their post.
The right hon. Lady mentions redundancies. Echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), in areas in my constituency such as Bala and Llanrwst, the sorting offices are small, so there is no possibility of job transfers. What will happen when those employees refuse voluntary redundancy?
Ms Hewitt: As I said, today's announcement contains no threat whatsoever to the universal service obligation. As the hon. Gentleman has suggested, in his constituency the second delivery probably does not operate at all, and in any case it does not form part of the universal service.
1028
There is a very real problem with thoroughly unreliable deliveries in some parts of the country. In certain areas, the Royal Mail is perfectly capable of delivering not just 92.5 per cent. of first-class mail on the day after it is posted—the target figure—but 100 per cent. However, in many other parts of the country—sometimes because of industrial relations problems or logistical problems—nowhere near even 90 per cent. of such mail is being delivered. Reorganisation and the tailored delivery programme will ensure that customers get a much more reliable service, and that the universal service is delivered in every part of the country to the same high standards, which is what we all want.
The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) mentioned the position of postmen and women in parts of the country where few other jobs are available. Management and unions are discussing that issue, and will take it forward as part of the consultations on the redundancy programme.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will this high-flying management of the Post Office, who have been running the show for the past few years and brought it to this sorry state, be awarded fat cat payments? My right hon. Friend referred to a fella called Roberts, who is packing it in. How much money will he get? Is this not the appropriate moment to say that, at a time when the taxpayer is having to foot the bill, the people who have managed the affairs in this way should not get fat handouts?
Ms Hewitt: There is no question of awarding fat cat payments or rewarding failure. Of course, John Roberts will receive an appropriate payment, in line with his contract. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] We are putting in place for the new chairman and the new executive and non-executive directors salary packages with a very significant element of performance-related pay. Allan Leighton has set an example in this regard by taking no additional payment as new chairman, over and above the £20,000 a year that he received as a non-executive director. The whole of his pay as chairman will depend on his turning around the company and delivering on the targets that he himself has committed to. We will expect an equivalent emphasis on performance-related pay in the appointment of other non-executive directors. Of course, with the appointment of the new chief executive, we will need a package that can attract an outstanding manager to lead the organisation through the renewal programme, but it will also have a large element of performance-related pay.
Mr. Richard Page: Will the Secretary of State tell the House why it has taken the Government five years to realise that the previous management was not up to scratch?
Ms Hewitt: As I indicated in my statement, we have taken a series of actions since 1997 to strengthen the performance of the company. We started by giving it much greater commercial freedom and then we brought in a new finance director, because one of the highest priorities was to ensure that the company regained control over its costs.
The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the untimely death of the finance director early in 2000. Because of that, and the time inevitably taken to appoint his successor, the board was without a finance director for

1029
many months, and that contributed to the problems on which the new finance director, who arrived at the beginning of last year, has had to get a grip. We have made significant changes in the management of the company and we are continuing to do so to ensure that we get the first-rate management that we need. I hope that Opposition Members will give the management and the work force the support that they deserve to turn the company around.
Diana Organ: What reassurances can my right hon. Friend give to my constituents about the future viability of rural post offices? When will the universal bank be fully implemented and when will other commercial products, such as house insurance, be introduced into rural post offices, to increase footfall and keep the businesses viable?
Ms Hewitt: That is one of the issues that we have asked the new chief executive, David Mills, to take forward. With a background in retail banking, he is ideally placed to ensure that the Post Office develops those new commercial products, especially in financial services, to serve communities that are often financially excluded. Sub-post offices have an important role to play in that and the success so far of the household insurance product illustrates the potential. The universal banking service is on target for introduction next year, as I have previously confirmed.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: A sizeable part of my constituency is rural and some of it is very remote. In those remote areas, some businesses will receive more than 20 packages or letters a day. If they are to get priority service, will the other people who live in that area also get it, because it would be a nonsense to duplicate the service in those rural areas to which the reliable universal service is essential?
Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point and that is exactly the sort of practical issue that will be considered in the new pilots for the tailored delivery scheme. Where businesses—perhaps only one or two—are located in a remote rural area and receive 20 or 30 items of mail a day that they need to have delivered early in the morning, it may make more sense to have a single delivery for everybody in that village, instead of going out again later in the morning. That is an operational and practical issue and the company will draw conclusions on that point from the pilots that it intends to run in rural areas.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: My right hon. Friend gives cause for optimism when she tells us of the acceptance by the management of the error of their ways, including the daft change of name. Have they learned the lesson that not beating up staff is one way to create enterprise among them? Can she do anything to instil a sense of respect for the staff that has been so sadly missing in the past two or three years?
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend will be aware that I have previously expressed criticisms of the management in part of the business. One has only to read the Sawyer report to see just how bad the management and industrial relations had got, not everywhere, but in some of the
1030
sorting offices in particular. I pay tribute to the union, in particular, and to the new management for the way in which they have worked together since the publication of the Sawyer report. We have seen an enormous reduction in the number of days lost to strike action, from hundreds of thousands five years ago to a few hundred in the past few months.
We are going in the right direction and Allan Leighton, who has made a point since becoming interim chairman of going to the sorting offices at 5 am, visiting delivery centres late in the evening and talking to the front-line staff, has been welcomed by the work force as the breath of fresh air that the company so badly needs.
Dr. John Pugh: Given the £1.2 million a day loss that Consignia is enjoying at present, what operating loss does the Secretary of State anticipate next year?
Ms Hewitt: The company is anticipating that its total losses next year, including exceptional items, will be about the same as this year. It is rightly making cautious assumptions in order not to disappoint on its targets as it has so often done in the past. As I said, further redundancy costs will arise from this morning's announcement and those will, of course, be included in next year's accounts for the current financial year.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Could the Secretary of State clarify her role in ensuring that the reborn Royal Mail will provide good public services in poor urban areas, such as Liverpool?
Ms Hewitt: I am already working with the new management of the company to ensure the first-rate management that we need and to ensure that the board and the management understand the importance of delivering the universal service obligation and higher standards of customer service throughout the country but, in particular, in vulnerable areas, whether those are poor urban areas such as my hon. Friend's constituency or rural areas where the post office and the Royal Mail play a uniquely important role. Equally, I have made it clear to Allan Leighton and David Mills that we must sustain an effective and modernised network of sub-post offices so that those can continue to play their vital social role, in particular in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods.
Mr. Michael Jack: The Secretary of State has just shared with the House the fact that next year the Post Office will make a further £1.1 billion loss, thus leaving only two years to return to profitability. As the owner of the company, will she tell the House what profitability targets will have to be achieved in years two and three to return to the profitability that she set, what rate of return on the company's capital she has agreed in future and, if those targets are not agreed, what sanction she will apply to the management?
Ms Hewitt: As I said, the company—rightly, in my view—is making very cautious assumptions and is allowing for the fact that in the current financial year it will have to make further provision for the exceptional costs of redundancies and restructuring that flow from this morning's announcement. The path that it has set, however, is—as Allan Leighton made clear and as the

1031
right hon. Gentleman will see from the accounts, which are being published today—for a return to profitability by the end of the third year. We will be monitoring the company's progress extremely closely on those profitability targets. If they are not met, we have made it clear to management that they will not only not receive their performance-related pay but that we will, if necessary, make further changes to the management.
Mr. Colin Challen: It is always a pleasure to be behind a Front-Bench spokesman who is willing to listen and then to act. In that spirit, will my right hon. Friend listen to customers in the forthcoming years of liberalisation, revisit the universal service obligation and strengthen it?
Ms Hewitt: I have already said that the universal service obligation is at the heart of our policy. That is why we gave it statutory backing in the Postal Services Act 2000, but the biggest threat to that obligation comes not from liberalisation and market opening—provided that that is done sensibly and at a sensible pace—but from the company's own inefficiency and losses. If it had continued like that, there would have been a very serious threat to the universal service. That is why it is so important that the company, under its new leadership, has now put forward and agreed this renewal plan and is taking it forward in partnership with the union to ensure that that obligation is strengthened and that quality of service is delivered throughout the country.
Mr. Christopher Chope: What is the Secretary of State going to do about the independent regulator if he says that it is not reasonable to increase the price of a stamp? Furthermore, what is the point of having an independent regulator if the Secretary of State tries to lean on him by prejudging his decision? If the price of a stamp goes up, does she agree that it will mean, in effect, that the customers are paying for this awful incompetence?
Ms Hewitt: I have made it clear several times already that I would not have supported any price rise—nor thought it justified—if it was simply masking the inefficiency of the company's operations. The regulator—the Postal Services Commission—was, rightly, set up as an integral part of the move to commercial freedom for a publicly owned company. The members of that body are reasonable people—as the hon. Gentleman would expect; they have clear statutory objectives and I have no doubt that they will continue to make reasonable decisions, as they did on this occasion. Their independence, as the chairman, Graham Corbett, recently confirmed, is under no threat whatever, but he thought it perfectly proper—as did I—that I should make my views of the risks inherent in the earlier proposals known both to the Consignia chairman and to the commissioners.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Ultimately, the success or failure of the Secretary of State will be judged in the communities that I represent in Orkney and Shetland by the continued security of the universal service obligation. Will she, therefore, bring early pressure to bear on Postcomm to publish in detail the targets and performance indicators that it will use to assess any possible threat to the universal service obligation? In all sincerity, I have to point out that nothing in Postcomm's performance in recent months gives me any confidence that it understands either the importance of universal service to communities such as ours or, indeed, what is required to preserve it.
Ms Hewitt: As I have already told the House today, the universal service obligation and its preservation are the No. I and overriding statutory duty of Postcomm, and I have no doubt that, as Postcomm has indicated publicly on several occasions, it takes that duty extremely seriously. Postcomm will shortly publish a further report—a consultation document—on the definition and scope of the universal service, and I shall certainly draw attention to the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the need to understand not only how important that universal service is in a constituency such as his but also the steps that have to be taken to ensure its delivery.

Enterprise Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order of 10th April (Enterprise Bill (Programme)) (as amended by the Order of 1st May (Enterprise Bill (Programme) (No. 2)) be amended by substituting for paragraph 4(2) the following—
Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of the two days allowed by the Order as shown in the first column in the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and each part of the proceedings shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

New Clauses (other than those relating to Part 10), New Schedules, amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 12, Schedule 2, Clause 13, Schedule 3, Clauses 14 and 15, Schedule 4, Clauses 16 to 20. Schedule 5, Clauses 21 to 67, Schedule 6, Clauses 68 to 82, Schedule 7, Clause 83, Schedule 8, Clauses 84 to 87, Schedule 10. Clauses 88 to 162, Schedule 9, Clauses 163 to 178, Schedule 11, Clauses 179 and 180, Schedule 12, Clauses 181 to 202.

10.00 p.m. (7.00 p.m. if it is a Thursday)

Second day

Amendments relating to Clause 203, Schedule 13, Clauses 204 to 231, Schedule 14, Clauses 232 to 234, Schedule 15, Clauses 235 to 241, New Clauses relating to Part 10, Clause 242, Schedules 16 and 17, Clauses 243 and 244, Schedule 18, Clauses 245 to 250, Schedule 19, Clause 251, Schedules 20 and 21, Clauses 252 to 257, Schedule 22, Clauses 258 to 262, Schedule 23, Clauses 263 to 269, Schedule 24, Clauses 270 and 271, Schedules 25 and 26, Clauses 272 to 274, remaining proceedings on consideration.

9.00 p.m. (6.00 p.m. if it is a Thursday)'

—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
2.23 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Here we are again—yet another programme motion for the Enterprise Bill.
I do not expect to speak for more than a few minutes and I certainly do not want to divide the House on the motion, but it would be wrong to let it pass—[Interruption]—despite the obvious hilarity it causes the Government Whip, for reasons that may or may not become apparent—without saying something about the time that has been, and will be, allotted to such an important measure. I say that far more in sorrow than in anger. I have made the point previously—it is still valid—that there is little, if any, party politics in the Bill, but it is an extremely large measure. Like other Bills, it has gathered moss as it rolled down the legislative hill—bits have been added over time—and we have ended up with a substantial document. Despite our best efforts, it did hot shrink during Committee but grew to 274 clauses and 26 schedules.
We have never been able to understand why the Government have been so enthusiastic about pushing the Bill through at such a gallop. The Bill is not only large
1034
but extremely complex; it affects a range of areas of the law, practice and business that are themselves massively complex—from competition and merger regimes to the new cartel arrangements, and from criminalisation to insolvency. All those matters need and deserve detailed scrutiny. We have done our best, with the Liberal Democrats taking the occasional walk-on part, to improve the Bill and to ensure that it was scrutinised, but we simply have not had enough time.
As I have pointed out previously, if ever a Bill cried out for pre-legislative scrutiny, it was a measure of this huge size and complexity. It remains a complete mystery to me why other Bills are afforded that treatment while this one was not.
The original programme motion—for the Bill's consideration in Committee—was tabled by the Government some time ago with no consultation at all. Relations then fell to an all-time low because the Government took a further unilateral decision to change the order of consideration just before the Bill went into Committee.
All that was made worse by the Easter recess; the Bill was published on the day the House adjourned and Second Reading was on the day we returned from the recess. I do not blame the Government for the Easter recess, but I certainly blame them for giving so little real, working time—not only to the Opposition parties but, perhaps more importantly, to outside bodies ranging from the Consumers Association to the CBI, to the insolvency practitioners, and to the whole range of outside bodies on whom nowadays the Opposition depend for briefings, for draft amendments, for indications of where the Government may have got something wrong and for proposals to improve legislation.
The net result was that chunks of the Bill were not debated in Committee. Sadly, that state of affairs is not unusual in our present system. It was especially unfortunate that one of the undebated chunks related to consumer protection measures. I hope that we shall have a chance to come back to those issues on Monday—or rather, to come to them.
In fairness to the Government, they eventually realised that they could not sustain the speed that they wanted so we got some extra time in Committee. However, it was not much more time and we completed the Committee stage in 18 sittings. As I have pointed out, for a Bill of this size—274 clauses—that is quite an achievement. I challenge anyone who reads the Hansard reports of the Committee to find any padding or time wasting on the part of Opposition Members. Things moved briskly. Many matters could not be considered but we worked hard to improve the Bill. Indeed, on a good day, the Minister accepted one or two of our proposals.
Things got worse after that, however. During the past couple of days alone, the Government have tabled about 223 amendments. There is obviously a panic to try to perfect the Bill—although that is probably beyond the wit of man—before it goes to the other place, but it simply is not on to introduce so many amendments at this stage of its consideration. Of course, a great number of them are minor and consequential, but one has to go through them, and the Bill, to come to that conclusion.
Some of the amendments are substantial, however. Today, we were due to debate one of the central issues although, by agreement, we shall now more sensibly

1035
debate it on Monday; it relates to whether, in insolvency, a bankrupt's home—their sole residence—should be taken into account as one of their assets. We touched on that huge issue in Committee and the Government said that they would reconsider it. Only a few days ago, however, they tabled a long new clause, which will require substantial debate, to deal with it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): The House should be aware of a simple fact. The hon. Gentleman is trying to make something of the number of Government amendments. As he said, many of them are tidying, consequential and minor drafting amendments. Indeed. I wrote to him and all other members of Standing Committee B, which considered the Bill, to explain exactly which amendments are minor and consequential and what the remaining few amendments involved in each case were. So he has not had to go through all the amendments to find out which are minor and consequential. The vast majority of them are just that, and they have been drawn directly to his attention by a letter from me.
Mr. Waterson: I do not want to get into a spat with the Minister this early in the day, but with the greatest respect to her, it is not right that the Opposition should simply take it at face value when we are told that amendments are minor or consequential. It is important that we go through them to check for ourselves.
I am trying to make the point—I do so finally, so that we can get on to the substance of the Bill—that this large and complex piece of legislation will have all sorts of effects on business, the legal professions, accountancy and so on. It is very important that we get it right; otherwise we shall have to revisit it shortly, and the law of unintended consequences, of which this Government are masters, will kick in with a vengeance.
We have not had enough time to consider the Bill; I do not know why, because other business seems very light at the moment, but there it is. As I say, there is no party politics in it, so I have never been able to fathom the Government's motives. However, I am happy not to divide the House on the programme motion, in the hope that we can get on to the substance of the Bill.
2.31 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I am keen to move on, so that we can debate the major items, but I wish to make a brief point. I could not possibly claim that there has been insufficient time to debate the Bill, having served on the Standing Committee and felt rather as though we were ploughing through the desert on certain occasions. We now have two days in which to deal with the remaining stages, so all that seems perfectly adequate. However, have we not made an error in the division of time between the two days? Is the balance right?
Time has been taken up with two very important statements today, so the time that we have left compares very differently with the second day. We have to deal with 270 amendments today, but only 86 on the second day. Such things are not decided by mathematics, since some amendments and clauses will be more significant
1036
than others, but 202 clauses have to be covered today and only 72 on the second day. We have to deal with 11 different batches of amendments, but only eight on the second day.
Many of the amendments deal with the earlier clauses. That is perhaps natural because they tend to help to define what comes later and the major principles involved. So if the division between the days were to come at about clause 40 or 41, it might represent a much more serious attempt to spread out the different matters that need dealing with.
Something similar worked in Committee. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said, there was an occasion on which the timetable bar came down and certain things were lost, after which changes took place. On the second occasion the bar was due to drop, it was removed altogether. During the 16th sitting, we were ploughing into the desert with a host of amendments that seemed to come from the CBI and the debate looked as though it would go on and on so that we would not make the 7 o'clock cut off.
Suddenly, when the bar was lifted, everything miraculously progressed and we finished at four minutes to 7, and we did everything that needed to be done up to that point. Indeed, our final sitting—the 18th—lasted just over an hour, and the arrangement was similar to the one that exists now: we are likely to finish more quickly on the second day than on the first.
It would be convenient for the House—it would certainly be convenient for me, given the amendments that I have tabled—if the arrangements were adjusted more sensibly. If that cannot be done, I hope that the Opposition are listening, as they may have a curious interest in the amendments that I have tabled, even though they could not possibly support them, and they may wish to find out where those amendments lead us.
2.35 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: May I apologise to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) for not having been present throughout the entirety of his speech? I think that I picked up the gist of it—certainly towards the end.
May I tell the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) that I dearly wish we lived in a world where the business was ordered for the convenience of such a gentle and thoughtful hon. Member, but unfortunately, my experience of the past year leads me to think otherwise?
I wish briefly to place on record the fact that Liberal Democrat Members share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. Good progress was made in Committee, but sufficient time has not been allocated to debate the Bill on Report. A substantial number of Government amendments have been tabled, not necessarily exclusively because of undertakings given as a result of debates in Committee.
I accept—I may as well place this on record now because we shall never be able to debate the issue later—that the Minister has tabled very welcome amendments in relation to the cartel offence and, in particular, to obtaining warrants in Scotland, for which I take this opportunity to thank her publicly. However, one inevitably has to wonder about the efficacy of a system that involves our sitting in Committee, week after week,

1037
getting assurances from Ministers that the parliamentary draftsmen have got it right, only to find that such a large number of amendments need to be tabled on Report.
2.37 pm
Dr. John Pugh: In rising to speak, I am mindful of something that the Minister said in Committee. During one particularly dreadful moment in a long sitting, she said that brevity was a mark of intelligence.
I accept all that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has said about the undue haste that the Government have shown at times, about the fact that important issues need to be debated, and about how the law of unintended consequences can easily kick in. However, in relation to his comments in Committee, there was almost a failure of prioritisation.
It is true that we may not have had enough time, but I looked through Hansard and found that we had discussed the Oxford philosopher, G. D. H. Cole, and the uncle of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). A lot of that was very amusing, and I certainly enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Eastbourne—I think that he enjoyed listening to himself, too. However, not only did I feel that we were losing the wood for the trees, but that we were sometimes losing the trees for the leaves. The Hansard record will show that an inordinate amount of time was consumed in saying very little, so I shall not take up any more of the House's time.
2.38 pm
Miss Melanie Johnson: I shall be brief. I can assure the House that I will be extremely brief in speaking to groups of Government amendments that are entirely trivial and consequential, about which the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) need not concern himself.
On the question of time wasting, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that path too vigorously, because I am sure that scrutiny of the record will show that time was not entirely well spent during debates in Committee, as the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) has just suggested. I could add some other instances to those that he gave.
1038
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) is not directly included in the processes of the usual channels in discussing programme motions. However, I understand that this programme motion has been introduced on the basis that it has been agreed through the usual channels. That was certainly the case with the programme motion in Committee—it, too, was agreed.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Eastbourne may not have got to grips with the contents of the Bill when it was published before Easter, but by the time we discussed the programme motion for the Committee, he must have been able to get to grips with the Bill and therefore to raise any concerns that he had about that programme motion. He did not raise such concerns about the division of time for those sittings.
Mr. Waterson: I would not want the Under-Secretary to be in danger of misleading the House. First, I made a different point, which was about all the outside bodies and organisations that were totally taken by surprise, first by the Bill's publication just before the Easter break, and then by the change in the order of consideration.
Secondly, I can only place it firmly on record—I do not think that anyone can contest it—that we were never consulted on the length of time allotted in the original programme motion for proceedings in Committee. Indeed, partly over the Easter break, I prepared a draft of how I thought we could allocate time. That, although proffered to the usual channels, was not thought to be helpful to the discussion. Let us be clear on those points.
Miss Johnson: A large number of outside bodies were very well aware of the Enterprise Bill and its general contents—and, indeed, some of its specific contents—well ahead of its publication.
I reiterate that the vast majority of the Government amendments are technical and consequential. They are attempts by parliamentary draftsmen to get the Bill exactly right. There is nothing wrong with that; it is part of the normal passage of a Bill. We have two days for Report, and I hope that the House will rapidly agree the programme motion and make progress on the substance of proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Enterprise Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

  Enterprise Bill
    New Clause 4

      EXCISIONS FROM REPORTS: PART 3
      (1) Subsection (2) applies where the Secretary of State is under a duty to publish—

      (a) a report of the OFT under section 43 or 60; or

      (b) a report of the Commission under section 49 or 64.

      (2) The Secretary of State may exclude a matter from the report concerned if he considers that publication of the matter would be inappropriate.
      (3) In deciding what is inappropriate for the purposes of subsection (2) the Secretary of State shall have regard to the considerations mentioned in section 238.
      (4) The body which has prepared the report shall advise the Secretary of State as to the matters (if any) which it considers should be excluded by him under subsection (2).
      (5) References in sections 37(4) and 104(11) to the giving or laying of a report of the Commission shall be construed as references to the giving or laying of the report as published.'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      2.42 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 5—Excisions from reports: Part 4.
      Government amendments Nos. 235, 236, 240 to 242, 258 and 298 to 300.
      Miss Johnson: All the amendments relate to reports by the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. New clauses 4 and 5 and amendments Nos. 258 and 298 relate to excisions from reports. New clauses 4 and 5 make provision for the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to exclude certain information when publishing a report that she has received from the Office of Fair Trading or the Competition Commission. I shall be happy to give Members further details if they require them.
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: The Under-Secretary is right; we need not detain the House long on this group of amendments, but I have a few questions with which I should like to probe a little further.
      The background to this matter is the formalisation of the status of the Office of Fair Trading. That harks back to Conservative legislation in the 1970s, which set up the original structures. It was common ground in Committee that it was right to revisit the matter, and we broadly support the basic proposals and the new powers and functions of the OFT.
      1040
      There were various debates in Committee, which I do not intend to rehearse, about the contents of the differing reports that will be produced under the Bill when enacted. We as a party have been keen to emphasise the concern of business—whether it be the CBI, the mention of which seems to raise the hackles of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), or any other business organisation—that, no matter how laudable the aims of the legislation, and particularly this part of the Bill, in protecting consumers and people generally against malpractice, it must be borne in mind that unless such matters are dealt with properly, there can be enormous costs to businesses, partly because confidential or commercially sensitive information may find its way into the public domain.
      We already know about the extra £15 billion worth of costs that have been heaped on business under this Government, and about the worries about red tape to which organisations such as the Institute of Directors have drawn attention. Indeed, we know about the CBI's figure of £5.8 billion a year extra in taxes on business under this Government. Against that disastrous background, it is important that we do not heap further burdens on business.
      New clauses 4 and 5 are similarly worded. In both new clauses, subsection (2) refers to the publication of matter that would be inappropriate, and new clause 4 goes on to say that the body that has prepared the report—whether it is the OFT or the Competition Commission—will advise the Secretary of State on matters to be excluded by him or her when the report is published. Is it considered that the Secretary of State will feel able to make further excisions from such reports? I am asking, perhaps over-laboriously, whether the Secretary of State will be able simply to accept or refuse the proposals of the body preparing the report, or whether it is envisaged that she or he will have, as it were, a final censor's job and make his or her own excisions on top of those proposed by the body.
      The other issue is what is defined as inappropriate. The new clauses helpfully refer to section 238, which sets out three or four different considerations: first, matters that are contrary to the public interest; secondly, commercial information where disclosure might significantly harm legitimate business interests; thirdly, information related to the private affairs of the individual, the disclosure of which might significantly harm the individual's interests; and fourthly, whether the disclosure of any such information is necessary for the particular purpose. Does the Under-Secretary regard that list as exhaustive? Could the term "inappropriate" be used to cover all matters which are of perfectly understandable concern to those who are the subject of the report, or, indeed, to Ministers and those who advise them?
      Under clause 43, where the Secretary of State issues an intervention notice, the OFT will produce a report on the public interest issues, including representations that it has received. Again, I assume that all that applies equally not just to the conclusions in the report, but to all the, as it were, second-hand information given by way of evidence to the OFT. Otherwise, of course, there might be a disincentive for people to be wholly open and honest in making such representations.
      Where the Secretary of State refers matters to the Competition Commission, the reports under clause 44 will be based on an initial investigation under clause 60 and

      1041
      where the Secretary of State refers a matter under clause 61. As I understand it, those are all instances in which the proposed provision would bite.
      The principal issue that we want to raise is whether the lists that I have gone through are exhaustive, or whether there is an element of flexibility, which we would welcome, in excising what is inappropriate. We on the Opposition Benches might take some modest credit for persuading Ministers that the issue should be taken even more seriously in the Bill than it was originally. Subject to those explanations, we would welcome a tightening of the provisions.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: I confess that I am slightly confused by the Under-Secretary's suggesting that this group of amendments is entirely confined to matters of excision of information from reports. As I understand it, some of the Government amendments do something substantively different. I want to explore why amendments Nos. 235, 236, 240 and 242 are necessary and what is intended by them.
      The Under-Secretary has written to us to clarify the purpose of the amendments. Under the first two amendments in respect of mergers, and the second two amendments in respect of market investigation references, where a public interest intervention notice has been served, the OFT or the Competition Commission will report to the Secretary of State.
      Under the Bill as previously drafted, the OFT or the commission would have had the opportunity to make recommendations to the Secretary of State as to the actions that she could take under the legislation. As far as I am aware, the provisions for mergers appeared in clause 41 and those for market investigations appeared in a later clause. It would have allowed the Secretary of State to receive undertakings under clause 151 and to make orders under clause 155.
      The Government amendments will mean that the commission can recommend to the Secretary of State that she should take other action, but that action is not specified. So I have a very simple question: what is the other action? If the action falls within the confines of the remedies set out in the respective provisions available to the Secretary of State, why is it not already sufficient for the OFT or the commission to be able to specify such remedies? If the action is beyond the confines of the Bill and what is available from the relative undertakings that can be derived from it, why are the additional remedies not specified in the Bill? I confess that nothing in the correspondence that the Under-Secretary has provided to us specifies what the other action might be, and under what legislative form it sits.
      Miss Johnson: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) asked whether the Secretary of State would be able to make her own excisions as well as those suggested. The answer is yes. The list of inappropriate coverage takes account of all the issues that the hon. Gentleman highlighted. It is not exhaustive, but we are not aware of any considerations other than those currently in the text. I hope that I have reassured him on that point.
      The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) raised several points and he is right to suggest that other issues are involved. He referred to Government amendment No. 242, but that relates to the
      1042
      voting rules for the decisions taken by the Competition Commission's reporting panels. Perhaps he meant to refer to amendment No. 241, but that was not absolutely clear.
      Amendments Nos. 235, 236, 240 and 241 correct drafting oversights in clauses 46(7)(b) and 62(4)(b). These two paragraphs deal with the Competition Commission's ability, in its reports in public interest and special public interest cases, to recommend the taking of remedial action by other persons, and other than in the form of undertakings accepted or orders made under part 3.
      Such action might include, in the case of Ministers, the amendment of existing legislation—whether by introducing new primary legislation or by using delegated powers to amend existing legislation—so as to remove a regulatory barrier to entry and to prevent a merged firm from exploiting a position of market power. Recommendations for the taking of such action are provided for in non-public interest merger eases by clauses 34(3)(b) and 35(2)(b).
      As currently drafted, the reference to
      "the taking of action by other persons"
      in clauses 46(7)(b) and 62(4)(b) appears immediately after a reference to the taking of remedial action under the Secretary of State's part 3 powers, thus apparently excluding the possibility of the commission's recommending in public interest or special public interest cases that the Secretary of State should take remedial action other than under her part 3 powers.
      Although such action is likely to emerge only very rarely as part of a reasonable and practicable remedial strategy in a merger case, it was not our intention to prevent the commission from being able to recommend that the Secretary of State should take remedial action of this kind in public interest or special public interest cases. The amendments ensure that this possibility is preserved.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 5

      EXCISIONS FROM REPORTS: PART 4
      '(1) Subsection (2) applies where the Secretary of State is under a duty to publish a report of the Commission under section 136.
      (2) The Secretary of State may exclude a matter from the report if he considers that publication of the matter would be inappropriate.
      (3) In deciding what is inappropriate for the purposes of subsection (2) the Secretary of State shall have regard to the considerations mentioned in section 238.
      (4) The Commission shall advise the Secretary of State as to the matters (if any) which it considers should be excluded by him under subsection (2).
      (5) References in sections 130(4) to (6), 137(2) and (5) to (7), 142(3) to (5) and 166(10) to the giving or laying of a report of the Commission shall be construed as references to the giving or laying of the report as published.'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      USE OF FINES BY OFT
      '.—(1) The OFT will consider whether any fines which it imposes under Chapter I or Chapter II of the 1998 Act might be

      1043
      applied for any purpose or purposes which would contribute towards remedying harm suffered by consumers generally as a result of the infringement of those provisions.
      (2) The OFT may in pursuance of subsection (1), make such direction as it considers appropriate.'.—[Mr. Waterson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Waterson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
      'and
      (d) an assessment of the additional costs to business of the exercise of its functions.'.
      Government amendment No. 156.
      Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 34, leave out—
      'seriously and prejudicially affect the'
      and insert—
      'significantly harm the legitimate business'.
      Amendment No. 210, in clause 6, page 3, line 9, after "consumers", insert "and producers".
      Government amendment No. 157.
      Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 20, leave out—
      'seriously and prejudicially affect the'
      and insert—
      'significantly harm the legitimate business'.
      Amendment No. 211, in clause 8, page 3, line 35, after "consumers", insert "and producers".
      Government amendment No. 223.
      Amendment No. 212, in page 3, line 39, after "consumer", insert "and producer".
      Amendment No. 213, in page 3, line 41, after "consumer", insert "and producer".
      Amendment No. 214, in page 4, line 1, after "consumer", insert "or producer".
      Amendment No. 215, in page 4, line 3, after "consumer", insert "or producer".
      Amendment No. 216, in page 4, line 9, after "consumers", insert "and producers".
      Amendment No. 217, in clause 9, page 4, line 18, leave out from beginning to "section" in line 19.
      Amendment No. 218, in clause 11, page 5, line 2, after "consumer", insert "or producer".
      Amendment No. 219, in page 5, line 5, after "consumers", insert "or producers".
      Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 6, leave out "90" and insert "60".
      Amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 13, leave out subsection (4).
      Amendment No. 220, in page 5, line 15, after "consumer", insert "or producer".
      Amendment No. 221, in page 5, line 18, after "consumers", insert "or producers".
      Amendment No. 222, in page 5, line 34, at end insert—
      'and—
      (c) "producer" means an individual involved in the manufacture, production or sale of goods or services.'.
      Mr. Waterson: Our new clause and amendments again deal with the general functions of the OFT. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has also tabled amendments, and I look forward to our usual fascinating debate.
      We debated the provisions of new clause 3 in Committee, and it is part of the Opposition's responsibility to make choices about the issues to which we wish to return on Report. We thought that this issue was worth debating again, because it is important and because we did not think that the Under-Secretary's response in Committee was adequate. As she has had more time to reflect on the matter, we might now make more progress. A glance at the new clause shows that it would determine the fate of fines determined under chapters I and II of the Competition Act 1998 and use them for the benefit of consumers.
      Substantial income might be derived from such fines in any given year, and that money could be applied for the remedial benefit of consumers in general. The Consumers Association has publicised the case in which a car manufacturer—I forget which one—agreed to donate substantial funds to the association as part of the settlement of potential proceedings. The association undertook to use that money to inform consumers about the purchase of cars, including purchase from suppliers based on the continent. When the offence alleged is predatory pricing, the consumer will have benefited from lower prices, albeit at the longer-term loss of competition. In such cases, under current legislation consumers would be unlikely to recover damages. However, if the funds obtained were applied for the benefit of consumers in general, that would sensibly reflect the fact that there is no individual remedy.
      If the Under-Secretary's reply is based on the one that she gave in Committee, I know that she will say that there are separate provisions in the Bill for funds to be applied for consumer information and education. We welcome that. However, the new clause would ensure the use of a separate stream of funding to consumers in general.
      I have already given a couple of examples, and another one would arise when consumers had clearly been disadvantaged but it was impossible to identify or trace those harmed. Something may have gone on for many years across an entire market without records being kept of the people involved. In another example, many people might have lost a tiny amount as the result of a harmful practice. However, recognition should be made of the fact that there has been misdoing by the companies involved.
      3 pm
      The Minister was less than convincing when she addressed the problem in Committee. One of her defences was that we might encourage the OFT to operate a slash and burn policy, and go out of its way to find people so that it could produce the stream of funding. That is far-fetched. In fact our suggestion would make sensible use of the funds, unlike the alternative, which allows them to disappear into the black hole of the Treasury.

      1045
      We discussed an amendment similar to amendment No. 3 in Committee, and I accused the Minister of intransigence. I had hoped that she might reconsider her case, because we need to assess the additional costs to business that will arise when the OFT exercises its functions. The Conservative party is keen to stick up for businesses, large and small, when it comes to the extra burdens and costs that are heaped on them. There is a cumulative process of placing more burdens on business, and those have a particular impact on smaller firms.
      It is important to make a regular assessment of the additional cost to business of the OFT's exercise of its functions. That is eminently sensible. We debated how to assess that burden in Committee, and it is worth trying to work out whether the burdens on business are substantial, as we fear they might be, and how they stack up against the benefits to consumers. Unbelievably, the regulatory impact assessment of the Bill concluded that its provisions would impose no extra cost burden on business. We do not accept that, and it requires explanation.
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) gave the example of a company that started to trade in a new market. It received a letter from the Department of Trade and Industry saying that the trade was against the public interest. In effect, the Department threatened to wind up the company and prosecute the directors. The company took legal advice and was very worried. It would have cost a great deal to clear the company's name, and the matter never went to court. The director involved settled with the Department, the company was wound up and various other measures had to be taken. The company simply did not have the resources—or, perhaps, the courage—to sit out the argument with the powers that be.
      We all accept that the OFT needs to be beefed up and provided with more staff and resources. I often see job advertisements for the OFT in the papers—not that I make a habit of looking through the appointments sections; I merely have a wistful curiosity about all those positions that allow people to earn more than I do. The OFT is obviously building up its staff in anticipation of the changes. When the Bill receives Royal Assent, they will be like coiled springs, waiting to leap into action. The OFT will have massive resources and deep pockets, which may not be true of the companies with which it deals.
      Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 replace similar amendments tabled in Committee. The phrase
      "significantly harm the legitimate business"
      is important. We must carefully tie up the requirements of the investigating authorities. We want to harmonise the words used in part 1 and part 9. Our amendments would tighten the obligation for the OFT to ensure that it chooses to use its powers in a judicious way.
      We debated recent dawn raids involving the Serious Fraud Office and other prosecuting authorities. Although such action might be relevant and necessary in certain cases, we want to ensure that restraints and constraints on the new authorities are included in the Bill. We do not want the new authorities, flush with new resources, responsibilities and powers, aggressively and vigorously to pursue companies that may be innocent and blameless. The disruption of a company's business and the undue publicity could have a serious effect on it.
      I expect the OFT to take a more rigorous view of company raids than other authorities. Only a few weeks ago, several pharmaceutical companies were subject to a
      1046
      dawn raid, and it is staggering how the details of raids are often firmly in the public domain and the media before they take place. That is of great concern, especially as we still operate under the premise that people are innocent until proved guilty. Such cases are usually complex and take many months, or even years, to resolve. Although prosecutions are often not pursued or are unsuccessful, incalculable damage is inflicted in the meantime on the interests of the companies under investigation.
      Amendment No. 10 deals with super-complaints. Those are an important and useful innovation, strongly supported by all the main consumer bodies. They ensure that something that is happening across the country does not have to be pursued by individual trading standards departments, but by a super-complaint brought, typically, by a consumer body. The Bill specifies, however, that the OFT should publish a response to a super-complaint within 90 days. We agree that there should be a limit on the time taken to respond, but our amendment suggests 60 days. There can be no practical objection to that. Extensions of time could always be applied for and given.
      It is almost inevitable that substantial publicity will be generated, especially by the first super-complaints. They will be a novelty and probably come on the back of a substantial consumer campaign on a particular malpractice or piece of sharp trading. If such publicity is generated and it blights the activity of a company or group of companies, it is important that the period should be as short as possible. On the other side of the coin, it must surely be in the interests of consumers that such matters be resolved as speedily as possible.
      The sister amendment, amendment No. 11, would remove subsection (4) from clause 11, which allows the Secretary of State to take the power to amend the time limit, presumably up or down. In Committee we debated the best intentions of this particular Secretary of State and those who advise her, but we still think that the clause should be changed.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: Some 13 amendments are in my name and in those of my hon. Friends. They fall into three categories. In some, the words "and producers" is inserted after the word "consumers". There is one category where that operates in connection with the super-complaints procedure. A separate amendment seeks to keep alive section 12 of the Fair Trading Act 1973, as compared with certain aspects of this legislation where it affects producers and the public interest. I have much more sympathy with the Fair Trading Act than with some items in this Bill, even though there is much more in the Bill which deals with consumers, which is a distinct improvement.
      As I said, I want to insert "and producers" after "consumers". While all of us cannot exist without being consumers, we depend on producers, and I hope that the great majority of us are producers for considerable sections of our lives. We are producing legislation on this occasion, so we are part of that procedure. Everyone is just about covered by the categories of "producer" and "consumer", but that does not mean that the way in which they operate is the same, or that they have identical interests.
      Sometimes, the consumer interest may rub up against the producer interest. The cheap production of goods and services may be a consumer interest, but the people who

      1047
      are directly producing goods—working people by hand or by brain—may not wish to have their goods sold at the cheapest possible price all the time. They may want to raise some resources for themselves, so that they themselves can begin to become effective consumers. If we put all our eggs in one basket—with the consumer—we do not seem to serve our constituents in as full and as good a way as possible. That is the reasoning behind the amendments that insert the words "and producers".
      I attempted in Committee—it has already been dismissed to some extent by the Opposition Member who talked about G.D.H. Cole—to draw that distinction. I was a bit late in doing that. This is complex legislation, and the day after I found out that I had been placed on the Bill, I had to turn up at one of the meetings to try to fathom what we were dealing with.
      By the time I had tabled an amendment to introduce the word "producers", it was in a rather odd position—it meant producers being involved merely in matters that were of consumer interest. That will be the case to some extent with some of these amendments, but the main intention is to say that producers will have specific producer concerns themselves. In particular, the producer provisions in connection with the super-complaints procedure in amendments Nos. 218 to 222 are meant to produce a situation in which producers, as defined in amendment No. 222, will be able to have a say and an influence, and to make representations to the OFT about their concerns and their interests, in the same way as consumers do.
      It is not entirely a G.D.H. Cole measure, as the producers are not defined just as being workers by hand or by brain. They are defined as people who are involved in the productive selling and manufacturing system, so it cuts across class barriers to some extent. The Minister may have some problem in determining the weight that should be given to different sections. I want to refer to the concerns and interests of the TUC and particular trade unions in such matters.
      3.15 pm
      Various trade unions have pressed us on the matter. Members of the Committee received a letter from the Transport and General Workers Union's agriculture food section, in which it suggested that producers' interests should be considered as well and that we should have something about that in the Bill, presumably in line with the type of measures I am putting forward.
      I saw one representation relating directly to the Bill in the Financial Times on the day of Second Reading. It was from Ed Sweeney, general secretary of Unifi, the financial sector trade union, who said:
      "Consideration should also be given as to whether the new super-complainant' procedure (that will enable certain consumer organisations to have the right to compel initial investigations by the Office of Fair Trading into specific markets) should be extended to other third parties."
      That is what I am attempting to do with the amendments.
      I am keen that we should progress because I am interested in the public interest provisions. I would not want to talk myself out on those, but I have an amendment that seeks to preserve section 12 of the Fair Trading Act 1973. It allows the Secretary of State to give directions to
      1048
      the Director General of Fair Trading on a number of issues, including prioritising in order to identify practices that may adversely affect consumers; determining priority markets requiring assessment as to whether a monopoly exists; and deciding whether to refer monopoly cases to the Competition Commission, or trade practices to the consumer protection advisory committee under part II of the Fair Trading Act.
      The right to refer monopoly cases to the Competition Commission is part of the argument that I will seek to advance later when we deal more particularly with mergers and the public interest provisions, but Unifi and the wider labour movement are clearly concerned that mergers and monopoly development situations will seriously affect the well-being of people and the future of their firms, which may close. In those circumstances, producer interests in terms of earning one's livelihood are to the fore. The Secretary of State needs to be able to continue to take that into account as an interest.
      If we have producer bodies and a producer's super-complaints procedure, that will provide an avenue for bringing concerns to the attention of the Director of Fair Trading. In addition, later amendments will enable such matters to be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State so that he or she can act. Amendment No. 217 is necessary to facilitate matters that appear later in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to the notion that producer interest can be squeezed by this sort of legislation, admirable though it is in dealing with consumer interests. There might be a need for balance if other viewpoints are to be put forward.
      G.D.H. Cole suggested in his early days that Parliament should be reformed and there should not be a House of Lords and a House of Commons. He advocated that instead there should be a House of Producers and a House of Consumers. The consumers would be rather like the House of Commons because we are all consumers. The producers would be organised through guild trade unions—presumably there would be a form of indirect election—and would operate the other House. He thought that within a socialist society these bodies would not conflict with each other. However, he felt that if they were in conflict, over-riding provision should be given not to the House of Consumers but instead to the House of Producers, that being the nobler ideal.
      Without going as far as G.D.H. Cole would have wanted, perhaps we can learn something from some of the things that he said.
      Dr. John Pugh: First, I shall respond to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). One suspects him of trying to introduce social revolution on the back of the Bill, that is by smuggling in Marxism through the back door. I am sure that that is not far away from the plot. In this instance, however, he seems to seek only an innocuous change of wording. Clause 6(1) states:
      "The OFT has the function of…making the public aware of the ways in which competition may benefit consumers".
      If the amendment were agreed to, the subsection would provide that
      "competition may benefit consumers and producers."
      In that event, the OFT would have a more difficult job. Some producers will not significantly enjoy any benefit of competition. In some instances, they would like no competition.

      1049
      I move on to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), and on some I do not want to trespass. There is a sophisticated legal debate on the appropriate term for legal proceedings. That is whether it should be 90 days or 60 days. I can leave that to others.
      The spirit behind the idea of using fine income to reprocess for the benefit of the consumer seems to be entirely correct. It has an element of earmarking, which is attractive. There is also the element of restitution. Presumably those who are offended will have an opportunity to contribute to the common good. It even brings in modern concepts such as hypothecation. It seems that the idea will do good.
      The Minister's argument appears not to be that the idea will not do good, but that it may lead to further harm. It is suggested that the OFT will take an aggressive attitude towards charging producers that it thinks errant or wrong and accumulate money to use for other purposes that it has in mind. That is an objection in principle to many fines in many places. The same objection could be made in respect of traffic-calming measures and speed cameras, for example. It could be made also in terms of traffic wardens. There seems not to he a fundamental objection.
      The wording suggested by the hon. Member for Eastbourne is surprisingly mild. It is that the OFT will consider whether any fines that are imposed under chapters 1 and 2 of the Act might be applied for any purpose. The wording does not command the OFT to do that. It merely gives a power to the office should it consider that to be an appropriate and good thing to do. The Minister might well wish to revisit this idea. Ministers are not loth to throw away powers unnecessarily offered to them. In this instance, the hon. Gentleman is offering a new power to the Government, in a sense. The OFT is not exactly the same thing as the Government, but it may find the process of administration useful in future circumstances.
      I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on one issue, and it is an issue on which we disagreed in Committee. It relates to illustrating the additional costs that are incurred by business as a result of the various procedures in which the OFT will engage when investigating mergers, cartels and the like.
      I share the hon. Gentleman's scepticism in that the Government are often thoroughly wrong when they talk about the effects of a piece of legislation, the red tape that will be involved and the cost to business. We have the shocking example of the Government declaring not too long ago that the effects of the increased burden on care homes would be cost neutral. I think that that is what the Government's investigation showed. Everybody accepts that the costs amount to about £300 million. If the effects of that legislation are cost neutral, care homes are behaving in an add way: they are going out of business.
      There is a problem, and it was aired in Committee. An easy assessment to make is that of the costs involved in complying with a piece of legislation. The Government should get that right, and conventionally they get it wrong. However, businesses can do all sorts of things in responding to an investigation into their affairs. For example, they can hire the most expensive lawyers in the land. They can engage their top management night and day. They can inflate costs as and when they wish. In this context, they are not merely complying; they are reacting. Although I am sympathetic to the remarks of the hon.
      1050
      Member for Eastbourne, I see no realistic way in which business costs can be quantified in this instance. Therefore, there is no purpose in producing statistics that have little meaning, although the Government do it quite frequently.
      Mr. Richard Page: I shall speak specifically to amendment No. 223. I wish to reinforce the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) about the timetabling of consideration. It is ridiculous that we shall try to get through about 200 new clauses and amendments in about four and a half hours, and especially an item as important as amendment No. 223, which deals with the codes of conduct and behaviour of trade associations.
      In making my short contribution, I shall worry the Minister by saying that I am broadly in favour of amendment No. 223. I welcome it, but I feel that it should go a little further. The provisions set out in the Bill needed to be amended in any event to take it into account that trade associations should properly be representative of the area of commerce or industry in which they operate, and that their finance, organisation, policies and procedures for redressing consumers' complaints should be as transparent as possible. These considerations are not taken into account in the Bill.
      When the Secretary of State addressed the issue of consumer codes of practice on Second Reading, she told the House that provided they would be effective in protecting consumer interests and would meet core criteria yet to be defined, the Bill would include
      "measures to enable the OFT to give formal approval to voluntary industry codes of practice…and to promote the benefits of those codes to consumers and businesses."—[Official Report, 10 April 2002: Vol. 382, c. 49.].
      We all say amen to that. I do not think that anyone would quarrel with such an outcome if it could be achieved. However, there is an issue that was not made clear on Second Reading, nor was it made clear in Committee, and the issue still remains obscure. The amendment does not make clear where the boundary will lie between the criteria that the OFT will be specifying and where the voluntary codes of practice will take effect. They will be drawn up by trade associations and others, to be submitted to the OFT for its approval.
      The House, as well as consumer groups and trade associations throughout the country, will want to know where they stand before the Bill comes into effect. They will not want to await an interpretation by the OFT in the fullness of time.
      I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you were in the House, as I was, when it passed legislation that led to the establishment of the Child Support Agency. We passed that legislation because it was absolutely right that parents who were not looking after their children should be called to account and made to contribute to looking after them. Everybody was agreed and the Bill went through Parliament in record time. However, none of us suspected that the rules and regulations that would follow, introduced by the civil service, would create a nightmare in years to come and clog our surgeries with problems for month after month. We are finally getting on top of things, but if we had known what was to come, we would have been rather more circumspect in deciding what to put into legislation.

      1051
      I hope that we shall hear something helpful from the Minister. Organisations outside the House have already picked up the issue and have started to run with it. The CBI has made it clear that it wants further discussions on the framework and the principles that the OFT will be using to ensure that codes of practice will be
      "fair and workable for both businesses and consumers."
      Citizens advice bureaux have already commented on the likelihood that the OFT will start to receive complaints that it should not have approved some codes in some instances and should have approved codes in others, or that the codes are not working properly. Those reactions will be the inevitable result of not spelling out the core criteria to be met and failing to explain how much room trade associations have in formulating proposals for the code of practice. An outline of the thinking behind the scenes would therefore be appreciated. I am anxious that Ministers are more concerned about putting in place a framework of regulation—indeed, the Bill should have been called the enterprise regulation Bill—than about achieving a proper balance between consumers' interests and ensuring that business is free to serve customers and consumers to the best of its ability. Government amendment No. 223 is worrying because it seems to show where the Government's priorities lie.
      3.30 pm
      On Second Reading, in the spirit of helpfulness and co-operation that I obviously like to adopt, I made clear my concerns about the need for proper recognition of trade associations and the role that they should play in arrangements for protecting consumer interests. I have since had several discussions with trade associations and Mr. Mark Boleat, who is not only a professional consultant but has been the director general of two of the largest trade associations in the country. He served in one for quite a few years, then moved to an even bigger organisation and has now set up his own consultancy practice. He has another tremendous merit as he is a constituent of mine, which obviously gives him every possible advantage. I listened to him with great interest and am grateful to him and a number of trade associations for their advice and assistance. They emphasised the fact that it is essential that trade associations, which will effectively draft consumer codes of conduct under the Bill, should be as representative of the industry as possible. If Ministers are aware of that point, they have not given any sign of it.
      I do not want to be too prescriptive, but codes of conduct should be given only to leading trade associations, which enjoy at least 50 per cent. representation of the industry; I shall not object if that representation is 60 or 70 per cent. Some years ago, I went to Japan, where I expected to see a Minister but, instead, I was ushered into the presence of the Japanese shipbuilding trade association, the most powerful body in the area, with only one company not being a member. I rapidly came to the conclusion that the association was highly instrumental in Government business and in driving forward a number of activities, including exports and Government financial measures to help the industry. I commend that example to the Minister. My constituent, Mark Boleat, wrote a book some time ago—I do not
      1052
      recommend it unless people suffer from insomnia and want to go to sleep—on the history of trade associations. When I read it five years ago, it covered 1,400 trade associations.
      The DTI cannot possibly have enough officers to deal with so many associations. Different associations need to be brought together so that the DTI can give a focus to a sector rather than trying to deal with hundreds of warring trade associations; that can only be beneficial for the economy. I make that point in the spirit of co-operation and helpfulness which is in my nature, as everybody in the House knows.
      Trade associations seeking approval from the OFT for consumer codes of practice should make available to the public their membership, finances and strategic plans both on the internet and in hard copy. Trade associations should make the public as consumers aware of the composition of their governing bodies, policies and procedures for dealing with complaints. I do not doubt that the OFT will consider that when it looks at the codes submitted to it. I do not advocate a wholesale return to the guild system of the middle ages, but it had some good points; if anyone was not up to scratch in the production of a particular service or product, they either had to get up to speed or were put out of business. Codes of conduct should have some insurance backing; trade associations should ensure that every single member of the sector has insurance cover so that if it goes bust or produces faulty work, the consumer is protected. That will make a trade association's logo meaningful; every consumer will know that if they go to a company belonging to the association they will have redress if something goes wrong. If a company goes bust, consumers will not be left with faulty products or services.
      The Government amendment, which alters the regulatory mechanism, does not advance that proposal. I hope that I am pushing at an open door; nothing in my suggestion should come as a surprise to Ministers. The Department published a guide on best practice models for trade associations as long ago as 1996; since then the subject has been thoroughly investigated by the Trade Associations Forum. The criteria that trade associations and others must meet when submitting consumer codes to the OFT for approval are sufficiently important to merit much more discussion than we can give them today. The Government amendment characteristically leaves the matter to the OFT, presumably in consultation with the Department, to determine. That is not good enough; it is in no one's interest for the OFT to set out guidelines on consumer codes that are likely to raise business costs substantially or prove too bureaucratic. On the other hand, consumers need reassurance about the procedures for complaint and redress offered by trade associations, and must have confidence in the OFT's regulatory role. Those issues have been passed over, so I would be grateful if the Minister could offer me some reassurance in her reply.
      Mr. Mark Field: You may be relieved to have begun chairing the proceedings now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and not to have played any part in Committee, where debate was wide-ranging. Similarly, the last three contributions have brought forth thoughts on the socialist philosopher Mr. Cole, the care home crisis and the Child Support Agency; there are no immediate comparisons among those three subjects.

      1053
      I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said. At Conservative party conferences, we are used to hearing the calls of many activists to bring back various things, but I have not yet heard of anyone going back as far as the middle ages. Perhaps we will hear other singular proposals in our debate.
      I took on board my hon. Friend's claim that it would have been better to call the Bill the enterprise regulation Bill; that point is central to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). I acknowledge the fear that the OFT will flex its muscles too often. We must ensure that that temptation is kept to a minimum.
      The key consideration is the cost to business. I am probably less sanguine than many of the professional bodies that wrote to members of the Standing Committee about the power of super-complaints. I am concerned that the self-appointed consumer champions will have far too much authority in relation to certain aspects of the Bill. There is a risk that legitimate business interests will be significantly harmed, so I hope that the Minister will give fair consideration, as she did in Committee, to the time limit for responses. A 60-day limit is sufficient. How will the Minister exercise her discretion to vary or override the current 90-day limit, a subject tackled in one of the Conservative amendments?
      Miss Melanie Johnson: Our amendments Nos. 156 and 157 deal with the need to exclude any information relating to the affairs of a particular person or business
      "the publication of which would or might seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that person"
      or business. In Committee the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) rightly said that it would make enormous sense to replicate the wording in clause 235 for purposes of clarity and consistency. I agreed to consider the suggestion, and to be as helpful as I could.
      As originally drafted, part 9 did not cover information obtained by the OFT under part 1. Clause 235 in its original form listed considerations to which public authorities must have regard before disclosing competition information, as defined. I shall not go into all the details, but following discussions on part 1, the Government reviewed the application of provisions in part 9, including clause 235. The upshot was the tabling of amendments that effectively render clauses 4, 5 and 6(3) redundant. Protection from unwarranted disclosure will now be provided in part 9. That will achieve the consistency throughout the Bill that Opposition Members—particularly the hon. Member for Eastbourne—wanted and which we agreed would be beneficial.
      Amendment No. 223 seeks to tighten the definition of a consumer code of practice, and to ensure that the widest possible range of organisations can act as code sponsors. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), sadly, could not be with us in Committee—not everyone had that honour—but we all agreed then that the amendment would be helpful in giving the OFT clear powers to implement its new codes of practice regime, whose purpose was to help consumers to find reliable businesses. It was, I think, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) who described this as an "enterprise regulation Bill". I trust that "regulation" in this context would include an element of
      1054
      self-regulation, for here we see an element that is not entirely to do with regulation in the classic sense, but which is much more akin to self-regulation.
      The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) noted that as drafted the clause would allow guidance-only codes to be approved. That was not our intention. The clause has been redrafted to make it clear that only codes regulating the behaviour of those signed up to them will be approved. To be approved, a code will have to comply with the OFT's criteria, which do indeed regulate the behaviour of members. Consumers will have the reassurance of knowing that if there is a problem, it can be put right: to obtain OFT approval, a code must contain mechanisms for both redress and compliance. Problems will be resolved, and failure to comply with the code will be dealt with.
      We removed the words "relevant association" in case that was construed as limiting sponsors to trade associations. I know that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire is a great fan of trade associations, but we wanted to ensure that the widest possible range of organisations would be able to act as sponsors. They might include local authority trading standards departments with good-trader schemes, or owners of shopping centres who had signed up their tenants to a code of practice.
      Trade associations' redress systems will have to be transparent and compliant to meet the OFT's criteria. The whole system is voluntary. The OFT will publish criteria with which sponsors must comply to seek approval. It will all be spelled out. There has already been some consultation, in which I think the CBI has been involved.
      As I said, we are not dealing with just lead trade associations. We wanted the arrangement to be as open as possible, to ensure that there were plenty of methods of entry for small businesses, which might not be members of the smaller associations. The most important thing is for organisations to meet the criteria, so that consumers have the protection that they expect from compliance with the code. Businesses will not have to belong to a trade association and pay for a full range of services to gain the right to use the logo.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Page: I did not mean my remarks to apply exclusively to trade associations as such, but is there not a danger that if every small organisation—I will not say "whipstitch organisation"—qualifies, the logo will be devalued? Moreover, such organisations will not have the back-up and the managerial strength to provide the various required protections for consumer complaints. Organisations will have to be of a certain size to have any credibility in this regard.
      Miss Johnson: Whoever fulfils the role will have to meet the same criteria. Obviously, that will be an issue if an organisation is too small to do so effectively, but there are a range of code sponsors that may not be small, but are not necessarily trade associations. I have mentioned local authorities, chambers of commerce and shopping centres, but registered charities could also be involved. It is not necessarily a question of scale.
      What is important at the end of the day is that consumers get what they expect from the logo and the code. We believe that clause 8 will give the OFT the

      1055
      power that it needs to run the codes regime in the way that it envisaged in its original consultation document, issued in February 2001.
      New clause 3, as we know, concerns fines. I will not go into detail, but, like Opposition Members, I am keen to encourage projects or activities that benefit consumers, and clause 267 already allows the Secretary of State to do that. The consumer grants fund that it will establish could be used to give financial assistance to projects in areas where a general class of consumers has suffered harm—I gave examples in Committee—but where it is not possible for all the individual consumers concerned to be identified or to seek redress.
      In that sense, clause 267 surely has a wider application than the new clause, which I think is sensible. Although one of our priorities will be to fund projects relating to the markets in which the OFT has established a breach of competition rule, the clause will ensure consideration of financial assistance for a wide range of products or other work that would benefit consumers. That will not be confined to consumers who have suffered from anticompetitive practices for which fines have been imposed under the Competition Act 1998; it will benefit consumers more widely, and will ensure that a more strategic view is taken, both of consumer issues that need to be addressed and of the funding available.
      As was said in Committee, fines are by their nature unpredictable in terms of both timing and amount. Consumer benefits linked to them would also be erratic and unpredictable. Furthermore, fines can be imposed under the Competition Act only when the undertaking concerned has acted intentionally or negligently. Although such cases will frequently be those in which most damage is done to consumers, harm might also be done in other cases.
      All that is, of course, in addition to our continuing ability to fund bodies such as the National Consumer Council which promote the interests of consumers.
      For the reasons that I have given, I believe that clause 267 as drafted is better for consumers than the new clause and, indeed, makes it unnecessary.
      Mr. Waterson: I take the Under-Secretary's point about the income stream from the source. However, is it not part of the point that the use of the money should be linked to the reasons for the fines? Will she confirm that if we do not act, the fines will simply disappear into the public purse?
      Miss Johnson: There is no question of the fines disappearing into the public purse. They will be used for the projects and activities that I described.
      Amendment No. 3 would require the OFT to produce a regulatory impact assessment every year. I do not have sympathy with the amendment because we could end up with regulatory impact assessments of every Act. That is a heavy bureaucratic burden. The OFT already has to consider the effects of its actions on business and it is therefore inappropriate and unnecessary to require it to quantify those effects in its annual report. We have a regulatory impact assessment of the Bill; we could argue about the detail if hon. Members wish. However, the OFT is not a legislative body and it will exercise only the
      1056
      powers that Parliament grants it. All the legislation that it enforces has been approved here and accompanied by an initial regulatory impact assessment. Now is the appropriate time to consider the additional costs that the new measure will impose.
      There are statutory checks on the use of all the OFT's powers. For example, it cannot make a market reference unless it has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the reference criteria are satisfied. I expect that the OFT will not use its powers without good reason. The Bill increases its accountability in the system at all levels.
      As I said when we considered Government amendments Nos. 156 and 157, amendments Nos. 6 and 8 have been overtaken by the deletion of clauses 4(5) and 6(3). We have therefore already dealt with those matters.
      Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 cover the time allowed for the OFT to respond to super-complaints. The issue is whether 60 or 90 days are sufficient. The Opposition support the former and the Government the latter. There is not much meat in the argument, but I stick to my belief that a period of 90 days is right. We want to ensure that the OFT has sufficient time to consider super-complaints. If there is a case to answer, business will need to formulate a response and the OFT will need time to complete its analysis.
      We believe that 90 days is the right period. However, if experience shows that super-complaints can be tackled properly in less than 90 days, the Secretary of State can curtail the statutory time scale by using the powers in clause 11(4). We should start with a time scale of 90 days and ascertain what happens. Amendment No. 11 would delete clause 11(4). As I said earlier, the flexibility should remain, so we cannot support the amendment.
      Let us consider the points that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made. He tabled amendments about producers and producer interests, which we recall from discussions in Committee. Amendment No. 210 seeks to ensure that the OFT makes the public aware of the ways in which competition may benefit producers as well as consumers and the economy, by providing advice and information.
      Clause 6 gives the OFT the function of promoting to the public the benefits of competition for consumers and the economy. That reference to the economy already covers any relevant, if not all, producer interests. Indeed, producers are also consumers and both sets of interests need to be balanced, as my hon. Friend acknowledged. I therefore do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to specify producer interests in the clause.
      The emphasis on consumers is surely right. Consumers are often unaware of the importance of competition for lower prices, higher quality and greater choice. Strengthening consumer knowledge of the benefits of competition, which strengthens the consumer voice, has a key role in improving economic performance.
      Amendments Nos. 211 to 216 seek to widen the definition of a code of practice to include bodies that safeguard or promote the interests of producers, such as trade unions or business groups. That would allow such codes to be submitted to the OFT for approval under the new codes of practice regime. If the definition were widened, it would be outside of the scope of the scheme as set out by the OFT in its consultation paper. Its focus is solely on business-to-consumer codes of practice.

      1057
      I do not suggest that there is no room for codes that protect producers, and there are almost certainly several perfectly good business-to-business and business-to-producer codes that benefit those involved. There is no reason for the codes not to follow best practice by making use of the OFT's criteria, if appropriate. However, the codes would not be eligible for OFT approval under the Bill.
      Again, that is because we intend to help consumers find reliable businesses. Consumers do not always have access to sufficient data about businesses to make an informed choice. Often, they do not have the knowledge and experience to help them choose, for example, a reliable garage for car repairs. Producers such as trade unions or business groups are clearly more able to find good traders and better deals. That is why the scheme is limited to consumer codes.
      Amendments Nos. 218, 220 and 221 would permit producer bodies such as trade unions, as well as designated consumer bodies, to submit super-complaints. Amendments Nos. 219 and 222 would enable super-complaints to be made about market features that harm, or appear to be harming, the interests of producers, who are defined in the measure.
      We have made it clear that we view the Bill as a measure for consumers, and the focus on their interests benefits everybody. After all, we are all consumers, and companies that respond to consumers' needs are successful. That is to the advantage of the people who work in those businesses and the long-term viability of the businesses. To that extent, the Bill articulates the same values as my hon. Friend's amendments.
      Mr. Mark Field: The Under-Secretary rightly points out that we are all consumers. However, we must remember that that is so because we have successful businesses. We want them to thrive, which is why we tabled our amendments. Clearly, we must get the balance right, but we all rely on a thriving and successful business sector.
      Miss Johnson: The Government recognise the importance of a thriving business sector, which is the basis for our economic prosperity. Indeed, everything flows from that. Money for public services ultimately derives from that prosperity.
      The intention of the super-complaints provision is to alert the OFF to market failures that significantly harm the interests of consumers. Individual consumers are unlikely to have access to that information, or the relevant resources or skills to formulate complaints. The aim is to enable consumer bodies to do that on their behalf. The procedure is designed to benefit consumers, and will therefore be available only to designated consumer bodies. Producer bodies do not have as their principal raison d'etre the protection of consumer interests. Producer bodies can already put complaints about market failure or other issues to the OFT, and nothing in the Bill prevents them from continuing to do so.
      I want to speak about section 12 of the Fair Trading Act 1973. Amendment No. 217 would preserve that provision. The provisions relating to the consumer protection advisory committee will become superfluous because clause 10 abolishes it. As an independent body, the OFT should be free to set its own priorities in the new regime. The existence of the powers of direction under the Fair Trading Act could inhibit that freedom.
      1058
      The amendment would change the intended functions of the OFT and would, in some cases, impose unnecessary burdens and constraints on it. I do not think that there would be a benefit to consumers, businesses or producers, and I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire will not press his amendment to a vote.
      4 pm
      Regarding my earlier answer to the hon. Member for Eastbourne on fines, I want to clarify the fact that the fines will go into the Consolidated Fund, so they will be in the public purse, but the money from the new consumer grants fund will be used for the projects that I described. That concludes my remarks on the amendments in this group.
      Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the trouble that she has taken to provide that explanation. I am pleased, not least because one of our concerns is being dealt with in a different part of the Bill; that seems to make sense. I do not want to prolong the debate about 60 days versus 90 days. We have probably beaten that argument to death, one way or another.
      I was pleased that the Minister corrected what she had said earlier about fines. It is clear from the Bill that there is no mechanism for those fines to be diverted towards something useful for consumers, and that they will just go the way of all fines—that is, they will, as she has just confirmed, disappear into the Consolidated Fund.
      I made it clear that we welcome the separate provision for funding for consumer information and so on, but it seems to us—alarmingly, perhaps, the Liberal Democrats seem to take a similar view—that it would be rough justice if the money could be directed towards consumers when fines were imposed. Diverting fines in that way would be particularly appropriate in cases of fines being imposed because of a particular practice or set of practices in which it was impossible to identify those who had been harmed. We therefore remain disappointed by the Minister's approach to the matter. We seem to have gone round in an enormous circle, having debated it more than once.
      On business costs, I simply do not understand the problem. It would be a modest but necessary discipline on the new system if, once a year, or whatever, the Government were required to make an assessment of the costs to business of what they were doing. Otherwise, there would be no mechanism by which they could make a cost-benefit analysis of their activities. This is a modest proposal. It is all very well for the Minister to say that we would end up with regulatory impact assessments of every piece of legislation every year. If the legislation impacts directly on business, what would be wrong with that? We cannot keep on churning out pages and pages of legislation that affect business and add to its costs, without giving some thought to what it is costing the business community.
      We are disappointed by the Minister's response on both those issues, but I shall not press the new clause to a Division. The matters should be further debated in another place, and I am sure that they will be. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 1

      THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING
      Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 186, line 19, at end insert—
      '(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to any document which is, or is to be, signed in accordance with the law of Scotland.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 90, 246, 247, 162 to 164, 284, 287 to 295, 185 to 187, 321, 322, 356 to 370, 98, 323, 188 to 190, 301, 135, 136, 192, 193, 302, 194, 137, 191, 303, 138 and 139.
      Miss Johnson: This is a big group of Government amendments, and I do not propose to speak to all of them. They are minor or consequential, and cover several different areas. I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 321, 322, 356, 357, 359, 360 to 369 and 370.
      I place on record our thanks to the City of London Law Society for its help and support in developing these exemption provisions. This is a very technical and specialised area, and, on behalf of the Department and the Government, I thank members of the society for giving so generously of their time and expertise in meeting officials and commenting on the drafting of the clauses. The amendments clarify and bring greater certainty to the exemption provisions. I shall be happy to answer any questions that hon. Members may have on the other amendments. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4
      ANNUAL AND OTHER REPORTS
      Amendment made: No. 156, in page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (5).—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
    Clause 6
      PROVISION OF INFORMATION ETC. TO THE PUBLIC
      Amendment made: No. 157, in page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (3).—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
    Clause 8

      PROMOTING GOOD CONSUMER PRACTICE
      Amendment made: No. 223, in page 3, line 37, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
      '(2) In carrying out that function the OFT may (without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)) make arrangements for approving consumer codes and may, in accordance with the arrangements, give its approval to or withdraw its approval from any consumer code.
      (3) Any such arrangements must specify the criteria to be applied by the OFT in determining whether to give approval to or withdraw approval from a consumer code.
      (4) Any such arrangements may in particular—

      (a) specify descriptions of consumer code which may be the subject of an application to the OFT for approval (and any such description may be framed by reference to any feature of a consumer code, including the persons who are, or are to be, subject to the code, the manner in which it is, or is to be, operated and the persons responsible for its operation); and

      1060

      (b) provide for the use in accordance with the arrangements of an official symbol intended to signify that a consumer code is approved by the OFT.

      (5) The OFT shall publish any arrangements under subsection (2) in such manner it considers appropriate.
      (6) In this section "consumer code" means a code of practice or other document (however described) intended, with a view to safeguarding or promoting the interests of consumers, to regulate by any means the conduct of persons engaged in the supply of goods or services to consumers (or the conduct of their employees or representatives).'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

    Clause 12

      THE COMPETITION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
      Mr. Lansley: I beg to move amendment No. 147, in page 6, line 5, leave out "Secretary' of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 158.
      Amendment No. 148, in schedule 2, page 188, line 12, at end insert—
      '(1A) A person is not eligible for appointment as an ordinary member unless he appears to the Lord Chancellor to have appropriate experience and knowledge (whether of competition law and practice, other relevant law and practice, economic and business practice, or experience in relation to any sector of industry to which the Competition Appeal Tribunal exercises an appellate function'.
      Government amendments Nos. 169 to 181.
      Amendment No. 311, in clause 17, page 7, line 39, leave out "that" and insert "as to whether".
      Amendment No. 312, in page 8, line 1, leave out "that" and insert "as to whether".
      Amendment No. 313, in page 8, line 3, leave out "that" and insert "as to whether".
      Amendment No. 314, in page 8, line 4, leave out "that" and insert "as to whether".
      Government amendments Nos. 372, 159, 182 to 184, 252 to 255, 160 and 161.
      Amendment No. 315, in clause 116, page 82 leave out lines 25 to 34 and insert—
      '(5A) The Competition Appeal Tribunal may confirm or set aside the decision which is the subject of the appeal and may—

      (a) remit the matter to the OFT, the Secretary of State or the Competition Commission as the case might be ("the original decision maker");

      (b) cancel or vary any conditions or obligations imposed by the original decision maker;

      (c) give such directions or take such steps as the original decision maker could have made;

      (d) make any other decision which the original decision maker could have made.'.

      Government amendments Nos. 256, 257, 296 and 297.
      Mr. Lansley: This group of amendments relates to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. There are 29 Government amendments, which I am sure the Minister will tell us about in due course. I want to speak to amendments Nos. 147 and 148, tabled in my name, and I shall also refer to our amendments Nos. 311 to 314 and 315.

      1061
      The purpose of amendment No. 147 is to change the responsibility for the appointment of ordinary members of the Competition Appeal Tribunal's panel. Hon. Members will recall that the tribunal was established under the Competition Act 1998, and consists of a president, a panel of chairmen and ordinary members. The ordinary members are appointed by the Secretary of State, as distinct from the Lord Chancellor, who is responsible for the appointment of the president and the panel of chairmen; that is carried forward into this Bill. The president and the panel of chairmen have responsibility not only for having competition law expertise but for ensuring that the tribunal behaves in a way that is consistent with the way in which a court would consider similar decisions.
      As the Government have constructed the legislation, the Competition Appeal Tribunal indeed has to behave like a court in some respects, in that it applies the principles of judicial review to appeals that are made to it. It is, therefore, necessary for it to have legal expertise. For that reason, if for no other, appointment by the Lord Chancellor is to be sought after.
      There is, however, a particular reason why I propose that the Lord Chancellor should also be responsible for appointing the ordinary members. Under the Competition Act, it was correctly felt that the ordinary members could be appointed by the Secretary of State because they would bring the additional expertise necessary to examine appeals on their merits, on issues relating to anti-competitive agreements or abuses of a dominant position. The cases brought before the tribunal demonstrate that experience not only of competition law but of economic analysis of competition is necessary to reach decisions on those issues. I shall come to appropriate expertise when I speak to amendment No. 148.
      Other things being equal, the Secretary of State could continue to appoint the ordinary members of the tribunal, in relation to decisions on the Competition Act, without arty problems. That is because the decisions that are appealable to the Competition Appeal Tribunal under the Competition Act come from decisions made by the Office of Fair Trading. Under the Bill, however, the decisions will not necessarily be made by the Office of Fair Trading or the Competition Commission. In certain circumstances, they will be made by the Secretary of State. Of course, under the Fair Trading Act 1973, such decisions used to be appealable to the High Court, so a judge would be responsible for assessing judicial review decisions made by the Secretary of State. However, the Government propose in the Bill that decisions made on judicial review grounds be appealed to a body whose members are appointed by the Secretary of State.
      My primary contention in speaking to amendment No. 147 is that that is an unacceptable infringement of the proper independence of the tribunal in exercising its function. Indeed, such an independent and impartial tribunal is required by article 6 of the European convention on human rights. However, we could arrive at circumstances in which a decision made by the Secretary of State is appealed on judicial review grounds, but in which one of the members of the body to which it is referred is about to be reappointed—or not—by the Secretary of State. By the simple expedient of making the Lord Chancellor rather than the Secretary of State
      1062
      responsible for such appointments, we can escape that problem, so I commend the amendment to the Minister's consideration.
      Amendment No. 148 is designed to extend the description of the experience that ordinary members of the Competition Appeal Tribunal should have. My reason for tabling the amendment is that it is clear that the tribunal will not only be asked to consider judicial review decisions, but be used as a body under sector-specific legislation. For those who care to look, schedule 9 gives a range of examples in which that arrangement will apply. The decisions that will be made by sector regulators, especially in respect of licence conditions, are not simply legal decisions, but relevant to economic analysis and require business experience.
      That point was further brought home to me when it became clear that in the draft Communications Bill that is being scrutinised elsewhere—I am a member of its scrutiny committee—the Government intend that the Competition Appeal Tribunal be the body to which decisions made by the Secretary of State or the Office of Communications will be appealed. Those decisions will be substantive and not made simply on a judicial review basis, so general legal expertise and competition law expertise will not be sufficient for the panel in dealing with them.
      To make the Bill more effective in terms of the availability of opportunities for appeals to be heard in respect of sector regulators' decisions on licence conditions, my second submission on amendment No. 148 is that the Minister should think seriously about extending the sort of business and economic analysis experience that panel members of the Competition Appeal Tribunal can bring to bear.
      I want briefly to refer to amendments Nos. 311 to 314. The amendments deal with clause 17, which amends the Competition Act, and are intended to ensure that the question whether a claim for damages might be brought to the tribunal is determined not by whether the OFT has decided
      "that … the prohibition has been infringed",
      but by whether it has made a decision "as to whether" it has been infringed. The amendments do not stem only from the fertile imaginations of Opposition Members, but derive from the recommendations of the Joint Working Party on Competition Law of the Bars and Law Societies of the United Kingdom.
      4.15 pm
      As I understand it—I apologise if I have misunderstood the joint working party—the purpose of the provisions as things stand is that a court can entertain an application for damages by a private party in respect of infringements or argued infringements of the anti-competitive agreements or in relation to prohibitions on abuse of a dominant position. The current structure of the Bill would mean that where the OFT has decided that such an infringement existed, an application for an award of damages would go to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. However, the concern is that those who wish to argue that there is an infringement by which harm has arisen and for which damages may be claimed could still go to the court to make a private claim.
      For my purposes, I will be made comfortable if the Minister can assure me that it would not be possible for a further claim to be made when the OFT decides that such

      1063
      an infringement has not been made. If it is possible for the matter to be taken to the court when the OFT has decided that there is no infringement and has not proceeded, that will be an additional jeopardy. It is that jeopardy that the amendments are designed to remove, so that the issue rests with the competition authorities and the Competition Appeal Tribunal, as I think the Government would have intended.
      Amendment No. 315 is intended to test the issue. Its purpose, which is to make decisions on merger references appealable to the Competition Appeal Tribunal on their merits, seems on the face of it to be a step too far. However, it is important to test the Minister out, especially as I do not think that that happened in quite the same terms in Committee. The question is whether the decision by the OFT on making a merger reference is sufficient for the subsequent investigation by the Competition Commission, which is usually the determining body in this regard, to be regarded as a full appeal by an independent and impartial tribunal. I think that the answer to that question is yes in terms of mergers, but for reasons that I shall come to in speaking to a later group of amendments, I think the answer is no in so far as market investigations are concerned.
      If the Minister can further assure us that the Competition Commission is the appeal body for such purposes—the independent and impartial tribunal that is needed for appeal against a substantive decision on a merger reference by the OFT—we will be sure that we have the two-stage process that is necessary to give proper reassurance to those who are affected by competition decisions.
      Dr. Vincent Cable: I should like to say a few words in support of proposals that seem sensible and constructive. I am not a lawyer either and I take my cue from the Law Society, but it seems to me that some perfectly justifiable points are being raised. In particular, I refer to amendment No. 315. I think that the question that is being asked—it has been put slightly differently from the way in which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has put it—is about why there is a difference between the ways in which the Competition Act and the Bill work. As I understand it, the Competition Act allows a full and substantive appeal to be made on the basis of the merits involved, but the judicial review process for which the Bill provides is much more truncated. It is not obvious why the two matters should be dealt with somewhat differently, and the amendment is designed to provide not only a stronger process of appeal, but some consistency between the two measures. It would be useful to hear from the Minister the reasons why that difference is being maintained.
      Miss Melanie Johnson: The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has already covered the aims of amendments Nos. 147 and 148. On the first point, which is that the amendments would ensure that the Lord Chancellor would make all the appointments, as I explained in Committee, we are happy with the division of responsibilities that we envisage for the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State. I thought that the hon. Gentleman shot his own foot somewhat by pointing out that there would be a difference between the role of
      1064
      the chairman and president and that of the other appointees to the tribunal, as those on the panel of chairmen would have to understand what was consistent and behave as if the tribunal were a court. The tribunal is indeed a court, and it therefore makes sense that the people who are appointed have explicit qualifications. The Lord Chancellor obviously has an expertise that is at a premium in considering such questions. We believe that his involvement in those cases should ensure that we attract candidates of the highest calibre to be chairmen.
      However, we believe that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is best placed to identify and select candidates with the necessary blend and breadth of experience and background to constitute ordinary members. They will not have to carry out legal roles, nor will they require legal qualifications. Such members will not necessarily be bringing specific legal expertise, but they will be expected to have expertise relevant to competition. They could be drawn from a wide range of backgrounds. The background could be legal but it could also be in economics, business, accountancy or other areas. For that reason, we believe that the right balance has been struck.
      There are already measures in place to ensure that the ordinary members, chairmen and president can carry out their duties without any external influence being brought to bear. We have strengthened these measures. The only grounds for removing any member from office will he incapacity or misbehaviour. The scenario that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire entertained briefly of a member being removed is not an issue. Also, members and chairmen will be appointed for one eight-year term with no reappointment. Previously, members were appointed for shorter terms and then reappointed, so the break that the hon. Gentleman referred to did exist.
      These safeguards, and others, will ensure the integrity of the tribunal's decisions. The division of responsibilities offers the best prospect of securing the required level of legal and other expertise on the tribunal.
      On the second issue, we share the desire of the hon. Gentleman—if we have understood the intention of his amendment correctly; there appears to be a negative too many—to attract ordinary members with relevant expertise. We made a commitment in the White Paper that all members should have expertise relevant to competition. However, we have deliberately not included a specific requirement in the Bill because of the difficulties in formulating such a requirement. That is a very different situation from that for the legally qualified chairmen and president, whom we require to have experience of competition law and practice. That concept is relatively easy to define.
      "Expertise relevant to competition" is much broader, and could come from working in business or from having an accountancy background, for example. We need to keep our options open if we are to attract members of the calibre required, and particularly if we want to attract candidates from diverse backgrounds and from all areas of the UK. The problems of definition do not arise here, as they did in the case of those who needed experience of competition law and practice. It is for that reason that we have made the change. I am entirely sympathetic to the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
      The amendment represents the sentiment of what we are trying to achieve, but it is not necessary to require it in the Bill. We could risk excluding potentially very good

      1065
      candidates if we were to do so. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, recognising that the needs are being met.
      Amendment No. 315 seeks to give parties a right to review the substance of any decision that is taken. The subject of what could constitute the appropriate grounds for review of a decision following a merger or market investigation was discussed in Committee. As I explained then, the Bill provides for parties who are aggrieved by decisions to have them reviewed by the CAT on the same grounds as would be applied by the courts on the application for judicial review. That is the situation under the Fair Trading Act at present, where decisions of the Secretary of State are open to challenge on judicial review grounds.
      We continue to believe that judicial review is the right jurisdiction for appeals against decisions taken in merger investigations. That type of review by the CAT will ensure that the procedures followed by the authorities are fair and that the parties are given the opportunity to put their case. It will allow the CAT to re-examine any decision taken by the authorities to assess whether it is reasonable.
      No merger is prohibited by law from the outset. It is for the authorities to decide case by case whether any merger will lead to a substantial lessening of competition and what steps should be taken to remedy that in each case. That could mean outright prohibition, or imposing conditions as the price of clearance.
      Decisions will be based on an analysis of individual cases on their specific facts and an economic analysis of those facts by the authorities, acting in accordance with their statutory duties. They will not be evaluated against a defined prohibition by reference to an existing body of substantive competition law and jurisprudence, as would be the case with decisions under the Competition Act 1998.
      A considerable amount of discretion needs to be exercised. It would be difficult for the CAT to assess whether the decision that has been made is right or wrong in objective terms. In this context, we clearly need to ensure that the process followed by the authorities was fair and that the parties were given the opportunity to put their case. A judicial review type of appeal is therefore appropriate.
      Such a review by the CAT will also allow decisions to be assessed more quickly than would a full appeal on its merits. We consider that resolving these disputes quickly is particularly important in a merger situation where the market environment may be changing rapidly. The mechanism for challenging decisions made in relation to merger investigation references needs to ensure that the process followed by the authorities in a merger investigation is fair and that the parties are given the opportunity to put their case.
      If, applying the principles of judicial review, the CAT considers the challenge to the decision is justified, the original decision maker can be asked to look at the decision again. We think that this is the most appropriate way to deal with the type of decision that will be made under these parts of the Bill.
      The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire asked about the Competition Commission, which is not an appeal body in the way that he envisages. The two bodies separately consider the issues involved in a case, but they
      1066
      do not formally consider an appeal. For both markets and mergers, we are happy that we have an overall structure that offers sufficient right of appeal. The combination of the Competition Commission and the CAT offers an opportunity for consideration of all the issues.
      In relation to damages, one could in principle go to court in a case where there was no infringement found, but the court would have to have regard to the result of the OFT's decision.
      Amendments Nos. 311 to 314 widen the basis on which claims for damages can be brought to the CAT by enabling claims to be brought where the OFT has found that there has not been an infringement of competition law. It is hard to envisage what basis there could possibly be for bringing a damages claim with respect to anti-competitive activity where it has been established that no infringement has occurred. As it stands, amendment No. 311 will not help those who have been harmed by anti-competitive activity to bring claims for damages, which is what I think the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
      With that. I hope that I can persuade the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Lansley: I am comforted by what the Minister said about the measures for trying to secure the independence of the CAT, and about amendment No. 147. On amendment No. 148, I agree that we are looking for the same kind of objective. Looking back at the Competition Act 1998, which is amended here, I should be interested in whether there was some way of reflecting more substantively the range of experience that is required by the CAT as it accumulates these additional responsibilities. I understand that one would not want to do so in a way that frustrated the ability to appoint people who appear to have different but highly desirable experience, but it seems to me not to be beyond the wit of Government to achieve that. I must confess that, previously, it seemed to me that the reference to experience of competition law and practice seemed rather narrow and that it would be better to try to widen it, if that could be done.
      4.30 pm
      I entirely understand the Minister's point about amendments Nos. 311 to 314. They could allow individuals to come to the tribunal in circumstances where the OFT decided that no infringement had occurred, but as she says, I doubt whether they would get very far. The question is, does that also mean that they would not get very far if they went to a court in such circumstances? She said that it is open to people to go to a court for a private action, but that the court would have to have regard to the OFT's decisions. Would it not be better to construct matters in such a way that people could not go to a separate court, but had instead to go to the tribunal? Given that the Government have created the tribunal as the appropriate body for hearing awards for damages, should it not also hear cases that could conceivably be brought in circumstances where an infringement had not been proved?
      If I may, I shall leave the issue of appeals to be judged on its merits. I intimated my view that the two-stage merger process—involving the OFT, the Competition Commission and judicial review through the Competition Appeal Tribunal—is sufficient. However, for reasons that

      1067
      I shall explain later, that is not necessarily true in respect of market investigations. With those points in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 14

      CONSTITUTION OF TRIBUNAL FOR PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS AND ITS DECISIONS
      Amendment made: No. 158, in page 6, line 31, at end insert—
      '( ) This section has effect subject to paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 (consequences of a member of the Tribunal being unable to continue after the proceedings have begun to be heard).'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

    Schedule 3

      THE COMPETITION SERVICE
      Amendment made: No. 90, in page 190, line 36, at end insert—
      '(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to any document which is, or is to be, signed in accordance with the law of Scotland.'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

    Schedule 4

      TRIBUNAL: PROCEDURE
      Amendments made: No. 169, in page 193, line 23, at end insert—
      '(4) The President shall make such arrangements for the publication of the decisions of the Tribunal as he considers appropriate.'.
      No. 170, in page 193, line 25, leave out from "Tribunal" to second "in" and insert—
      'is registered in England and Wales'.
      No. 171, in page 193, line 33, leave out "in Scotland awards damages" and insert "awards damages, costs or".
      No. 172, in page 193, line 38, leave out—
      'in England and Wales or Scotland'.
      No. 173, in page 194, line 3, leave out from "Tribunal" to "with" and insert—
      'may be enforced in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 174, in page 194, line 10, leave out from "enforcing" to end of line 11 and insert—
      'in Northern Ireland a decision to award damages, costs or expenses—'.
      No. 175, in page 194, line 12, leave out "or costs" and insert ", costs or expenses".
      No. 176, in page 194, line 15, leave out "or costs" and insert ", costs or expenses".
      No. 177, in page 194, line 20, leave out from "enforcing" to first "the" in line 21 and insert—
      'in Northern Ireland a direction given as a result of a decision of the Tribunal'.
      No. 178, in page 196, leave out lines 18 and 19.
      No. 179, in page 196, line 28, at end insert—
      '(1A) Tribunal rules may make provision enabling the Tribunal to refer any matter arising in any proceedings (other than a claim for damages under section 47A of the 1998 Act) back to the authority that made the decision to which the proceedings relate, if it appears that the matter has not been adequately investigated.'.
      No. 180, in page 196, leave out lines 37 to 39 and insert—
      '( ) Tribunal rules may make provision as to the consequences of a member of the Tribunal being unable to continue after part of any proceedings have been heard.
      ( ) The rules may allow the Tribunal to consist of the remaining members for the rest of the proceedings.
      ( ) The rules may enable the President, if it is the chairman of the Tribunal who is unable to continue—'.
      No. 181, in page 198, line 5, at end insert—
      '21A (1) Tribunal rules may make provision enabling the Tribunal to decide where to sit for the purposes of, or of any part of, any proceedings before it.
      (2) Tribunal rules may make provision enabling the Tribunal to decide that any proceedings before it are to be treated, for purposes connected with—

      (a) any appeal from a decision of the Tribunal made in those proceedings; and

      (b) any other matter connected with those proceedings,

      as proceedings in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland (regardless of the decision made for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)).

      >(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), Tribunal rules may provide for each claim for damages made or continued on behalf of an individual in proceedings under section 47B of the 1998 Act to he treated as separate proceedings.'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

    Clause 17

      DAMAGES
      Amendment made: No. 372, in page 8, line 32, at beginning insert—
      'Otherwise than with the permission of the Tribunal,'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

    Clause 18
      CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF CONSUMERS
      Amendment made: No. 159, in page 9, leave out lines 35 to 37.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
    Schedule 5

      PROCEEDINGS UNDER PART 1 OF THE 1998 ACT
      Amendments made: No. 182, in page 198, line 34, leave out—
      'Court of Appeal or the Court of Session'
      and insert "appropriate court".
      No. 183, in page 199, line 7, leave out from "or" to end of line 8 and insert "the appropriate court.
      (3) In this section "the appropriate court" means the Court of Appeal or, in the case of an appeal from Tribunal proceedings in Scotland, the Court of Session.".'.
      No. 184, in page 199, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert—
      '(b) sub-paragraph (3)(a) shall cease to have effect; and'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

    Clause 21

      DUTY TO MAKE REFERENCES IN RELATION TO COMPLETED MERGERS
      Mr. Waterson: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 11, line 7, leave out "shall" and insert "may at its discretion".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 19, in page 11, line 7, after "(3)", insert "have a discretion to".
      Amendment No. 21, in page 11, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert—
      'in the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 202, in page 11, line 11, after "competition", insert—
      'or substantial damage to the public interest'.
      Amendment No. 22, in page 11, line 12, at end insert—
      'or
      (c) the creation of that situation has operated, or may be expected to operate against the public interest.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 224 to 226.
      Amendment No. 20, in clause 32, page 19, line 34, leave out "shall" and insert "may at its discretion".
      Amendment No. 23, in page 19, line 38, leave out from "result" to end of line 40 and insert—
      'in the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition is likely to be significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 203, in page 19, line 39, after "competition", insert—
      'or substantial damage to the public interest'.
      Amendment No. 24, in page 19, line 40, at end insert—
      'or
      (c) the creation of that situation has operated, or may be expected to operate against the public interest.'.
      Amendment No. 56, in page 20, line 7, at end insert—
      'or
      (d) the enterprise which is the subject of the proposed merger will become insolvent within the immediate future; the market shares of the enterprise would in any event go to the acquiring party; and there is no less anticompetitive way of selling the company.'.
      Amendment No. 204, in clause 34, page 20, line 43, after "competition", insert—
      'or substantial damage to the public interest'.
      Amendment No. 25, in page 20, line 45, at end insert—
      'or
      (c) the creation of that situation has operated, or may be expected to operate against the public interest.'.
      Amendment No. 26, in page 21, line 3, leave out from "result" to "or" in line 25 and insert—
      'in the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may be significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 27, in page 21, line 8, leave out from "result" to end of line 10 and insert—
      'in the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may be significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      1070
      Amendment No. 28, in page 21, line 15, leave out from "preventing" to end of line 18 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 29, in page 21, line 20, leave out from "preventing" to "and" in line 23 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 30, in page 21, line 28, leave out from "practicable" to end of line 29 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 31, in clause 35, page 22, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 205, in page 22, line 5, after "competition", insert—
      'or substantial damage to the public interest'.
      Amendment No. 32, in page 22, line 6, at end insert—
      'or
      (c) the creation of that situation has operated, or may be expected to operate against the public interest.'.
      Amendment No. 33, in page 22, line 11, leave out from "preventing" to end of line 13 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 34, in page 22, line 15, leave out from "preventing" to "and" in line 17 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 35, in page 22, line 22, leave out from "practicable" to end of line 23 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Government amendment No. 227.
      Amendment No. 36, in clause 40, page 25, line 37, leave out from "prevent" to "and" in line 38 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 37, in page 25, line 40, leave out from second "from" to end of line 41 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 38, in page 26, line 1, leave out from "to" to end of line 2 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 57, in page 26, line 5, at end insert—
      '(6) In making a decision under subsection (2), the Commission may also have regard to whether the enterprise which is the subject of the proposed merger will become insolvent within the immediate

      1071
      future; the market shares of the enterprise would in any event go to the acquiring party; and there is no less anti-competitive way of selling the company.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 228, 230 and 231.
      Amendment No. 39, in clause 43, page 29, line 14, leave out from "in" to end of line 15 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 58, in page 29, line 28, at end insert—
      'or
      (g) the enterprise which is the subject of the proposed merger will become insolvent within the immediate future; the market shares of the enterprise would in any event go to the acquiring party; and there is no less anticompetitive way of selling the company.'.
      Amendment No. 40, in clause 44, page 30, line 7, leave out from first "of' to "the" in line 8 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 41, in page 30, line 15, leave out from "result" to end of line 16 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 42, in page 30, line 27, leave out from "result" to end of line 29 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 43, in page 30, line 33, leave out from first "of" to end of line 36 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 44, in page 30, line 41, leave out from "in" to end of line 43 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 45, in clause 46, page 32, line 8, leave out from "in" to "and" in line 9 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 46, in page 32, line 10, leave out from "any" to "the" in line 12 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 47, in page 32, line 25, leave out from "in" to "and" in line 27 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 48, in page 32, line 28, leave out from "any" to end of line 31 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      1072
      Amendment No. 49, in page 33, line 6, leave out from "be" to "it" in line 7 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 50, in page 33, line 11, leave out from "preventing" to end of line 14 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 51, in page 33, line 17, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 19 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 52, in page 33, line 26, leave out from "be)" to end of line 27 and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Amendment No. 59, in page 33, line 32, at end insert—
      '(10A) The Commission may also have regard to whether the enterprise which is the subject of the proposed merger will become insolvent within the immediate future; the market shares of the enterprise would in any event go to the acquiring party; and there is no less anti-competitive way of selling the company.'.
      Government amendment No. 237.
      Amendment No. 53, in clause 54, page 39, line 3, leave out "substantial lessening of competition" and insert—
      'the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services'.
      Government amendments Nos. 238 and 239.
      Amendment No. 54, in clause 70, page 51, line 5, leave out "substantial lessening of competition" and insert—
      'creating or strengthening a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced'.
      Amendment No. 55, in page 51, line 12, leave out—
      'substantial lessening of competition and any adverse effects resulting from it'
      and insert—
      'creating or strengthening a dominant position, as a result of which competition may have been significantly reduced'.
      Government amendments Nos. 248 to 251.
      Amendment No. 69, in clause 99, page 70, line 30, leave out Clause 99.
      Mr. Waterson: I shall set your mind at rest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by pointing out that this group of amendments is not as fearsome as it might first appear. I shall take the House through at least those amendments for which I claim some responsibility.
      Rather than imposing an obligation, amendments Nos. 18 to 20 would give the OFT the discretion to refer completed and anticipated mergers to the Competition Commission. The idea was debated in Committee on 25 April, but it was rejected by the Government on the basic ground that a broad discretion not to refer was appropriate where there is a two-stage referral process. However, as the Director General of Fair Trading would act alone on the basis of a more focused test, there would be less room for discretion. The Minister said that the new test should not result in a greater number of references. It is important to note that, broadly speaking—it is

      1073
      impossible to be wholly accurate on these matters—the Government's intention is that the number of references should not rise as a result of the provisions.
      However, we are not wholly convinced, which is why we have tabled similar amendments on Report. The Bill introduces a significant change of emphasis. Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Secretary of State had the discretion to decide whether or not to refer mergers, acting on the advice of the director general. Since October 2000, the director general's advice has normally been accepted. Taken together, the formulations set out in clauses 21 and 32 require a reference to be made in respect of proposed and completed mergers, except in certain limited circumstances.
      Lest anyone think that I am cleverer than I really am, the amendments were inspired by the joint working party of the Law Society and the Bar. [Interruption.] I am grateful that my comment has found favour with the Government Whip. It is therefore clear that concern exists outside this place that there will be almost routine or obligatory pre-clearance for mergers—a point that we made in Committee. It is fair to say that many parties already undertake such pre-clearance, but entirely at their own discretion. We—and others who are perhaps better placed to know—believe that a dramatic shift will take place. It will make practical sense for those who are contemplating a particular merger to obtain pre-clearance, which will in itself involve a major increase in applications.
      The Law Society and the Bar also pointed out that there was no consultation on this change of policy, which was not included in the White Paper. I think it fair to say—I have not checked the relevant editions of Hansard—that the Minister gave no reason for her assumption that the provisions will not result in an increase in references. We want to press her hard on that issue.
      The other issues—public interest, and the dominant position in terms of the test that should be applied in such cases—fall into two or three categories. You will be relieved to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many of the amendments in this group make the same point. We had a good debate on these issues in Committee, but some of the arguments bear repetition. Under the 1973 Act, the public interest test was established, and it is generally accepted that that needs revisiting. Some discussion took place in Committee on the merits of the dominance test—which is favoured by the Confederation of British Industry, for example—and what is known as the "substantial lessening of competition" test. One argument in favour of the dominance test is that it is the standard for assessing mergers under the EC regime. There is real concern that businesses operating in this country might face a stiffer test here than they would face under the European regime.
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) pointed out graphically that, during the Standing Committee that considered the Competition Act 1998, Ministers expressed the strong view that there should be no disparity between regimes operating in Europe and in this country. Although not the most significant example, it shows how our system is in danger of drifting away from the European one.
      1074
      I repeat the CBI's interesting quote concerning the Competition Act 1998:
      "The demarcation line between domestic and EU mergers is sometimes not clear cut, particularly in more complex transactions. As a result it would be fairer and more sensible for companies operating across the European Union to have to comply with one standard as opposed to two differing ones."
      That is an important point in principle, and an important point in practice. Like so many of these issues, having a different test—even a subtly different one—involves extra work and extra burdens for those who are trying to make businesses profitable. We do not resile, therefore, from our support for the amendments relating to the dominant position. I shall be interested to hear the Minister justify establishing a separate test from that operating in the European regime.
      The other issue, dealt with in amendments Nos. 56 to 59, is one that we tried to import into the Bill from the United States and, indeed, Europe. That is the so-called failing firm defence. In the US, for example, four things have to be shown: that the failing firm cannot meet its financial obligations; that it cannot reorganise itself in bankruptcy; that it cannot find another buyer whose purchase would pose lesser anti-competitive risks; and that in the absence of the merger its assets would exit the market.
      In the EU, we have had a fascinating discussion about the case of Kali-Salz/MDK/Treuhand, which is all about potash. In that case, the Commission set out three criteria: that the company would in any event go bankrupt in the immediate future; that the market share of that company would in any case go to the merging party; and that there was a no less anti-competitive way of selling the company. There is a slight difference in approach between the US and the EU tests, but that does not matter for our purposes, because we are trying to persuade the Minister that incorporating the so-called failing firm defence would be sensible.
      In fairness, the Minister has not launched a full frontal assault on our suggestion. To summarise, possibly unfairly, her reply to the discussion in Committee, she said that the prospects for a particular company would be taken into account in any event, so it was not necessary to spell that out. I do not wish to labour the point, but if such a defence is good enough for both the US and the EU regimes—albeit with slightly different tests applying—we should seriously consider including it in the Bill for application to our system.
      Amendment No. 69 would remove clause 99. Our problem with that clause is that it would give the Secretary of State extremely wide powers to modify clauses 94 to 98 on the mergers regime. The power is too broad and any significant change should be a matter for primary legislation. Again, our arguments did not find favour with the Minister in Committee, but I hope that we will have better luck on Report. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Barnes: I tabled amendments Nos. 202 to 205, which would place the issue of public interest back into the Bill. Amendments Nos. 304 and 305 in the next group also address that issue. The difference between the two sets is that the present ones relate to the director general of the OFT and the later ones relate to the position of the Secretary of State. My remarks about the public interest will relate to both sets of amendments, but I shall try to

      1075
      keep in order. I may not need to repeat my remarks when we come to the next group of amendments on the Secretary of State's role because I will have already addressed the issues in relation to the role of the director general.
      When the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) moved the amendments, he said that they were not fearsome. However, I hope that my amendments will be viewed as slightly fearsome, because I am very concerned about the issue. In Committee, I explained the problems in my constituency associated with the takeover and immediate closure of Biwater, and the loss of 700 jobs. The provisions in the Fair Trading Act 1973 would have allowed that takeover to be referred to the Competition Commission on the ground of public interest, and if that had been done by the OFT or the Secretary of State, it is likely that those jobs would still exist today and that a profitable and viable firm, with its export market, would still be in operation.
      4.45 pm
      Since that time, I have been interested in the provision in the 1973 Act that allows such reference and why it was not acted on in the Clay Cross case. I became aware that the DTI sought to remove the provision from the legislation through a consultative document and a later White Paper. I have always pressed for the provision to be retained.
      It is a modest measure. The Fair Trading Act 1973, which contains the provisions about the public interest, was introduced by the Heath Government. In 1973, I was fighting that Government on their housing finance legislation and ended up in court, with several other people, in relation to its abject provisions. It can be seen from that that I did not generally share the Heath Government's attitudes, but it is interesting that I am now seeking to defend a measure from that period against a worse proposal from this Government.
      Mr. Waterson: My first task as researcher to Sally Oppenheim, who was then the Member of Parliament for Gloucester, was to assist her in her work as a member of the Committee dealing with the housing finance legislation. It was a gruelling battle by any standards, but in those days the Opposition were allowed much more licence than they are now.
      Mr. Barnes: Perhaps some licence will be granted to the amendments before us now.
      The Fair Trading Act 1973 provides that the Secretary of State or the director general of the OFT may refer a merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which later became the Competition Commission, when it is in conflict with the public interest, which is defined to cover job losses, the loss of industry in an area, the loss of export trade and factory closures. The present Bill contains very limited provision on the public interest. Clause 57 contains an element of public interest, in that the Secretary of State may refer a bid on grounds of national security and can seek an order in the House for something that is as yet undefined but appears to be a sort of fall-back position for making a reference on the ground of public interest.
      1076
      The Opposition and their friends in the CBI are running worried about clause 57, because they think that it could release all sorts of hobgoblins and create huge difficulties. The TUC and many others think that the problem is that clause 57 is just dead words. It does not mean anything and we cannot envisage any circumstances in which the provision would be used. We cannot persuade the Minister to give us any theoretical examples of the circumstances in which it would be used, so we cannot tell whether it is possible that it could be used to defend the interests of the trade unions in any way in the future.
      In 1973, when the Fair Trading Act was passed, Labour was in opposition and it adopted the position that the TUC has adopted now on this issue. The Labour party wanted the public interest provisions to be extended; it did not want their virtual removal, which is the position with this Bill.
      Things were somewhat different in those days. Tony Benn was shadow Secretary of State for Industry. An interesting debate took place in Standing Committee, where some interesting people moved amendments to improve and strengthen the public interest provisions. They included Bruce Millan, the then Opposition spokesman on industry and aviation, who later became a Commissioner in Europe, and the late John Golding—the Library tells me that he was then an Opposition Whip, in which case I am not sure why he was tabling amendments, but he was certainly associated with the Labour Front-Bench team. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was the industry spokesperson. They all had some interesting things to say about extending the public interest. The logic of their position would be to be aghast that we are now virtually ridding ourselves of any concern about the public interest, apart from matters of national security.
      In Standing Committee B on 3 April 1973, Bruce Millan, opposing the Heath Government, introduced an amendment that would strengthen the resolve of the Fair Trading Bill. He said:
      "If the amendment were accepted, it would slow down mergers to some extent. This is one of the purposes of the amendment, and I want to make that explicit. If people involved in mergers had to prove positive good, the number of mergers going through would be reduced. That would be a good thing. I am not in favour of mergers going through unless it can be demonstrated that there is some public good arising."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 3 April 1973; c. 1078.]
      Certainly, the merger that took place in Clay Cross was in every way contrary to the public interest and the public good. It is to the detriment of the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that he did not refer that matter to the Competition Commission—nor did the Office of Fair Trading do so.
      In my amendments I am asking the OFT to use these provisions, hopefully in the spirit of the 1973 legislation, and not to ignore them. In the case of Biwater, the report that was issued to the Secretary of State, which said that it was okay for the takeover by Saint Gobain in France to take place, did not reveal that the Director General of Fair Trading knew that the plant would close. In fact, when I raised that matter with the Department of Trade and Industry in the House, I was told that it did not need to know that and that it was not a material consideration. It was certainly a material consideration to the people in Clay Cross and the surrounding area, where 700 people within a five-mile radius lost their jobs. Often, they were

      1077
      mature workers and it was very difficult for them to find any other reasonably paid employment. When Bruce Millan was speaking in 1973, the Labour party was aware of such concerns.
      The late John Golding also tabled amendments to the 1973 legislation. He was not known as a left winger in the Labour party. He would in many ways seek out the left and try to contain its activities. However, we are now past that stage. The Enterprise Bill is the avenue through which we are trying to get the economy moving—to produce the dynamic economy and the free markets that are associated with it—and it follows a somewhat different pattern from the one with which many of us would normally be associated.
      After the Minister had replied to John Golding, the latter replied:
      "The Minister is insensitive to the impact of mergers on the lives of these people. He is insensitive, too, in respect of the damage being done in industry at present."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 5 April 1973; c. 1098.]
      Much damage is being done to manufacturing industry now, some 29 years later. I hope that the present Minister is not insensitive to those concerns and will ensure that moves are made to establish means by which the public interest could be re-established in the Bill.
      At the Report stage of the 1973 legislation, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West introduced a measure similar to the one put forward by John Golding in the Standing Committee. My right hon. Friend pointed out:
      "when a merger takes place not only the shareholder is involved. Whereas the shareholder's risk is a financial one, it is not as absolute a financial risk as that of the worker, because the average shareholder spreads his holding over eight to 12 companies."
      I do not know what the figures are today, but a similar argument could be used. He continued:
      "That contrasts with the position of the worker in industry who, particularly if he is employed in one of the less-favoured areas of the country in employment tenns, finds that his loss is absolute, complete and, in far too many cases, permanent. The only capital that a worker has is his skill and his job. The more specific the skills of the firm in which he works and the smaller the locality, the less likely it is that he will find an alternative outlet for his investment in industry—namely, his training and his skill."—[Official Report, 17 May 1973; Vol.856, c. 1817.]
      As I said, that comment is certainly of great relevance to the case that brought these matters to my attention.
      The TUC and major trade unions feel that there should be provisions to take account of the public interest. I am suggesting, rather moderately, that we should merely return to the position held by Ted Heath in 1973. The left wing is now defending Selsdon man against the further extension of those powers in another direction.
      Mr. Waterson: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too carried away, does he agree that he and the Government are at one on the issue, even though they approach it from completely different directions? As we shall debate in more detail when we come to the next group of amendments, the Government seem to take the view that the public interest will have to be expanded and are trying to take the powers to do so, but they will not tell any of us what they have in mind.
      5 pm
      Mr. Barnes: I offered an answer earlier when I pointed out that the Conservatives and the CBI saw these provisions as hobgoblin arguments and believed that all sorts of evils would spring forth—as regards their interests—owing to the Secretary of State's ability to extend such powers by order, as a fallback position. However, that is not the same as the introduction of a specific enabling commitment, such as the one included in the 1973 legislation, for the Office of Fair Trading and the Secretary of State; it is certainly not as good as what the TUC really wants—a provision whereby action must be taken in the public interest in certain circumstances.
      Although the current proposals would sideline the 1973 legislation, the public interest provision has not been greatly used since the early 1980s. From Thatcher's time, that has been the policy of successive Governments. However, public interest concerns have crept through in some cases. It is difficult to define them because the Secretary of State or the Office of Fair Trading do not refer matters to the Competition Commission on public interest grounds A, B, C or D. They make a submission that argues which matters should be investigated, but it is not always easy to sort out whether those are the acceptable competition grounds to which the Government have referred or the unacceptable public interest considerations.
      Other bodies can take on board the public interest considerations. For example, when the MMC recommended blocking BSkyB's attempted takeover of Manchester United, it used a public interest argument as well as a couple of competition arguments. My research briefing notes:
      "Because it would tend to reinforce the wealth gap between weaker and stronger clubs, and to give BSkyB additional influence on League decision-making, the merger would have the adverse effect of damaging the quality of British football'."
      The last Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make direct use of the provision was my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), the present Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In 1997, she made a reference on public interest grounds in the PacifiCorp Energy Group plc case, where an energy supplier wanted to extend its operations in a particular sector. The MMC cleared the bid and found that it would not operate against the public interest, but the reference was made on those grounds and some interesting recommendations were made in the report in order to contain similar operations.
      A case in 1995 affected my constituency. Stagecoach Holdings plc attempted to take a 20 per cent. stake in Mainline Partnership Ltd. I have regular problems with both companies, especially with Stagecoach whose buses do not turn up, or are late, or miss stops. Public inquiries were held in Mansfield and Chesterfield about aspects of its provision, including, in the Mansfield area, the collapse of certain buses which were towed away on the orders of the traffic inspector.
      In that case, although the commission did not rule against the 20 per cent. stake holding, it said that it should not be extended. My research briefing notes:
      "Arguably, this is an example of a non-competition element influencing the public interest test, albeit through its effect on competition."
      As I pointed out earlier, there are avenues that can be used.

      1079
      Further back, there are other examples. In 1988, a reference was made when the Government of Kuwait attempted to take over British Petroleum Co. plc. There was also a reference in 1982 when the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation attempted to take over the Royal Bank of Scotland.
      The measures may not have been used as they should, but that does not mean that they did not exist. They existed so that people could put pressure on their elected representatives and Governments to gain responses for their concerns.
      The current political climate may be against those matters being dealt with, and the attitude that existed in the Biwater case may persist, but the climate can at least change, circumstances can alter and different pressures can be applied if the measure is in place.
      The Government should be concerned with those issues, but they claim that it is very good that they are now at arm's length from them because of the measure; it keeps them out of things. However, the measure keeps the democratic process, argument and pressure away from involvement. Of course the Government should not manoeuvre, fiddle, spin and do the things that people claim they do to get their way; they should act openly and we should be able to see what is taking place.
      The Government should act openly and be subject to representation and pressure from organisations. The democratic process involves not just voting at elections, but people being mobilised and organised and having rights to represent their sets of views and ideas, and the pressure group system is supposed to be part of the democratic process.
      So the public interest argument has been used in various arenas, and we need to try to preserve it in the future. Even though we could ideally do with such a measure now, I would be chancing it even more if I were to move amendments to try to improve things in the way that John Golding, Bruce Millan and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West did way back in 1973.
      I want to mention some of the support for my proposals in the trade union movement. In Committee and now on Report, the Bill has been dominated by dollops of representation and amendments from the CBI. Other amendments have come from the Consumers Association and other more acceptable avenues, but it seems as though we have just had to sit here, gritting our teeth, while all that has shot forward, normally in the shape of probing amendments, so that the CBI's view could be presented.
      We have heard nothing about the TUC's view. Perhaps the TUC and some of the major trade unions should have made a greater effort to ensure that members of the Standing Committee and other hon. Members, including Labour Members, were informed of such things. Perhaps, to an extent, that shows the way the balance of forces has altered in this country. The TUC felt it needed to make formal representations and to produce documents and reports; it was not going to try to stimulate a rebellion on the Back Benches of the Labour party, so some of us have had to try to do that ourselves on this occasion.
      1080
      In September 2001, the TUC produced a document in response to the White Paper that led to the Bill in which it discussed politicians' roles—the issue that I have been raising. It stated:
      "The TUC has concerns about removing Ministers from the decision-making process on mergers. While advice may usefully be given by those with expert knowledge, Ministers remain publicly accountable for their actions in a way that competition authorities are not. As argued above"—
      in its earlier arguments—
      "if the competition authorities are going to take greater responsibility for decisions on mergers and other aspects of competition policy, it is essential that their accountability is also enhanced.
      The White Paper states that Ministers will retain a role in relation to 'exceptional public interest' issues, but gives no guidance on the circumstances in which this might be appropriate. The TUC believes that it would be useful for the Government to promote a fuller discussion of what might constitute an exceptional public interest."
      We tried to promote such a discussion in Committee, but exceptional public interest is still something we know not—it will not speak its name to us.
      The general secretary of the TUC wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 20 March saying:
      "As you will be aware, the TUC has consistently argued that mergers and takeovers should be regulated to operate in the public interest, and that employment effects should be taken into account alongside the impact on competition when judging a bid."
      He then suggested amending the Bill to provide an avenue for written representations to be made in order that that door should be left open.
      The Secretary of State replied on 9 April, repeating the points about clause 57 to which I have referred, but offering nothing else. The letter indicated that the Government were moving in a different direction. I at least hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to say that there will be a response to the general secretary's suggestion through suitable amendments in the Lords.
      The argument is further pressed by Roger Lyons of the MSF section of Amicus. In its huge document on mergers, it expresses the need for ministerial answerability on these matters and for the ability to take things up. At a meeting in the House on 23 April, John Edmonds discussed these matters, and I have copies of statements of the GMB's position and its submission to the European Commission's Green Paper on merger matters.
      I have letters from Unifi on the subject. I quoted its General Secretary, Ed Sweeney, earlier. In his letter to the Financial Times, he says:
      "Unifi's concern is that no consideration will be given to the social' implications of mergers. Unifi believes that the consequences of mergers do sometimes need to he considered beyond the 'economic' and that the proposed reforms do not allow a mechanism for that consideration."
      I also have letters from Equity, the National Union of Journalists, the Prison Officers Association and the National Association of Educational Inspectors, Advisers and Consultants, which all stress similar points. So there is a strength of feeling in the trade union movement that there should be a response. It is only correct that that view should be expressed in this debate.
      Mr. Tony McWalter: My hon. Friend has not focused in his quite lengthy speech on what the consequences of incorporating the wording in the Bill might be. Although, with regard to the football analogy

      1081
      that he mentioned, I might accept that it is very boring that in Scottish football Celtic or Rangers always win, and that they have a virtual monopoly on all the trophies, I am not clear what the Government could do to arrange matters so that Scottish football became more interesting, or how other forms of dominance of various markets would be resisted in detail by my hon. Friend's amendment.
      Mr. Barnes: My amendment would not do what my hon. Friend seeks. We would need other amendments and legislation to do that. However, the BSkyB case was considered because of the implications of putting Manchester United at the centre of the market. That would have had an impact on other teams and their ability to survive. However, my amendment would not lead to the transfer of resources to assist people. We would need alternative measures to do that.
      5.15 pm
      My amendment relates to references to the Competition Commission by appropriate bodies, particularly by the OFT. It should be able to argue its case and Ministers should be able to consider cases such as the one that occurred in Clay Cross. They should be able to assess the masses of evidence coming to them and the alternative viewpoint that might be provided by the OFT. They should grasp the nettle and be prepared to say that certain cases would have an adverse impact on an area. They should allow the Competition Commission to consider such cases. It might not necessarily produce the answers that I want, but such avenues should be open.
      I know that the Government are worried about excessive intervention in the economy and about the dangers of knocking back competitive elements within it. However, surely, in an age of massive technological change in which we are moving forward to new types of industry, it is possible to approach the issue in as organised and as regulated a way as possible so that people's interests are protected as they develop new skills and are given new opportunities. We do not do that.
      My attention was drawn to the Bill by an anonymous letter that I received from the British Bankers Association. [Interruption.] I meant not an anonymous letter, but an internal memo that was sent to me anonymously. Someone said that I might be interested in what the Bill will do. Although the British Bankers Association later claimed that the memo was an elaborate hoax, it is so detailed that it does not appear to be one. It points out that the association's members should keep quiet about the issues until the Bill slips through the House. It suggested that the Bill would not cause much bother.
      When I came into the Chamber after receiving the letter, I discovered that a cosy teach-in was taking place between those on the two Opposition Front Benches and those on the Government Front Bench. No Divisions were taking place and there was not much hassle. Conservative Members obviously want much more from the Bill but they probably feel that they have done very well. The memo told the association's members to be non-committal if an MP approached them and to wait until the Bill becomes law. They would then be able to use it. The memo then described exactly what was in the Bill in terms of the hobgoblins that I have mentioned.
      1082
      I hope that we can remove some of the hobgoblins and that we, at last, will have the opportunity to say that the public interest is back on the agenda. It is worth holding on to and some of us should think about promoting it in a different set of circumstances. Perhaps we could introduce legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) suggested. I feel strongly about that and I am minded to divide the House if the Government cannot demonstrate that they will at least pick up on the comments made by John Golding.
      Dr. Cable: The arguments are well trodden. They were made in Committee, but as important principles are at stake we need to continue to debate them at least until the Bill reaches the other place.
      I have several points to make. The first relates to clause 21, which deals with the facility with which merger references can be made. Like the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), I am struck by an apparent contradiction. The Minister said on Second Reading that she did not expect more merger references to be made. I found that difficult to square with the terms of the Bill, which clearly imply that merger references will occur almost as a matter of routine. However, that meant that I, unlike the hon. Gentleman, was pleased with the Bill, because more merger references are desirable.
      There is a long history of mergers in the United Kingdom, the United States and elsewhere; the practice has been fashionable. They have been driven by management, which has a vested interest in size, and by the fee incentive for the merchant banking institutions. Invariably, as much of the economic and management literature shows, not only do mergers reduce competition to the detriment of consumers, but they do not benefit shareholders much either. An altogether more sceptical view is necessary, and that does not square with how the Minister sees the Bill rolling out. It is useful that the amendments allow us to continue to tease out what will happen.
      I do not share either the geographical or the ideological stance of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), but an important point was buried in his contribution, and we need to keep it alive. I would approach the problem in terms of accountability. I agree in general with the idea of political independence, and that there should not be routine political interference in merger references. In that sense, the Bill takes us a step forward.
      However, we have lost what elected politicians bring to bear to policy issues. We are elected to take account of the public interest and there is a fear that we are throwing out the baby of public accountability with the bathwater of political interference. We need to find a way to put it back. I would prefer to do that by having much stronger political accountability.
      Indeed, I argued in Committee that we need a mechanism so that the chairman and other officers of the OFT receive the political scrutiny to which the Monetary Policy Committee is subjected by the Treasury Committee. It comes before Parliament at regular intervals and MPs, through the Select Committee system, have a veto over appointments. That helps to ensure that the officials appointed by Ministers to perform a specific task are kept aware of the public interest. However, the Government are unwilling to go down that road,

      1083
      so another way to tackle the problem is required. In that respect, the approach of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire is helpful.
      The hon. Gentleman's approach is helpful for another reason, too. Some of my colleagues and I have a vivid recollection of the Utilities Bill, which was in many ways a good piece of legislation. However, the regulator's terms of reference on competition were narrowly defined. Many problems were generated by the automatic application of the new legislation to the new electricity trading arrangements—NETA—auctioning system, which crippled the combined heat and power sector and the renewables sector. The regulator could only throw up his hands and say, "Look. Parliament hasn't given me the flexibility to take account of the public interest." It is important that we do not repeat that mistake. Some form of words—it does not necessarily have to be the form of words suggested by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire—must be found. If it cannot be found this afternoon, I hope that it will be found in another place.
      One of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne is right. The conflicts, or at least the incompatibilities, between British and European legislation on the competition sector as it relates to merger references, have worried us from the outset. As we have discussed the matter, it has become clear that some of the initial concerns of business were rather exaggerated. The European Commission is clearly reforming its competition practices in ways that will make them somewhat more compatible with our own legislation. None the less, there are areas in which we are proposing something fundamentally different from European practice. It seems unnecessary, particularly in the cases that the hon. Member for Eastbourne has mentioned. That could be remedied by amendment, so I commend the changes.
      John McDonnell: I am following the lead of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) in seeking some form of assistance and succour from those on the Front Bench on this issue, because I am desperate to vote for the Government at least once this week. Some passing phenomenon described us as "all Thatcherites now". I note that the Prime Minister denied that yesterday, but my hon. Friend has smaller ambitions: he is desperate for us all to be a bit Heathite now, and come back to some concept of the public interest. There is the potential for avoiding a vote on amendment No. 202, although I, like my hon. Friend, will call for a vote on it unless the Minister can convince us otherwise. Obviously, we would like to put that request formally to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      We want some assistance—an explanation of how the public interest is to be maintained as a result of the Bill. Clause 57 refers to the public interest being maintained for national security, but there is also a reference to public security, based on previous legislation that we have debated in the House.
      I would welcome a view on whether public security means a safety regime for the general public, whether it means security of employment for the workers employed in a company, and whether it involves protection of the local environment in which a company is located, the
      1084
      health of the community that lives around that company's premises, and the quality of life of the work force and all those who have any relationship with the company.
      If we can gain some assurances on the record tonight that public security as referred to in clause 57 encompasses all those elements, I do not think that there will be a need for a vote on amendment No. 202. However, if there is not clarity from those on the Front Bench that the public security definition within clause 57 encompasses all those, we will need to press the matter to a vote this evening, if only to ask that the other place consider restoring the public interest definition in some form. I agree with our opposite number on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), about that.
      This may not be the exactly correct form of words, but there needs to be a form of words that reiterates that fact clearly. Why? Briefly, because as demonstrated in the post-privatisation world, respect for the public interest is needed more now than ever before. We have seen some horrendous examples of the public interest being ignored, which has had an effect on the community overall. That is why I ask for those assurances.
      There will be a danger if the public interest is not clearly defined in the Bill. The Government may not want to exercise existing powers, or any powers, to protect the public interest, but the hands of future Secretaries of State, future Governments—who may not be Thatcherite, as someone described us, but may want to be more interventionist in the interests of the public overall—are being fettered.
      The problem with the Bill is that there is no sense of the common good. There is no sense of the responsibility of Government to protect the common interest of the community overall. I urge those on the Front Bench at least to define clearly how they see clause 57 operating in relation to the reference to public security. If it encompasses all the elements that I have described, there is no need for the vote. If it does not, we will need to vote this evening, so that we can signal to the other place to make the appropriate amendment.
      5.30 pm
      Adam Price: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I was inspired by the contribution of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) to add my voice and offer the support of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party to the principles that he enunciated, if there is a vote on amendment No. 202.
      As we are discussing collusion, I think that there has been a degree of collusion between the occupants of both Front Benches to give the impression that the shift in competition policy from a basis of the public interest to a purely competition-based approach is somehow completely uncontroversial. It is not. It is a matter of concern. In summarising responses to the White Paper, the Department of Trade and Industry referred to
      "almost unanimous support for replacing the current public interest test with more focused competition."
      Almost unanimous is not, of course, unanimous. As we have heard, there are important stakeholders who have voiced their concern and their opposition to a narrower competition-based approach.

      1085
      I was interested in the Prime Minister's response to the assertion of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) that we are all Thatcherites now. One of the Prime Minister's reasons for demurring was that Thatcherism had sought to isolate us in Europe. In this instance, we are seeing a shift to a more United States-based approach, which will hinder moves towards harmonisation of European merger policy.
      I agree with the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire that clause 57 does not provide us with the assurances that we seek. Indeed, the chairman of the Competition Commission has said that he believes that there will need to be a high burden of proof to add to the exceptions of public or special public interest. I understand that it is envisaged that provisions in the draft communications Bill will be added to the list that at present contains only national security.
      There is an important issue. Some of us believe that the efficient functioning of markets is not the only consideration when it comes to industrial or regional policy. Merger activity can have a distorting effect on regional economic development. We have certainly seen that in Wales, where companies that are successful and reach a certain critical mass are taken over. The headquarters are then located outside the regional economy, and that has long-term implications for the pattern of economic development. There are also wider issues in the context of economic policy.
      We have heard the concerns of the trade union movement, and especially of Unifi, the financial services union, which has led the assault, as it were, from the trade unions. The financial services sector has seen a great deal of merger activity and has suffered for it, in terms both of job losses and of service provision at a very local level. That would not be covered by the terms of the Bill.
      Sometimes the public interest would favour loosening some of the competition rules. We have heard of the problem with producer co-operatives in the dairy sector and the wider agricultural sector. There needs to be a public interest basis so that wider issues can be taken into account.
      It should be clear, certainly to Labour Members, that mergers affect consumers and communities. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire is seeking to uphold the principle that applies to those who used to be referred to as stakeholders. When we make decisions on such matters, we need to take account of a wide range of interests, not only consumer interests or competition policy.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) on persevering with this issue, which goes back a few years. A merger took place in Clay Cross in his constituency, which he has raised on the Floor of the House many times; he and I also raised it in Westminster Hall. There was a lot of hand-wringing, as often happens with a lot of mergers when people get sacked; the Department gave the impression that it would love to be able to help, but could not.
      The Government cannot do the things that it would like to do principally because of the climate created by the Single European Act. A few years ago Thatcher introduced it, guillotined debate in the House of Commons and shovelled it through. Now everything is
      1086
      wrapped up with the Common Market; that is part of the problem experienced by Governments here and elsewhere. I hope that minority parties that now say that they are sympathetic to my hon. Friend's position realise that the wonderful Common Market that they have fallen in love with is part of the problem.
      The Biwater merger at Clay Cross prompted my hon. Friend to start the process that we have heard about today. Seven hundred people were told that Biwater was finished and would become part of Saint Gobain, a French firm. They were told that everything would be okay, although a few people might be shifted here and there—but within a few hours they had all lost their jobs, which is why the amendment is ultra-important.
      I got the clear impression that the Government would like to resolve the problem. Next time a merger takes place, there will be a lot of hand-wringing and many people will say, "We'd love to do something, but we can't." The least the Government can do is tell my hon. Friend, "We've listened carefully to your case and we know that you've pursued it for a long time. We'll have a look at the amendment and, if necessary, deal with it in another place." As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has just said, if the problem is to be dealt with elsewhere, we shall be quite happy for it to fall into such an embrace.
      Let us not kid ourselves; if there is a merger in future and several hundred or several thousand jobs are lost, let us not have any more hand-wringing or any more of the business of everyone feeling sorry about the problem. We could remedy the problem today if the Government agreed to the moderate suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire.
      Dr. Pugh: Before the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) ignited our debate with an unexpected note of controversy, there was widespread agreement about the Bill's objectives. Most parties accept that an active free market that satisfies discriminating consumers is a good thing. The Bill seeks to prevent bad things, such as anti-competitive mergers, cartels, consumer rip-offs and the pitfalls of enterprise, including unnecessary insolvency.
      Paradoxically, there has been cross-party, and probably international, agreement that a classic free market involves state regulation and a structured environment. Usually, free markets and state regulation are regarded as antithetical, but at the moment a third way appears to carry all before it. In Committee there was argument not about the content of the Bill but about its mechanics; Conservative Members examined in immense detail not the Government's intentions but the way in which they will deliver them. A persistent allegation was that some of the Government's methods might defeat some of their objectives. That accusation was not unreasonable, given the Government's track record of unnecessary bureaucracy.
      To be fair, I must add that the CBI has similar fears. In theory, it is not in favour of cartels, consumer rip-offs or mergers that inhibit competition, because they damage trading interests as much as anything else. Nevertheless, all its submissions to the Select Committee have generated a certain image—that of worry about vexatious complaints, bureaucratic bullying, trial by the media as mergers are tested, legal confusion and lobby-group

      1087
      grandstanding, along with a constant commercial angst about exactly where the law is leading everyone. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but as Conservative Members have argued, it may be the result. It is important that that does not happen, especially if we are to bring criminal law into commercial practice.
      So far the Government have not succeeded in allaying the CBI's fears, and arguably they cannot do so at this stage. Law has not become practice yet, and we have not yet seen the natural history of the Bill. Supplementary guidance has not yet arrived. It was evident in Committee, however, that significant issues already exist in relation to the clarity of the legislation—I am thinking of simple matters such as the distinction between hard-core and soft-core cartels—and coherence between this and existing English law, European law and Scots law.
      The reference to mergers is crucial. My angle is different from that of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire. There are two tests for merger references. First there is the turnover test: is a company's turnover £45 million? It must be, for the company to be of real interest. Then there is the market-share test.
      The turnover test has been debated by the CBI, which suggests that the figure should be £75 million. I have a worry, which we voiced in Committee, about the market-share test. It does not seem in any way to inhibit local monopolies. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) pointed out that if two airlines fly to Orkney and one takes over the other, there are plenty of other airlines in a national context, but there is no other airline flying to Orkney.
      I know that newspapers are a special case, but nearly every newspaper in my constituency is owned by one company. Not long ago, the one independent company was taken over. It set itself up independently and survived somehow, but what had happened was a definite merger.
      It could be argued that all my constituents who wanted to place advertisements in newspapers could advertise in the Burnley Bugle or the Middlesbrough Mercury. There were plenty of newspapers around—but there were no more newspapers in that area; one newspaper had an overall monopoly. Something that is theoretically not an issue is a very big issue in practical terms. A flaw in the Bill is the fact that we fret over big national mergers, although in those cases some choice is preserved at the end of the day, while there is no facility for dealing with local mergers by which choice is abolished.
      The examples I give can be replicated. Members can cite cases in their constituencies. Taxi drivers, for instance, can form a consortium; there can be just one company in a whole area. Theoretically, someone in Leicester could get a taxi in Wolverhampton or London, say—but they cannot actually do that. Effectively, people faced with a complete local monopoly have no choice.
      I genuinely understand the Government's reluctance to go further than they have. If a village contains two shops and one takes over the other, it is not desirable for the villagers to suggest that the OFT should investigate. I suggest, however, that there are simple ways in which local monopolies can be dealt with as national monopolies are. The number of consumers affected might be relevant, or perhaps the support of local trading standards authorities could be required.
      1088
      This is wholly in line with the spirit of the Bill. We want to enact legislation that will stop large companies snuffing out small companies locally. Small companies do not start as national companies with national shares in the product they are producing, or as international companies; they start as local companies.
      I realise that there are drafting problems and problems of work overload, but it is not possible to create a national climate of enterprise without encouraging a local climate of enterprise. National considerations also apply locally. The public interest defence or the failing firms defence could be used, and compensating consumer gains could be cited. However, if anti-competitive mergers can sustain themselves locally and prevail, local citizens suffer the same ill as when that happens nationally.
      Let us consider the cartel analogy. We do not specify the size or turnover of the cartel; we simply define it by its effect. That should also apply to mergers. References to the OFT should be based on a merger's effect on consumers, not some artificial decision about size or market share.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. McWalter: I am sad not to share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). However, I believe that it is important to present a counter-argument. The Bill deals with fair trading and makes a substantial contribution to its development. Loading it with goals and burdens that such Bills cannot tolerate goes further than is reasonable.
      My hon. Friend mentioned the boring position in Scottish football because of the domination of Celtic and Rangers. That is an interesting example because the reason for it is the wealth of both clubs compared with that of all the others in the league. They have the dominance that comes with wealth. I was keen for Manchester United not to be taken over by BSkyB because we would otherwise end up with one football club so rich that it was worth all the others put together. Absolute dominance in the market means that the consumer gets cheated and has less of the commodity to purchase and less of a service to enjoy.
      The Bill tries to make it easier for small businesses to start up and consolidate so that, over time, the position of even the wealthiest and most dominant suppliers is challenged. I am a member of the all-party small business group, and the Bill's aim is laudable and important to achieve.
      Sometimes the methods that large and wealthy companies use to dominate the market mean cheating workers and consumers. In Committee, I said that I was introduced to such matters when my father tendered for a small-scale contract to paint some houses in Hemel Hempstead and found that others were tendering at an extraordinarily low price. After he had lost the contract, he was told that others had stolen the paint and could therefore put in an unfair bid. That meant that those who made fair bids were put out of business and out of work.
      Dominant companies and suppliers can consolidate their position through cheating their workers, not recognising trade unions, paying low wages, adulterating the environment and a host of practices that are vital components of unfair trading. The Government are not Thatcherite because they have tried to introduce measures apart from the Bill to counteract the effects of such

      1089
      practices through, for example, environmental protection and trade union recognition. It is not the job of this Bill to incorporate those measures, because they can be dealt with elsewhere. This Bill is about trying to provide an environment in which, if there is a dominant supplier in a particular trade, there is strong potential for the activities of that supplier to be called into question—notably, the activity of forming cartels or mergers, which are often a way of cheating workers and customers alike.
      Mr. Barnes: I hope that my hon. Friend does not misunderstand my position. I have been supportive of all the measures in the Bill concerned with insolvency, establishing consumer rights, and helping small businesses. I am not opposed to the Bill in general, but there are matters relating to public interest and producer concerns that I would like to see incorporated in it. From what my hon. Friend has said, there might also have been a misunderstanding about my attitude to BSkyB. I supported the decision of the Competition Commission on that issue, because it took it partly on the ground of public interest.
      Mr. McWalter: I understand where my hon. Friend is trying to get to; I am just not convinced that his amendment will get him there. That is partly because he wants there to be powers that it is difficult to imagine being operated. To return to the Scottish football example, one way of ensuring that other Scottish teams had much more say than they do now would be to impose a maximum wage on footballers, so that the benefit of certain organisations being massively rich compared with others would be counteracted by very strong regulations that made it more difficult for wealth to dominate.
      Another way of achieving that aim would be to have a fantastically powerful wealth tax to appropriate huge resources from the very wealthy football clubs and redistribute them among the others. There is a variety of ways of achieving that, and perhaps this is the time to ask why those clubs have such a dominant place in the market. I also agree with the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) when he said that local monopolies and local dominance lead to consumer and employee impoverishment. The fact remains, however, that these matters can be returned to.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire should accept that the Bill makes a contribution to addressing the problems that we face in trying to ensure that consumers have a genuine choice, and that workers have a genuine opportunity to work for companies that do not violate the environment or systematically violate workers' rights. I hope that he will not divide the House on this issue, and I look forward to working with him on this agenda on other Bills, because there is important work to be done.
      Miss Melanie Johnson: In responding to what has been a lengthy and wide-ranging debate, I should like to thank hon. Members for their contributions.
      I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20, which are uncontentious. They would provide the opportunity for discretion on the part of the OFT, rather than a duty to refer. The Bill already gives the OFT discretion in certain circumstances, when that is appropriate. A variety of such circumstances is listed in subsection (3) of clauses 21 and 32. Amendments Nos. 18
      1090
      and 19 would extend the OFT's discretion in completed merger cases, and amendment No. 20 would do so in proposed mergers, beyond the particular circumstances set out. The Government believe that the exceptions set out in the two clauses cover all the circumstances in which discretion is appropriate, and do not anticipate any other circumstances in which such discretion will be needed. We do not believe, therefore, that the amendments have any value.
      We do not believe that the number of references will increase as a result of the duty to refer. I reiterate what I said in response to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and other hon. Members: we do not think that that duty will lead to a situation in which pre-clearance is almost obligatory. Those who have raised such concerns seem to be ignoring the fact that the OFT will apply a competition test to determine whether it has a duty to refer. Only cases that could lead to a substantial lessening of competition will be referred. That is the basis on which the OFT currently advises Secretaries of State, so we do not anticipate or accept that the incidence of references will increase because of the new arrangements. I hope, therefore, that I can persuade hon. Members not to press the relevant three amendments.
      I turn now to amendment No. 21 and associated amendments that deal with the question of the substantial lessening of competition test versus the dominance test. First, the Opposition have tabled a large group of amendments on this matter, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne commented. The amendments would replace our substantial lessening of competition test with a European-style dominance test. That is a slight turn up for the books, because the Opposition are not frequently taking the European route these days.
      I should like to stress at the outset that the Government have consulted carefully and extensively on the choice of competition tests for the new mergers regime. The question was first raised in our consultation document on reform of the merger regime in August 1999, and a further consultation occurred subsequently. In addition, officials have met lawyers, economists and other experts to discuss the new regime and the most appropriate competition tests to apply.
      A very large majority of those who responded to the consultation favoured a substantial lessening of competition test. They believe that that represents a better economic test than the dominance test that is currently used in the European Community merger regulation. One of the responses that we received came from the City of London Law Society, whose members are obviously experts on competition. It stated:
      "The Group does not favour the adoption of a dominance test due to its inflexibility in dealing with a range of situations including oligopolistic dominance and highly leveraged acquisitions. It does not see any benefits from having the same substantive test at a national level as in the ECMR. Additionally, it should be noted that other established merger control regimes within the EC have not found it necessary to adopt the ECMR test."
      Indeed, the substantial lessening of competition test comes closest to the competition analysis that is currently applied by the UK authorities. It has the key advantage of allowing the authorities to concentrate on the overall effect of a merger on competition rather than on the structures, and will allow them to act wherever there is an increase of sole, joint or collective market power resulting from a merger.

      1091
      The key concern about the dominance test is the uncertainty about allowing the authorities to take action where a merger will not lead to one firm having a substantial market share of 40 per cent. or more, but will nevertheless increase the likelihood of firms remaining in the market and acting in an anti-competitive way. To use economic terms, there is considerable uncertainty about whether a dominance test is effective in dealing with the creation of non-collusive oligopolistic markets. European law has developed the concept of collective dominance to try to bridge the gap, but its application is uncertain and the concept strains the normal meaning of dominance.
      The substantial lessening of competition test is superior in alluding to the impact of a merger on the whole market, rather than concentrating on the position of a particular market participant. It was because of concerns that the dominance test did not satisfactorily cover collective dominance cases that both Australia and New Zealand recently switched from a dominance test to a substantial lessening of competition test. That happened in Australia in 1993 and in New Zealand last year. Among our European Community colleagues, the Irish Government have recently adopted a similar test, and Spain also has such a test. It is also noteworthy that the Green Paper on reforms to the ECMR raises a substantial lessening of competition test as a possible option to replace dominance. The issue is also well understood in a number of other jurisdictions: the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
      I could speak at considerable length on this subject, but I will not do so, as time is of the essence. I believe for all the reasons that I have given that we have got the right test.
      6 pm
      I should like briefly to quote the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who put the position well in Committee when we debated the test of choice. He said that if we had a chance of ensuring a merger control regime that was likely to provide pressures and incentives conducive to competition in general and to a greater intensity of competition in the UK than in other parts of the EU, we should take it. For all the reasons that I have given, we believe that we have the right test, and I urge that those amendments be withdrawn.
      I should like now to turn to the amendments dealing with the restoration of the public interest test, which have been the subject of much debate this afternoon. The replacement of the current public interest test in the Fair Trading Act with a competition test is, of course, one of the cornerstones of the proposed new merger regime. Focusing the Bill on competition will provide better merger regulation. It will improve the clarity of the framework for decisions and the predictability of the decisions made under it. The wider the range of factors that can be taken into account, the less certain and the less predictable the outcome.
      The change will also bring our statute into line with other major international jurisdictions; the US, the European Commission, France, Germany, Canada and Australia. Switching away from a public interest test to a competition test for assessing mergers has involved hard thinking and tough choices, but it is a focused policy.
      1092
      It means that certain factors that could previously have been taken into account—I emphasise the word "could" as opposed to "were" or "would be"—will no longer be capable of being taken into account. We think, as a matter of policy, that that is right. The reform is not just about improving the predictability of decisions or aligning the regime with others. It is necessary because we believe that, in the vast majority of cases, the economy is best served if mergers are assessed solely on the basis of their effect on competition.
      Merger regulation is best aimed at safeguarding the competitive intensity in the economy. Competition provides the spur for businesses to be more productive, innovative and efficient, and better able to provide long-term sustainable employment and better products and services for consumers—my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire and I share those aspirations.
      Adding additional factors to the test for mergers would create barriers to market re-structuring. We think it is wrong to create such barriers unless there are significant anti-competitive effects. Restructuring must be possible if companies and markets are to remain dynamic and competitive.
      I recognise, of course, that mergers can have adverse regional and employment impacts in the short term. There are hard cases; my hon. Friends have referred to cases in their constituencies, including the Biwater case. However, I do not think the answer is to step in to block mergers.
      The task for the Government—one that we are pursuing—is to make sure that the economy as a whole is strong and to help people to adapt and get new jobs. We must make sure that for every job and every business that disappears, there are new companies springing up and small companies growing. We have a vibrant, dynamic economy. We have the lowest unemployment rate since the 1970s and the lowest inflation and interest rates since the 1960s. We have record numbers of people in work, because private sector employment increased by 1.25 million over the last five years. We are, of course, the No. 1 destination for foreign direct investment into Europe.
      I would like to make a further important point to set the merger regime in the context of how the existing Fair Trading Act regime has operated. In practice, competition has been the principal factor in UK merger policy for years. In 1984, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, now Lord Tebbit, announced that references would be made primarily on competition grounds. That doctrine has been pursued by every subsequent Secretary of State.
      We must look at why independence from political interference and involvement is important in this regard. I remind my hon. Friends that there is a direct parallel between what we are doing here and what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in the legislation relating to the Bank of England in 1997. Before then, there was clearly political involvement in decisions about interest rates, decisions that were made, at the end of the day, by Ministers. As hon. Members know, such decisions are now taken by the Monetary Policy Committee, and are therefore taken at arm's length from political interference. That has not had an adverse effect; indeed, it has brought remarkable benefits. We took the right decision in that regard, and we are taking the right one here.

      1093
      On the question of the Bill's providing for the Secretary of State to make an order defining public interest issues that might be taken into account in considering a merger, when such issues arise it is Ministers themselves who will take decisions about a merger. The Bill will define as public interest considerations only national and public security concerns. However, we have built in appropriate checks on Ministers intervening easily in other areas. We have stipulated that additional criteria will be defined by order, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I am aware that some Opposition Members dislike that for one reason, and some Government Members dislike it for another. However, that power provides an important safety valve for the new regime, and ensures that very exceptional cases can be dealt with appropriately. In that sense, we have got the matter entirely right.
      As I said, public interest considerations must be specified in the new legislation as relating to national security. Having consulted on whether new powers are necessary, we concluded that they are not. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire knows, the existing power enables us to add further considerations. The process will be transparent and subject to parliamentary approval, and the Secretary of State must give reasons under the terms of clause 104(7). Safeguarding competition is just one aspect of our duty to protect the public interest. As I said, matters such as employment are dealt with through other targeted measures. My hon. Friend will acknowledge the tremendous progress that the Government have made in terms of economic growth, employment, prosperity and the provision of public services.
      In the light of these changes, my hon. Friend also expressed his concern about the important issue of accountability. We have built in additional accountability elements, a long list of which I could run through. Although accountability will not be achieved through ministerial decision making, there will be additional transparency and checks and balances. For example, the OFT and the commission will have to publish their reasons for taking key decisions such as reference decisions, and for not referring.
      The commission's chairman has also made a commitment to publishing during an inquiry provisional conclusions on the competition aspects of a merger or market. Decisions will not come, therefore, like a bolt from the blue. There will be open discussion of provisional findings, and of the remedies for dealing with them. The tests themselves will be focused. They will be conducted within a tighter procedural framework, and a number of institutional checks and balances will be established. For example, the OFT board will replace the Director General of Fair Trading as the pinnacle of the OFT's operation. Taken together, the measures show that we have got things right. I appreciate my hon. Friend's concerns, but I believe that adopting these measures will bring real benefits.
      On failing firms, if an authority believes that a firm will in any case exit the market because it is failing, that judgment will influence the assessment of whether the merger may be expected to result in substantial lessening of competition. Another relevant consideration is whether the failing firm's market share is likely to fall to the acquiring firm in any event. It is not a question of weighing the position of a failing firm against the
      1094
      problems created by a substantial lessening of competition. If Opposition Members are suggesting that saving a failing firm should take priority over guarding against anti-competitive markets, I must disagree. It would not be appropriate to allow mergers to proceed that would result in a substantial lessening of competition, simply because one of the firms involved was failing.
      I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will not wish to press amendment No. 69 to a vote and I urge the House to resist it. I commend, however, the technical Government amendments that are part of this group.
      Mr. Waterson: When I moved amendment No. 18—it seems like half a lifetime ago—I had no idea of the great fissures that were about to open up in the modern and the not-so-modern Labour party. I hope that we will hear no more from Ministers about having plenty of time to debate the Bill, because the harsh reality that is staring us in the face—especially if we now have a Division—is that we will not even begin to debate the issues of cartels and market investigations. On any view, that is wrong. I do not wish to waste quarter of an hour by pressing our amendments to a vote. We are not happy with much of what the Minister had to say, but we have rehearsed the arguments before and I am happy to say that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: No. 202, in page 11, line 11, after "competition", insert—
      'or substantial damage to the public interest'.—[Mr. Barnes.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 245.

      Division No. 273]

      [6.11 pm

      AYES

      Austin, John

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Barnes, Harry

      McDonnell, John

      Barrett, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Bennett, Andrew

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Meale, Alan

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Cohen, Harry

      öpik, Lembit

      Connarty, Michael

      Price, Adam

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Cummings, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Skinner, Dennis

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Galloway, George

      Wareing, Robert N

      Gidley, Sandra

      Willis, Phil

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Winnick, David

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lamb, Norman

      John Thurso and

      Laws, David

      John Cryer.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Banks, Tony

      Ainger, Nick

      Barron, Kevin

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Allen, Graham

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Benton, Joe

      Berry, Roger

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Blackman, Liz

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Blizzard, Bob

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brennan, Kevin

      1095

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hinchliffe, David

      (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Browne, Desmond

      Hood, Jimmy

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Burden, Richard

      Hope, Phil

      Burgon, Colin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Burnham, Andy

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Burnside, David

      Hurst, Alan

      Cairns, David

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Illsley, Eric

      Casale, Roger

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Caton, Martin

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Jamieson, David

      Challen, Colin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Chaytor, David

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Joyce, Eric

      Coaker, Vernon

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Coleman, Iain

      Kelly, Ruth

      Colman, Tony

      Kemp, Fraser

      Cooper, Yvette

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Cox, Tom

      Khabra, Piara S

      Cranston, Ross

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Crausby, David

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lammy, David

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      David, Wayne

      Lepper, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Leslie, Christopher

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Levitt, Tom

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Dawson, Hilton

      Linton, Martin

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Lloyd, Tony

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Love, Andrew

      Dismore, Andrew

      Lucas, Ian

      Dobbin, Jim

      Luke, Iain

      Donohoe, Brian H

      McCafferty, Chris

      Dowd, Jim

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Drew, David

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Drown, Ms Julia

      MacDonald, Calum

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McFall, John

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McIsaac, Shona

      Ennis, Jeff

      McKechin, Ann

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Flint, Caroline

      McNulty, Tony

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      MacShane, Denis

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Foulkes, George

      McWalter, Tony

      Gapes, Mike

      McWilliam, John

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gilroy, Linda

      Mann, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marris, Rob

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Grogan, John

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hanson, David

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Healey, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hendrick, Mark

      Morgan, Julie

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Morley, Elliot

      Heppell, John

      Mudie, George

      Hesford, Stephen

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Heyes, David

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      1096

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Olner, Bill

      Southworth, Helen

      O'Neill, Martin

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Owen, Albert

      Stevenson, George

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pearson, Ian

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Perham, Linda

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Picking, Anne

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pike, Peter

      Tami, Mark

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Timms, Stephen

      Pond, Chris

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pound, Stephen

      Todd, Mark

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Touhig, Don

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Trickett, Jon

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Truswell, Paul

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Purnell, James

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Rammell, Bill

      Tynan, Bill

      Rapson, Syd

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Watts, David

      Robertson, John

      White, Brian

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ross, Ernie

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Roy, Fran

      (Swansea W)

      Ruane, Chris

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wood, Mike

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Ryan, Joan

      Woolas, Phil

      Salter, Martin

      Worthington, Tony

      Sawford, Phil

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wyatt, Derek

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Simon, Siôn

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Jim Fitzpatrick and

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Derek Twigg

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 24

      EXTENSTION OF TIME-LIMITS
      Amendments made: No. 224, in page 14, line 37, after "with" insert—
      "the receipt of a notice under subsection (7A).
      (7A) The OFT shall, in connection with nay notice given by it under subsection (6), by notice inform the persons carrying on the enterprises which have or may have ceased to be distinct enterprises of".
      No. 225, in page 14, line 41, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
      "(8) Subject to subsections (9) and (10), where the four month period mentioned in section 23 (1)(a) or (2)(b) is extended or further extended by virtue of this section in relation to a particular case, any reference to that period in section 23 or the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to that case as if it were a reference to a period equivalent to the aggregate of the period being extended and the period of the extension (whether or not those periods overlap in time).
      (9) Subsection (10) applies where—

      (a) the four month period mentioned in section 23(1)(a) or (2)(b) is further extended;

      1097

      (b) the further extension and at least one previous extension is made under one or more of subsections (2), (4) and (6); and

      (c) the same days or fractions of days are included in or comprise the further extension and are included in or comprise at least one such previous extension.

      (10) In calculating the period of the further extension, any days or fractions of days of the kind mentioned in subsection (9)(c) shall be disregarded.
      (11) No more than one extension is possible under subsection (1).'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

    Clause 31
      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION FOR PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 24 AND 30
      Amendment made: No. 226, in page 19, line 13, leave out "or (6)" and insert ", (6) or (7A)".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
    Clause 39

      SECTION 38: SUPPLEMENTARY
      Amendment made: No. 227, in page 24, line 29, at end insert—
      '(4A) Where a period within which a report under section 37 is to be prepared and published is extended or further extended under section 38(3) or (4), the period as extended or (as the case may be) further extended shall, subject to subsections (4B) and (4C), be calculated by taking the period being extended and adding to it the period of the extension (whether or not those periods overlap in time).
      (4B) Subsection (4C) applies where—

      (a) the period within which the report under section 37 is to be prepared and published is further extended;

      (b) the further extension and at least one previous extension is made under section 38(4); and

      (c) the same days or fractions of days are included in or comprise the further extension and are included in or comprise at least one such previous extension.

      (4C) In calculating the period of the further extension, any days or fractions of days of the kind mentioned in subsection (4B)(c) shall be disregarded.'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

    Clause 41

      INTERVENTION BY SECRETARY OF STATE IN CERTAIN PUBLIC INTEREST CASES
      Mr. Waterson: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 26, line 28, leave out from "57" to end of line 29.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 229.
      Amendment No. 142. in clause 45, page 31, line 36, at end insert—
      '(5A) The Secretary of State shall not make a reference under section 44(3) or (5) when a relevant public interest consideration which is mentioned in the intervention notice has not been finalised.'.
      Government amendment No. 234.
      Amendment No. 304, in clause 57, page 40, line 15, after "of' insert "(a)'
      1098
      Amendment No. 305, in page 40, line 15, after "security" insert—

      '(b) maintaining and promoting the balanced distribution of industry and employment in the United Kingdom;

      (c) maintaining and promoting competitive activity in markets outside the United Kingdom on the part of producers of goods, and of suppliers of goods and services, in the United Kingdom.'.

      Amendment No. 197, in page 40, line 15, at end insert—
      '(1A) The interests of plurality in newspaper ownership are specified in this section.'.
      Amendment No. 198, in page 40, line 18, at end insert—
      '(2A) In subsection (1A) "newspaper" shall have the same meaning as in section 57(1)(a) of the 1973 Act; and in this subsection "plurality" means a diversity of ownership that is sufficient to ensure that the public have access to the accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion.
      (2B) In applying the interests specified in subsection (IA) no account should be taken of plurality in newspaper ownership if the relevant merger situation concerns the transfer of a newspaper or newspaper assets to a newspaper proprietor whose newspapers have an average circulation per day of publication amounting, together with that of the newspaper concerned in the transfer, of fewer than 500,000 copies.
      (2C) In subsection (2B), "newspaper proprietor" shall have the same meaning as section 57(1)(b) of the 1973 Act; and the calculation of circulation per day shall be by such means as the OFT or (as the case may be) the Commission shall determine.'.
      Amendment No. 143, in page 40, line 19, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
      Government amendments Nos. 243 to 245.
      Mr. Waterson: As this may be the last group of amendments that we can deal with before 7 pm under the guillotine procedure, it may be helpful if I point out that we intend to press amendment No. 63 to a Division, as we feel strongly about it. The group deals with public interest and mergers, but there will be some echoes from topics that we discussed in the debate on the previous group.
      At present, the only definition of public interest appears in clause 57. The clause defines public security in the terms set out in the European merger regulations. We had a significant number of debates on these matters in Committee. Our starting point is that the provision is crucial, so it is right that it should be firmly stated in the Bill. Our approach is rather different from that of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), and our concern is that it should not be open to the Government to add a new ground of public interest when they feel like it.
      When we pressed the issue in Committee, the Minister was wedded to the power to extend the definition, but she was wholly unable to say—in fairness, she said the same this afternoon—what possible category she might have in mind to add to the definition in the Bill. Nevertheless, the Government's position seems to be that it is imperative to include the power.
      The effect of amendment No. 63 would be to remove the Secretary of State's ability to consider public interest considerations not listed in the legislation. We debated a similar amendment in Committee. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State could simply add a new public interest

      1099
      consideration, or more than one such consideration, in response to a specific merger or proposed merger, as it arose.
      Apart from anything else, that could involve enormous uncertainty for those in the business sector. When embarking on a merger, they would not know whether the goalposts would be moved in due course by the addition of a new public interest ground because the Secretary of State had decided to change the rules. That is another good reason why any other public interest consideration—whether media plurality, which we shall come to in a moment, prudential rules or anything of that sort—should be identified in the primary legislation.
      If it is not possible to identify those considerations now and they arise later, it should be possible to add them to the Act, as it will then be, by primary legislation. If something arose that was so important and so unforeseeable that no one can even imagine what it would be, any Government ought to be able, possibly with cross-party agreement and—who knows?—possibly even with the agreement of their Back Benchers, to put through the House the necessary primary legislation, and quite quickly, if needs must.
      There is also a side issue. If we leave open this great loophole, it merely returns us to what I am sure the Minister would regard as the bad old days of political involvement in such matters.
      I shall touch briefly on amendments Nos. 142, 197 and 198 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who will develop the arguments in detail. Amendment No. 142 relates to the Secretary of State's power to make merger references arising from a public interest intervention notice. My hon. Friend will develop the reasons for the amendment. Amendments Nos. 197 and 198 deal with the plurality of newspaper ownership. The effect of amendment No. 143 echoes that of amendment No. 63.
      It is impossible to consider what the Government have in mind in changing the law on mergers and takeovers without considering how those matters have been dealt with up till now.
      We argued in Committee—with some justification, I think—that all we are doing in the Bill is regularising what has been practice for a considerable time. Under the so-called Tebbit guidelines, there has been a kind of self-denying ordinance among successive Secretaries of State of both parties that they would look narrowly at competition issues when reaching their decisions. It is fair to say that there is an element of cross-party consensus that seeming political involvement brings the system into disrepute. The average member of the public finds it difficult to distinguish between a politician making a decision on non-political grounds and one making a decision on political grounds.
      6.30 pm
      Fast-forwarding from the Tebbit doctrine, we come to 26 October 2000, when the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers)—a familiar name in the House—announced that Ministers would accept the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading on takeover matters, save in exceptional circumstances.
      1100
      Enter stage left the figure of Mr. Richard Desmond, whose Northern and Shell media group on 22 November of that year paid £125 million for Express Newspapers Group. Mr. Desmond had a busy week, because only four days later, on 26 November, he had a half-hour chat at No. 10 with the Prime Minister.
      Mr. Desmond has forced himself into the consciousness of many of us recently through the titles of some of the magazines that he publishes, as well as through his newspaper activities. The list of publications is very long; I was going to say that it is impressive, but it is long. There are titles such as Weird Sex Special—[Interruption.] That is obviously familiar to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase).
      Titles include Horny Housewives, Mega Boobs, and for the real enthusiast, The Very Best of Mega Boobs. There is also a magazine called Mothers-in-Law. I could go on; I probably will. Asian Babes is another title that is not unfamiliar. In fairness, Mr. Desmond also publishes magazines such as Worldwide Golf, which as far as I can tell has nothing to it other than an interest in the game of golf.
      In any event, the issue arose whether the then Secretary of State would refer the takeover of Express Newspapers. Events had moved on by that stage. During the new year celebrations of 2001, Mr. Desmond had told senior Labour figures that he was willing to offer them free advertising in the run-up to the election.
      January was a busy month; Mr. Desmond's editor at The Express resigned, and on 7 February, the then Secretary of State announced that he would not refer the takeover of The Express to the Competition Commission. Only eight days later, on 15 February, it is understood that the Labour party banked Mr. Desmond's cheque for £100,000. To show that relations were particularly cordial and fraternal, Mr. Alastair Campbell attended Mr. Desmond's 50th birthday party in December.
      Mr. McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his remarks seem to be rather tenuously linked to any arguments that might encourage us to support amendment No. 63?
      Mr. Waterson: That is more a matter for the Chair, although I do not accept the proposition for a moment. We are discussing public interest in mergers. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, who has strong views about almost everything, although he puts his arguments with a certain charm, has strong views about whether Ministers of the Crown should be able to intervene in employment matters. He made a powerful case on that in the previous debate. However, some people and certainly some members of the Labour party have similar views about the activities of the party's donors, such as Mr. Desmond.
      Mr. Ken Purchase: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many Labour Members believe that Mr. Desmond's activities, so long as they are legal, are a matter for him and his shareholders? However, many of us would not take a penny-piece from a man who is nothing but a pornographer.
      Mr. Waterson: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's point is. That is his description of the gentleman involved, not mine. However, the Labour party has taken £100,000 in penny-pieces.

      1101
      It is interesting that when the Prime Minister was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman, who also reeled off a list of names of magazines, the Prime Minister seemed to invert the issue—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be a little more concise and address his remarks to the amendment.
      Mr. Waterson: Let me bring events forward to the present day and to the revelations that appeared in The Sunday Telegraph last Sunday. It reported:
      "The Department of Trade and Industry conceded yesterday that there had been no scrutiny of Mr. Desmond's on-line services which allowed paying customers to ask models to perform live sex acts."
      I shall not go into any more detail than that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am sure that you would not wish me to. However, the criteria to be applied in the case of a major takeover—for example, of a newspaper—are extremely interesting and are relevant to the competition provisions in the Bill.
      We are told that the Bill will put into legislation what has become the practice and that, under the Tebbit doctrine and the position as stated most recently by the then Secretary of State in 2000, the broader issues will not be taken into account. It is important to consider what has been happening and whether the provision is necessary.
      When these issues came into the public domain, the attitude of the former Secretary of State was that he had merely followed the advice of officials. I assume that that is what will happen by law if we pass these provisions in the Bill. However, when the report of the Director General of Fair Trading saw the light of day, a different picture emerged. The director general had advised the Secretary of State that, on the competition issues, he could see no reason to refer the bid, but he pointed out that what he described as the non-competition issues were a matter for the Secretary of State. That is a subtle and rather important difference from what the former Secretary of State had told us earlier.
      It emerges that the Home Office had been asked to advise, as had the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, about Mr. Desmond and his activities. The Home Office tetchily concluded that, as he was not breaking the law, it had no further comment to make. However, as The Sunday Telegraph has now revealed, neither it nor anyone else was asked to consider the websites operated by the companies controlled by Mr. Desmond.
      It is important to quote the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty), who is reported as saying:
      "I am astonished. It takes my breath away that the Government failed to examine the very worst side of Desmond's empire. There should have been a thorough investigation at the time. The Government should make amends by launching a thorough investigation now."
      Other Labour Members expressed similar concerns.
      We must examine how the matter was dealt with, as there are major questions about how the DTI chose to conduct its investigation into the takeover of Express Newspapers. It would be, at the very least, surprising if Mr. Desmond's colourful websites were not taken into account. We need to be told the precise criteria on which the former Secretary of State based his ultimate decision
      1102
      not to refer the bid, especially as the decision was followed only a few days later by a large donation to the Labour party.
      Miss Melanie Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to comment on what happened. It is hard to understand the relevance of his case to amendments Nos. 197 and 198—[Interruption.] I am seeking Madam Deputy Speaker's guidance. In light of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about pressures on time, it is hard to understand how his argument relates to the amendments.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I have drawn the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he must speak more directly to the amendments, and I do so once again.
      Mr. Waterson: I have made my points on that issue. I was not aware when I gave way to the hon. Lady that she wanted to make a point of order.
      It is necessary to give the provisions careful consideration. Some of the amendments are new, in particular those that relate to newspapers, on which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire may wish to comment. Others are familiar from our deliberations in Committee.
      We are worried that the Secretary of State will reserve not only powers to act in the public interest, but the power to add to the criteria as they relate to the public interest. We do not know what the Government have in mind, which is understandable because they do not know what they have in mind. We feel strongly about the matter and intend to press the amendment to a Division. If the Government have nothing in mind, and I am sure that they are being open and honest with the House, they should leave the public interest definition as it is, without the power to add to it by regulation.
      Mr. Lansley: Before I comment on the amendments, I want to explain why Mr. Desmond and the handling of his case by the then Secretary of State is relevant.
      As Mr. Desmond was not a newspaper proprietor, his acquisition was not considered under the special newspaper transfer regime, as set up by the Fair Trading Act 1973. Instead, he was considered under the normal merger regime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) made clear, the possible threat to the public interest by the acquisition of Express Newspapers by Northern and Shell could have been considered by the OFT. However, because it put competition as a primary duty, it chose to have no view and referred the problem to the Secretary of State who, although recognising that he had a responsibility, chose not to exercise it. My hon. Friend took us through the conjecture and speculation on why he chose not to consider the wider issues of public interest. We should not count out the fact that they exist, however.
      The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) and others, including the Prime Minister, seem to suggest that what is legal is by definition okay, and what is done legally must therefore be in the public interest. There is no mention of a subset of activities in relation to the ownership of newspapers under existing legislation that are legal but could adversely affect the public interest. I am afraid that the evidence points to the opposite.

      1103
      6.45 pm
      In 1990, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission made a report on Mr. David Sullivan and his acquisition of the Bristol Evening Post. I will not quote at great length, but paragraph 6.13 of the report says:
      "Were someone of Mr. Sullivan's business background and interests"
      it may be recalled that Mr. Sullivan owned the Sunday Sport and other related newspapers
      "seen to have a significant influence in their affairs",
      that is, the affairs of the Bristol Evening Post and Western Daily Press,
      "their reputation could well be seen as compromised, particularly where the reporting of events with sexual aspects was involved. Were he to have acquired effective management control these effects could be expected to be more pronounced."
      Essentially, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was applying a test in relation to the accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion.
      The issue, therefore, is this. If at that time the consent to a transfer of a newspaper title was refused under the special newspaper transfer regime by reference to that test of the public interest—interestingly, we understand that the Government intend at some point to introduce a test of the public interest in relation to the plurality of newspaper ownership—surely the two things are related. The question whether the Government believe that there is a public interest in the ownership of newspapers and the consequences that flow from that for the accurate presentation of news or for free expression of opinion must be of the essence in relation to the amendments. I hope that I have demonstrated why the handling of Mr. Desmond's case is relevant to their consideration.
      I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 197 and 198, which relate specifically to newspapers. On a number of occasions—interestingly, she even managed to do it earlier this afternoon—the Minister has asserted to the Committee and to the House that the Government have no intention of adding additional public interest, to be specified under clause 57. However, in paragraph 9.7.4 of the document published as a policy narrative to accompany the draft Communications Bill, the Government express their future intention in relation to that Bill, and, on newspaper ownership, state:
      "the Secretary of State will retain the power to refer transfers for wider investigation by the Competition Commission by an extension of the provisions in the Enterprise Bill dealing with 'exceptional public interest' … cases."
      Therefore, unless the Minister tells me something to the contrary, it is clearly the Government's intention, subject to consultation and scrutiny of the Bill, to bring newspaper ownership under clause 57 by way of an additional specification of national interest, but apparently we are not to debate that at this stage.
      Before the Minister intervenes to say that amendments Nos. 197 and 198 do not do all that is required, I understand that subsequently clause 66 would need to be deleted and schedule 26 concerning repeals of the 1973 Act amended. One would have to remove the existing special newspaper transfer regime, but it is important, if we are legislating for what is to be in the Bill, that we do it now and have a clear indication of the circumstances in which Ministers would wish to specify an additional public interest. Plurality of newspaper ownership is one that has been suggested.
      1104
      Two sets of amendments seek to do slightly different things. That is why they are slightly testing the Minister. Amendment No. 143 would remove from the Secretary of State the ability to specify additional public interest considerations. My personal inclination is that relying on the general merger regime and competition considerations should be sufficient. I accept the argument that national security and what flows from it is an exception, but that should be the only exception. If I were pressed, I would say that amendment No. 143 should be pursued. I would similarly support amendment No. 63. It is likewise designed to remove from the Secretary of State what might otherwise become a politically motivated opportunity to inject additional public interest considerations that are not transparent in advance and not transparent to the marketplace for those who are contemplating or executing mergers.
      If we are to have any additional forms of public interest, we should be told what they will be. My purpose in tabling amendments Nos. 197 and 198 is to ensure that we can know precisely, by way of the Government's response in due course—there might be one—what kind of newspaper ownership regime is contemplated. If, until now, a special newspaper transfer regime has operated on the basis of confining itself particularly to the accurate presentation of news and the protection of free expression of opinion, I believe that that is a sufficient basis upon which to undertake an examination of plurality of newspaper ownership. Those can be the factors for which we look. Is the diversity of newspaper ownership sufficient to deliver that?
      To whom should that test be applied? Clearly, the merger regime has its own test in terms of market share and turnover. However, we have discovered over years past that where newspapers are concerned—I quote from the Government's "Consultation on Media Ownership Rules"
      "This regime has imposed significant costs on the industry and yet, out of 172 cases considered by the Secretary of State since 1980, only three have been refused and five given approval subject to conditions."
      It is important that we structure a regime that is more deregulatory than that which went before it. We should not merely replicate the special newspaper transfer regime in new legislation.
      It is interesting that the Government's consultation goes on to state:
      "In no case has the Competition Commission found that the acquisition of purely local newspaper titles would be against the public interest on freedom of expression grounds."
      Ministers and the Competition Commission have often found that quite high local concentrations of newspaper ownership are consistent with a continuing plurality of voice in the sense of free expression of opinion. To respond to customers in those areas, newspapers often find that they must be responsive in that way. The opportunities for concentration of local newspaper titles throughout the country, although that has happened in recent years, has not necessarily led to centralised editorial opinion imposed on local newspapers from the controlling interest.
      One of the consequences that flow from that is that the newspaper ownership regime could be structured in a way that excluded local newspaper titles. For these purposes, as a proxy, I have adopted the threshold of a circulation of 500,000 newspapers a day. That is a limit above which transfers of newspaper titles could be considered.

      1105
      Whether that approach should apply to existing newspaper proprietors or transfers of ownership in any circumstances is a difficult question. It is difficult to argue that maintaining plurality of newspaper ownership could mean that someone would be barred from the acquisition of a newspaper if he or she was not already a newspaper proprietor and there was no concentration of newspaper ownership.
      The only circumstances in which that could be done would be if one were to reintroduce some test of whether someone acquiring a newspaper was a fit and proper person to do so. As the Minister said in Committee, and in her subsequent letter, it is difficult to envisage circumstances where someone could be excluded, on competition grounds, from owning a newspaper or acquiring an enterprise on the basis of whether he or she was a fit and proper person. That should be considered on the basis of disqualifications under the Companies Acts. However, with newspapers, a further question could arise about whether someone is seeking to limit the free expression of opinion or the accurate presentation of views by acquiring a newspaper. It is therefore important to find out more about what the Government are seeking to achieve by extending clause 57, contrary to their previously stated intention.
      Amendment No. 143 would make competition the sole factor to be considered in the operation of merger policy, with the exception of national security. Amendment No. 142 is more technical; it will not be immediately obvious to people who are not as familiar with the Bill as Committee members that in clause 44, after the Secretary of State has given a public interest intervention notice and a reference back to him or her has been made by the Competition Commission, he or she has four options for subsequent decisions, two of which can be made in circumstances in which there is a finding of a substantial lessening of competition if a merger is completed or is being contemplated. The two remaining circumstances, given in clause 44(3) and (5), are ones in which there is no finding of a substantial lessening of competition, and the Secretary of State can take account only of public interest considerations.
      Ministers have an obligation not to make a reference in or after the period of 24 weeks during which the Secretary of State is allowed to try to resolve the question of public interest by laying an order before Parliament and securing parliamentary approval; they will not make a reference after 24 weeks, and disregard any public interest consideration that has not been finalised. By contrast, the Secretary of State can make a reference before the 24 weeks have elapsed when there is a substantial lessening of competition. A loophole has therefore been created. Curiously, before the expiry of the 24-week period, there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State from making a reference to the Competition Commission on the ground that public interest considerations have not been finalised, and when there is no substantial lessening of competition.
      One of the most undesirable circumstances in which a reference could be made is as follows. The Secretary of State has devised a public interest consideration, published an intervention notice, failed to come to the House to secure its approval to finalise the public interest, yet goes ahead and makes a reference to the Competition Commission. That loophole should be closed.
      1106
      In addition, in clause 45, for reasons that escape me, the Government say that when making a reference during or after the 24-week period the Secretary of State should specify
      "the public consideration or considerations … in the intervention notice concerned which the Secretary of State is not under a duty to disregard".
      Government amendment No. 234 deals with the same issue. However, if a reference is made before the end of the 24-week period and before a consideration is finalised, as outlined in clause 44(2) and (4), the Secretary of State is not required to disregard the public interest consideration; for completeness, clause 44(3) should also be specified. It is astonishing that the Minister has gone down that route.
      It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order (this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 255.

      Division No. 274]

      [7 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Grayling, Chris

      Allan, Richard

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Amess, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hayes, John

      Bacon, Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Baldry, Tony

      Hendry, Charles

      Baron, John

      Hoban, Mark

      Barrett, John

      Horam, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Bercow, John

      Key, Robert

      Blunt, Crispin

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Boswell, Tim

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Brady, Graham

      Lamb, Norman

      Brazier, Julian

      Lansley, Andrew

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Laws, David

      Burns, Simon

      Leigh, Edward

      Burnside, David

      Liddell—Grainger, Ian

      Burt, Alistair

      Lidington, David

      Butterfill, John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Loughton, Tim

      Cameron, David

      Luff, Peter

      Carmichael, Alistair

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Cash, William

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Mates, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Clappison, James

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Mercer, Patrick

      Collins, Tim

      Moss, Malcolm

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Cran, James

      Ottaway, Richard

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Page, Richard

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Paice, James

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Paterson, Owen

      Evans, Nigel

      Pickles, Eric

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      Prisk, Mark

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Flight, Howard

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Flook, Adrian

      Robathan, Andrew

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Gale, Roger

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Garnier, Edward

      Ruffley, David

      Gibb, Nick

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gray, James

      Selous, Andrew

      1107

      Simmonds, Mark

      Viggers, Peter

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Walter, Robert

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Watkinson, Angela

      Steen, Anthony

      Whittingdale, John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Swire, Hugo

      Wiggin, Bill

      Syms, Robert

      Wilkinson, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Willis, Phil

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Wilshire, David

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Yeo, Tim

      Thurso, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tredinnick, David

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mr. Laurence Robertson.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      David, Wayne

      Allen, Graham

      Davidson, Ian

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      (Swansea E)

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Dawson, Hilton

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Austin, John

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Banks, Tony

      Dobbin, Jim

      Barnes, Harry

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Barron, Kevin

      Dowd, Jim

      Bayley, Hugh

      Drew, David

      Bennett, Andrew

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Benton, Joe

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Berry, Roger

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blackman, Liz

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ennis, Jeff

      Brennan, Kevin

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Browne, Desmond

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Flint, Caroline

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Cairns, David

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Casale, Roger

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Caton, Martin

      Gilroy, Linda

      Cawsey, Ian

      Godsiff, Roger

      Challen, Colin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Chaytor, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hanson, David

      Clwyd, Ann

      Healey, John

      Coaker, vernon

      Hendrick, Mark

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cohen, Harry

      Heppell, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Hesford, Stephen

      Colman, Tony

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Connarty, Michael

      Heyes, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cox, Tom

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cranston, Ross

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Crausby, David

      Hope, Phil

      Cruddas, Jon

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Cummings, John

      Hurst, Alan

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      1108

      Illsley, Eric

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Irranca—Davies, Huw

      Pearson, Ian

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Perham, Linda

      Jamieson, David

      Picking, Anne

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pike, Peter

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Plaskitt, James

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Pollard, Kerry

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Joyce, Eric

      Price, Adam

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kelly, Ruth

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kemp, Fraser

      Purchase, Ken

      Purnell, James

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Khabra, Piara S

      Rammell, Bill

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rapson, Syd

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Robertson, John

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lammy, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Ross, Ernie

      Lepper, David

      Roy, Frank

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ruane, Chris

      Levitt, Tom

      Ruddock, Joan

      Linton, Martin

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Lloyd, Tony

      Ryan, Joan

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Salter, Martin

      Love, Andrew

      Sawford, Phil

      Lucas, Ian

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Luke, Iain

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McCafferty, Chris

      Sheridan, Jim

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Simon, Siôn

      MacDonald, Calum

      Skinner, Dennis

      McFall, John

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Southworth, Helen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      McNulty, Tony

      Steinberg, Gerry

      MacShane, Denis

      Stevenson, George

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      McWalter, Tony

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      McWilliam, John

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mallaber, Judy

      Tami, Mark

      Mann, John

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Marris, Rob

      Timms, Stephen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Touhig, Don

      Meacher. Rt Hon Michael

      Trickett, Jon

      Meale, Alan

      Truswell, Paul

      Merron, Gillian

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Miller, Andrew

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Tynan, Bill

      Morgan, Julie

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Morley, Elliot

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Mudie, George

      Wareing, Robert N

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Watts, David

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      White, Brian

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      (Swansea W)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Winnick, David

      Olner, Bill

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wood, Mike

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Woodward, Shaun

      1109

      Woolas, Phil

      Wyatt, Derek

      Worthington, Tony

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Derek Twigg and

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Mr. Nick Ainger.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      STRATEGY FOR A FUTURE CHEMICALS POLICY
      That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 6671/01, Commission White Paper from the European Commission on a Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy; recognises the need to protect human health and the environment from hazardous chemicals including endocrine disrupters; agrees that the weaknesses of the current legislation, including the lack of data and slow progress in assessing hazards and risks from chemicals already on the market, must be addressed; welcomes the proposals to ensure transparency and improved public access to non-confidential information and that responsibility is placed on manufacturers and importers to assess hazard and exposure and perform preliminary risk assessment; endorses the Government view that requirements for animal testing must be minimised and alternatives to animal testing promoted; recognises that the proposals must take account of the implications for the competitiveness of the European Union chemical industry; and recognises that proposals must be ambitious but achievable and provide a system that is workable and cost effective with minimum regulatory burden.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      Question agreed to.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      ANIMALS
      That the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.
      That the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Laying Hens, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.
      1110
      That the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Meat Chickens and Breeding Chickens, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.

      FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS
      That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) (Amendment) (Electronic Commerce Directive) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      Question agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made,
    That, at the sitting on Wednesday 19th June, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Robin Cook relating to House of Lords Reform (Joint Committee) not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business and the Order of 28th June 2001 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply to them.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    PETITION

      City of Bath
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Don Foster: I wish to present a non-party political petition that has more than 12,000 signatures from people in my constituency and the support of the local chamber of commerce and many small businesses that are concerned about what they see as the deteriorating state of the city of Bath. It seeks to ensure that Bath, a world heritage site with a mayoralty dating back to 1230, but with an administrative headquarters now based outside the city in Keynsham, is restored to unitary authority status. For more than 1,000 years, Bath was in charge of its own affairs and the petitioners seek to return to that situation.
      The petition states:
      Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Secretary of State … to consider the plight of the citizens living in the Parliamentary constituency of Bath and others devoted to the maintenance and continued well-being of the City of Bath, recognising its unique position as a World Heritage city site, to restore the city to its status as a unitary authority able to take control and govern in its own right as the City of Bath.
      To lie upon the Table.

    Brownfield Sites (London)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    7.16 pm
    Siobhain McDonagh: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to bring to the House this Adjournment debate about the change in the use of planning applications for brownfield sites. I am delighted to have secured it not only because of the importance that this matter holds for my constituents, but because I understand that it is the first Adjournment debate of our new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), and his first outing as such in the Chamber. I should like to say how good I think he will be in his position and how important it is for those of us in suburban constituencies, especially in London, to have Ministers who understand the problems that exist in such areas. I am pleased that he is responding to the debate.
    The reason why I asked for the debate is that my local authority, the London borough of Merton, has in its unitary development plan a policy suggesting that all employment sites should remain as such. On the face of it, that is not an unreasonable idea. Clearly, it is important in areas where land values are very high to have the opportunity for people to work locally and sustainably. That is the case on the surface, but when we go a bit deeper, we see the problems that the policy creates. I would like the Minister to address the issue of location of the sites and the competing housing needs in these areas.
    I come to the debate not as a planner or as somebody who necessarily understands all planning law, but as a constituency Member of Parliament who has had to deal in the past five years with large numbers of complaints from local residents about industrial and employment sites that have been empty for more than five, six or even 12 years and which become magnets for fly tipping, abandoned cars, arson and illegal travellers' sites, generally making local residents miserable while remaining empty and unused because of the council's planning policies.
    It strikes me that if a site is designated for employment use, some attention must be given to its location. We must ask whether it is of an appropriate size for work and business or in an area where they will go, about its transport links, and about how close it is to other residential development. In my sort of suburban area, housing is built up around employers and employment and in places where businesses no longer want to go.
    Our employment problems are related not necessarily to the number of jobs available, but to the people who are available with the right skills to fill the vacancies that exist. While keeping employment land for this purpose is seen as a sustainable policy—so that one works near where one lives—it has an element of unsustainability. People in south-west London are moving further and further out because there is not enough housing. They push up the price, making it very difficult to pay for housing. We are making people travel further because we are keeping sites empty for the sake of some notion that, in future, they may be used for employment.
    That is how I came to the issue. On looking at it further, I discovered a real housing dilemma in Merton's draft UDP. There is an idea that the land allocated for housing
    1112
    purposes will meet housing need. Clearly that is not the case, and it is self-evident that the housing department is not talking to the planning department. That may he replicated in boroughs right across London.
    The housing department believes that it will need something between 600 and 900 affordable units per year. It is currently developing between 88 and 100, with 60 used by planning gain through the planning process. These figures have not hit the imagination of the planning department, which appears to believe that it is currently meeting all the necessary targets. I am sure that it is meeting current Serplan targets for owner-occupation, but not in terms of the need for social renting or the need for intermediate assistance for key workers. It is alarming that these sites remain empty, yet the draft UDP makes no mention of the need for key worker housing.
    This is not an academic subject, and I wish to give the House some idea of sites on which I have worked that led to my alarm about the general policy. The first of these sites, 120–126 Lavender avenue—a mixed-use site of about 637 sq m in a heavily residential area involving social renting and owner-occupation—became empty in 1996. It was a small factory site. No developer or employer would want to go there because the site is long and narrow and would not meet today's IT requirements. There is not good parking, and the public transport situation makes it fairly inaccessible.
    The site was allowed to rot for over seven years while people put in numerous planning applications for residential uses that were never allowed because the site was being kept for employment purposes. The vandals got in, the windows were broken and the building was continually set on fire—so much so that, in the end, the council required the developer to erect a fence along the front of the site so that no one could gain access.
    Resulting from such antisocial behaviour and destruction are not only the misery of local residents but the hidden costs to the public purse: the costs to the council, the police and the fire service. Who benefits? Now—at last, I am glad to say—the council has finally given in and the Wandle housing association will he developing social housing there. The local residents could have told the planners for rather more than six years that that was the appropriate use for the site, but they would not listen.
    The next site is 2–8 Miles road; it is a bigger site of about 3,400 sq m which was a paint factory until 1991, when it was broken up for small business purposes, such as car repairs and small joiners workshops. That site has been the biggest issue in my postbag for the last five years because, for example, of the abandoned and untaxed cars left in the area. As people made more money and improved their homes, they felt bogged down by the street scene, which was appalling. They felt frustrated that their council was not listening to them or meeting them halfway in trying to improve their environment.
    I have had three or four site meetings there and have met representatives of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the police on one occasion when cars had to be towed away. There are hidden costs that come about as a result of the council's not being prepared to consider—for laudable reasons—changing the use of a site that is now redundant but which no longer fits in with the residential area. However, the council does not have to pick up the pieces or live with the consequences of

    1113
    such decisions. Again, it will be a social housing site, together with some business use. Although there will be an employment purpose, it will also be a much better site for local residents.
    It is the final site that I want to mention—the UGI Smith Meters site, of which I know the Minister is aware—that prompted me to ask for this Adjournment debate. It is a six acre site on which UGI Smith Meters used to construct gas meters, until it moved production to India. Over several years, the number of employees slowly declined. The area around the factory consists of 1930s, residential, three-bedroom, family-style accommodation in which people like to live.
    When the site became empty, it seemed unthinkable that it would be replaced by another factory employing the same number of people. It is inaccessible by public transport, and the nearest train station is Streatham Common, some two miles away. Such a factory simply would not fit in with the residential area that it has become. The site is long and narrow, with a very narrow frontage to the high road. Major access is via Long Thornton road, which is also a residential road.
    I have no particular brief in respect of Hanson, the developers; I simply want the best use to be made of what is a very large site for the benefit of local residents. A scheme involving 60 per cent. employment and 40 per cent. residential use was developed, including provision for a nursery—child care facilities are desperately needed in the area—and a shop, which would avoid the need for local residents to travel to buy fresh fruit and vegetables, and so on. The scheme, which seemed to strike a fantastic balance, also provided for 12 B1-use units and nine live-work units.
    It is clear however that local residents must have their say in the impact on their local environment. I sent out a questionnaire, to which I received 232 replies. I held a tea and coffee morning, which well in excess of 100 residents attended to ask questions. Surprisingly, the vast majority supported the application, and the residents association lobbied on its behalf. That is quite an unusual situation. We normally expect local residents to have a "not in my backyard" attitude to such matters, but they said, "No, we realise that we need some development, and we feel that this best suits what we can achieve for the local area."
    In spite of public support and the provision of housing, employment, a nursery and a shop, however, the council turned down the application. Local residents found that very hard to accept, and it continues to surprise me, particularly given that there is another site less than 100 yd away—Marco's, known as 216–218 Rowan road—which comprises 0.75 hectares. That site has been empty for 12 years.
    David Cairns: My hon. Friend makes a very strong case. She will recall that the development not only had the overwhelming support of local residents, but the support of local Labour councillors—of which I was one—the local Labour party, the local residents association, the local Conservative party and local Liberal Democrats. In fact, far more people took part in my hon. Friend's survey than took part in the borough-wide survey for the unitary development plan. Does she agree that it is a sad state of affairs when the council itself entirely misrepresents the nature of the
    1114
    plan so as to justify its actions? Should it not have the confidence of its convictions and tell the truth about the development, instead of spreading misinformation?
    Siobhain McDonagh: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He refers to a recent news letter, published after today's Adjournment debate was announced, in which the planning application was portrayed as far less industrial and more residential.
    David Cairns: Overwhelmingly residential.
    Siobhain McDonagh: Indeed. However, that is not the case. A thriving residential area is being dragged down not only by the poor condition of this site, but by the existence of the Marco's site 100 yd up the road, which has been empty for 12 years. Successive planning applications have failed and it remains unused. To the elderly people who live nearby, it is a source of nightmares, with frequent arson and many abandoned cars—but nobody wants to listen.
    When businesses in an area change their employment needs, how can we bring an element of realism to unitary development plans? How can we convince people that it should not be a matter of ideology? Just because a site was used for employment in the past, it does not have to remain designated for that purpose, especially if that will mean that it remains empty or an eyesore, or costs another council department a fortune; while at the same time horrendous housing needs go unmet.
    I sat on the local authority for 16 years and I spent five years as the chair of housing, but the housing need that I see now bears no relationship to what I saw then. In the last year, Merton's housing department has let 48 three-bedroomed properties—less than one a week. We must do something to address housing need. I understand that we must strike a balance between housing and employment, but I am concerned that the present guidance does not force my local authority to consider where that balance should lie.
    7.31 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I am delighted to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on her success in securing this crucial debate on the use of brownfield sites in London and I thank her for her characteristically generous words of welcome, for which I am enormously grateful. She spoke eloquently of the concerns and worries about the necessary balance between the need for new housing developments and the preservation of existing communities and future employment potential for local economies. She rightly highlighted the tensions that abound in an outer-London, suburban borough and the importance of a sensitive, responsive and flexible planning-led land use and development control framework.
    The overall debate on housing in London perfectly illustrates the potential conflicts between assorted uses and competing demands that the planning system must seek to resolve, and my hon. Friend clearly outlined many local examples. The importance of brownfield sites in London, and the south-east in general, simply cannot be overstated. I should like to take this opportunity to

    1115
    congratulate all local planning authorities on their work in this regard. In 1998, the Government set a target that sought to ensure that, by 2008, 60 per cent. of additional housing should be provided on previously developed land and through conversions.
    The latest general figures available show that in 2000 the actual figure achieved was 60 per cent. and that in 2001 it was 61 per cent. The target has been met and that shows that local planning authorities and developers are making an immense effort to put brownfield land development ahead of greenfield sites. If we focus on London, the story is even better. Over the last few years, an average of 90 per cent. of additional housing development in London has been on brownfield sites. London leads the country in the recycling of brownfield sites and local planning authorities and developers are to be congratulated on that. However, that success does not mean that we should no longer prioritise the use of brownfield sites in London—the challenge is to maintain the rate of brownfield development, and we also need to promote higher densities with good design to ensure more efficient use of the land.
    My hon. Friend mentioned specific sites in her constituency and previous planning applications, but she will understand that I cannot refer to those specifically, given the Deputy Prime Minister's quasi-judicial role in terms of planning. However, I have listened very carefully to what she has said and it will, I hope, help if I explain the Government's position on the wider issues.
    The draft UDP for the London borough of Merton went on what is known as first deposit—the issuing for consultation—in September 1999, and second deposit in October 2000. A public inquiry was held over the summer of 2001 and we are expecting the full report from the inspector later this summer or early in the autumn.
    Those dates are significant in that the latest draft plan pre-dates the Government's announcement of the key worker strategy, hence there is no mention of it in the plan. The plan also pre-dates much of what we have said since about affordable housing, so the inspector may well pick up on those recent developments—I urge my hon. Friend to take a good note of the inspector's report when it comes out—and the plan may well ultimately reflect those policies.
    The national policy position on brownfield development, mixed-use applications, town centres and housing in general is set out in several key policy guidance documents. Planning policy guidance notes 1, 3, 6 and 13 clearly set out that the Government want to promote more sustainable locations for key land uses, such as housing, employment, retail and transport.
    Through the Government offices for the regions, we ensure that the local planning authorities produce local plans that are rooted in and reflect those policy objectives. The latest regional planning guidance for London RPG3, if we want to descend into acronyms—was published in 1996 and set out that authorities needed both to meet strategic housing needs and encourage the recycling and adaptation of existing buildings to provide more housing. That included encouraging authorities to look sympathetically towards using non-traditional sources for housing land, such as obsolete or surplus office floor space. It also encouraged the development of
    1116
    flats over shops, mixed uses, such as those suggested by my hon. Friend, conversion and the subdivision of existing housing stock. RPG3 also linked such opportunities to overall strategies for the regeneration of neglected parts of London.
    The most recent housing policy guidance from the Government, PPG3, which was issued in 2000, took that policy context much further. Through the regional planning process, authorities are now required to undertake "urban capacity studies". Such studies help authorities to identify actual and potential brownfield land housing opportunities. They also help the regional planning body to reconcile information that it has about housing needs in a given area with the actual potential to accommodate those needs.
    London has led the country in planning matters, as one would anticipate from a capital city, and it developed capacity studies long before it was required to do so by the national policy guidance. The former London planning advisory committee, of which I was a member for my sins back in the mid-1980s, undertook several comprehensive regional capacity studies in the past few decades—the most recent being published in September 2000.
    To digress, my only claim to fame as a member of that committee was that I was the sole vote against the erection of the millennium wheel on the other side of the river, which has been an outstanding success. As I start my time at the Dispatch Box, I hope that my judgment has improved significantly since the mid-1980s. LPAC's work informed authorities' housing allocation in their plans and it is one of the key reasons why London has such high levels of land recycling for new development and is ahead of the curve in terms of other planning authorities.
    Now, the responsibility for regional planning in London has passed to the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority. Based on reports such as the recent capacity study, the Mayor is drawing up a new regional plan for London—the spatial development strategy—and I look forward to seeing the Mayor's emerging proposals in the forthcoming draft of that document when it is published. I am sure that issues such as affordable housing, land use and the utilisation of brownfield sites on a London-wide basis will also be features of the SDS. That document and local UDPs are all about seeking to reconcile the often conflicting needs for housing, employment, commercial and other needs, as my hon. Friend said.
    Planning policy guidance 3 also sought to address some of those problems. It recognised that some authorities have designations for employment uses in their plans, which cannot realistically he taken up over the life of the plan. Similarly, some of those designations were made years ago, are no longer compatible with the policy set out in the PPGs or RPGs, and should be seriously reviewed when the authority concerned critically assesses and reviews its plan, and redesignated if need be to housing or, as my hon. Friend suggested, mixed use.
    I certainly endorse that approach and exhort local planning authorities to look closely at their land use and site designations through their UDP review processes and to recognise the changing needs of their boroughs, not least the transitional needs occurring in many outer-London boroughs, as my hon. Friend pointed out. The mixed-use solution is often attractive in dealing with

    1117
    the competing needs of employment and housing, as it can reconcile apparent opposites. Flats above shops or offices not only provide housing but can bring vibrancy, life and sustainability back to shopping centres or high streets that have been going through bad times.
    For several years, PPG1 has been promoting the mixed-use route and many such schemes are being introduced throughout London. In February, the Government published a report that showed how we could get an additional 25,000 homes in London by building over commercial property such as supermarkets, car parks, shops, garages and other low-rise developments.
    I agree with my hon. Friend that we must do more to exploit the potential of our high streets, be prepared to consider changes of use and seriously to reflect on using different densities in different areas. We may need to rethink previously designated light-industrial, employment or B1 uses that are close to residential areas, and to think seriously about previously unacceptable densities to assist in our quest for more housing—as long as it is done within a sensitive design context and we do not repeat the past mistakes that blight some areas. I will do all that I can, in my ministerial role, to exhort local planning authorities to be as imaginative, creative and forward-looking as possible in that regard.
    The main reason that the debate is so important is the issue of affordable housing and key worker strategies—I again congratulate my hon. Friend for raising the subject. The issue is of huge significance in London, not least in my hon. Friend's constituency, and the continuing utilisation of brownfield sites will be key to any resolution of the problems faced in London's housing market and to our ability to realise and meet London's potential and needs.
    The figures for housing in London speak for themselves. Need for affordable housing in London is high and will continue to be so. The Mayor's office forecasts that London needs about 20,000 units per year. Shelter suggests a figure of 26,000 per year. In 2000, 21,000 houses were built in London, of which 4,000 were in the affordable sector. Overall, the affordable housing stock is not rising with demand and the provision of affordable stock is way below what is needed.
    Government policy on affordable housing is clear: it can and should be a priority, and developers and local planning authorities are aware of the need. Our recent consultation document on planning obligations has gone further, and floated the idea of requiring commercial and
    1118
    retail applications to contribute towards a tariff that would help resource the provision of affordable housing. The Government are adamant that that need does not go unrecognised or unresolved.
    We can begin to make further progress only if the level of new development on brownfield sites for housing is either increased or, at the very least, maintained at current figures. It does not and should not follow that demand for affordable housing is met by encroaching on London's parkland, metropolitan open space or green belt.
    My hon. Friend has highlighted the need to respond to the recognition of the changing nature of our communities and local economies in London; that brownfield sites are and must remain central to our ability to provide affordable housing in London; and that local planning authorities need to be forward looking and robust in their determination of the future use of each and every precious pocket of brownfield sites in our local communities—not least in the outer-London suburban context that we share. She has emphasised, too, how mixed-use developments can help that process, satisfy affordable housing needs and bring much needed economic vibrancy back to our communities. She has illustrated how the planning system is vital to so many aspects of the redevelopment and regeneration of our communities.
    My hon. Friend is to be commended on raising those extremely important issues, which matter so much to her constituents and the wider community in London. The Government are fully aware of the concerns that she expresses and, as I hope to have shown, the increasing importance of brownfield sites to any solution to London's housing problem. The case for changing some aspects of the planning system, among other things, to help the process is overwhelming. We have outlined many of those plans for change in the Green Paper on planning.
    The point about the overwhelming need for change is well made, and I shall ensure that the comments made by my hon. Friend and her colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), are fed into the process as the Green Paper is, I hope, turned into law. She has certainly done an extremely important service for her constituents by raising this matter. I warmly thank her again for the welcome that she gave me at the start, and I sincerely hope that I can live up to her generous billing and expectation.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Railways
[Relevant documents: First Report from the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee Session 2001–02 HC 239-I, and the Government's response thereto, CM 5472.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin.]
2.30 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is always a delight to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, not least because I am sure that you are one of the few people who can keep us in order with charm and talent.
An important part of the work of a Select Committee is to consider in considerable depth subjects of concern to the voter and traveller, as well as to the House of Commons and House of Lords. The Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions has an excellent record in considering urgent problems with care and in sufficient detail to be able to suggest one or two in-depth and important solutions.
The railway system was thrown into total chaos at the time of privatisation. The system needs to be integrated, and to be focused on safety and comfort. Its fragmentation has cost us dear. When the Government came to power, they took time to put a Transport Bill on the statute book that was capable of transforming the railway system and of having an immediate impact on how it was reorganised. I regret the length of time that that process took, as I am sure do many other people.
It was useful that the Select Committee chose to examine the refranchising of the railway system when there was considerable feeling that the privatised industry was not carrying out the tasks that it had been set at the time of the original changes. Once the Committee began to consider the problems in detail, it found that the division between a rail track authority and individual operating companies had not produced smooth integration or an efficient use of resources for the travelling public.
It did not surprise us that criticism of Railtrack, which was core to the railway system, was widespread. We found its performance entirely woeful. We thought it significant that one of the largest corporate fines ever imposed by a regulator had been imposed on Railtrack, because of its failure to fulfil its set task and its apparent inability to change or improve to ensure a better rail system.
That matters for both Her Majesty's Government and the traveller. The railway system is fundamental not only to transport but to economics and the quality of people's lives. The ability to move people and goods about is so fundamental that we all pay an enormously high price if the system goes wrong. The Committee found that, in the split between a core service such as
324WH
Railtrack and the train operating companies, there was an immediate difficulty with the interfaces—in knowing who was responsible for what and who would be able to put right mistakes that arose.
We said that we wanted Her Majesty's Government to undertake several tasks. First and foremost, we said stability was needed in the industry, and that it should be returned as soon as possible with a high level of expertise and confidence. It is an extraordinary fact of life in this country that more than 3,000 people are killed every year on the roads, yet four or five deaths on the railways give rise to long and frequently virulent campaigns against that form of transport. We realise that that is because there are fewer major accidents on the railway system. Nevertheless, we had a good opportunity to say what had gone wrong.
The first problem was manifest: Railtrack was not in control of fundamental aspects of the rail system. The use of contractors and the constant dilution of the safety case almost inevitably meant that it had difficulty assessing the quality of the work that was being done to maintain and improve the railway. It often had insufficient trained staff within its own complement to ensure that it knew what was being done in its name. Furthermore, the nature of its relationship with the operating companies meant that those involved tended not to suggest ways of working together to produce the best system, but to blame one another for various aspects of railway administration. It would have been better to decide such issues jointly, and to operate in a useful, co-operative mood.
We said that first and foremost it was important that the Government had begun to understand that the Strategic Rail Authority, which they created, had not, under its previous chairman, played the role that we had hoped it would. It had not produced plans, leadership or a clear view of where it was going.
It then became obvious that Railtrack was in considerable financial difficulty. Some hon. Members will argue this afternoon that it was entirely viable and, indeed, capable of meeting all its debts. Choosing its language carefully, the Committee said that, on balance, it did not think that that was the case. It said that the previous Secretary of State was right to say that Railtrack's constant reiteration of its need for extra funds and the fact that it returned to the Department for extra support were clear enough indications of its problems and of the need to put it into administration.
The previous Secretary of State was very open with the Committee. He gave us clear evidence, and offered to show us the minutes of his meetings. I always find it interesting when Ministers are sufficiently confident to offer Select Committees minutes of meetings in which they have taken part. That shows that they, at least, are happy with what happened.
Chris Grayling: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman is ruining my career again.
Chris Grayling: May I remind the hon. Lady that the minutes of the key moment of the key meeting disappeared, and were written a number of weeks later?

325WH
We always welcome openness through the publication of minutes, but there was no timely record of what took place at that meeting.
Mrs. Dunwoody: We must be fair to the former Secretary of State. He sat in the meeting, and he thought that the minutes existed. Indeed, he offered the Committee a copy of them, and we really cannot expect more of a Minister. Had previous Governments followed the same practice, a lot more information about what was happening would have come into the open much earlier.
The Committee's argument was not with the previous Secretary of State. He said that the Government could show that Railtrack was failing, because it was still going to them for more money. It did not fulfil its key objectives or hit its targets—that was the opinion of the rail regulator, not the Department. After a difficulty one emotionally charged weekend, the rail regulator told the Committee that Railtrack was the author of its own misfortune. He said that for the simple reason that it had never consulted him about its financial difficulties. Had he been asked, he would have had the chance to do something about its economy, but he was rung late on a Saturday night and asked whether he could produce millions of pounds by the Monday morning. Not surprisingly, he said no. At no point did Railtrack return to reopen those negotiations. To be fair to the previous Secretary of State, he was quite open with us in the information that he provided.
We said that it was essential for the successor company to Railtrack to focus above all on safety, maintenance and performance—not profit. We said that it had to be set up quickly, and that Railtrack's period of administration had to be ended as soon as was useful and possible. We said that we wanted a successor company to have direct responsibility for inspecting the network and to employ directly those responsible for its maintenance and renewal. We wanted much greater emphasis put on the engineering skills and experience of the staff.
I am a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. It is clear from the
evidence—I am speaking for myself and not for the Committee—and the constant stories that I have been told about the way that contractors work, that even if they have been slightly misled, the majority of people working for contractors are very worried about safety standards, how people are trained and the way that they are allowed to work on the rail system. The workers believe that safeguards are not in place and that individual contractors have been only too willing to turn a blind eye to the abandonment of practices essential to the protection of railwaymen and railwaywomen. That calls into question the quality of the maintenance and operation of the rail system.
Above all, the Committee was very concerned that Ministers did not appear to have a contingency system in place. It did not require a very great brain to foresee that Railtrack might get into difficulty. The company did get into difficulty, and we were surprised that Ministers were not ready with an alternative and had to take rapid action in a short period. We thought that the
326WH
information available ought to have been acted on even earlier, and that that ought to have been very plain, even to the Government.
We want the successor to Railtrack—whatever it is called—to have sufficient money to be able to carry out its job. The modernisation work that is still required in the rail system will need large sums of public money, and that will continue for a long time. It cannot be funded by the fare box. The Treasury must accept reality and stop arguing that somehow or other there is a magic formula—that other people can be made to pay. We suggested that a full assessment should be carried out before using any alternative source of funding.
We heard a lot about special purpose vehicles. The Committee was unconvinced of the future efficiency of such schemes, because little detail was supplied as to who would be responsible, who would take the risk and who would have ultimate responsibility for any disruption to the network. There were no detailed arrangements for transferring enhanced assets to Railtrack's successor. Those are all important questions. If we do not have answers to them, it is difficult to judge whether a new form of financing called a special purpose vehicle will be the answer to our prayers.
We also believe that there was an opportunity, in the allocation of the new franchises, to rethink the future of the railway. We can argue about whether privatisation could have been a success, but the reality is that this is an integrated system. The operators must work together, not as independent companies, because rail has no opposition. Fashionable economists might say that the opposition to the railway system is the motor car or the plane—the bicycle has not yet been cited, but I am sure that it will be in due course. However, the reality is that for those who need to use trains there are very few alternatives. The idea that when one cannot get a train one can always hop on a bus begs an important question, because buses take far longer, do not necessarily go where one wants to go or turn up when one wants them to turn up. Buses cannot be regarded as a substitute for a train service. The Government and the House of Commons must confront that problem.
The argument originally used at the time of privatisation was that subsidy from the public purse would gradually disappear, because companies would become so efficient that they would be able to replace all the cash. That has manifestly proved to be nonsense, and many of us said so at the time—sometimes it is nice to be able to say "I told you so". It is clear that the railway system will largely depend on the public purse for one, two or three decades. Only by supporting an efficient rail system can we reap the benefits.
We want the Government to take short-term measures and to renegotiate many of the franchises, based not on how many pennies can be extracted from private enterprise partners but on the quality of work. Like other hon. Members, my postbag is full of the hundreds of letters that I receive every day detailing the conditions in which ordinary passengers travel—not only those who travel into the centre of large cities but those who travel between cities. Those of us who use the west coast main line do not need to be told about the conditions, because we are subjected to them every week.

327WH
This country has a real problem. If we want an efficient form of transport, we shall have to pay for it, but not, as appears to be happening at the moment, by train operating companies constantly putting up their fares above the level of inflation or making railcards virtually unusable through the terms and conditions that they apply to them. Those companies comply with a price cap for only a very small number of services.
People need and want to use railways. If they have clean, comfortable and safe transport, they will enjoy using railways, but they will not leave their cars at home if the Government continue to make motoring cheaper and travel by public transport more expensive. It is not an argument between the car and the bus: those who use the train frequently drive to the station and those who get off the train at the other end frequently take some form of wheeled transport to get to their destination. The Government must accept that they need a coherent policy that encourages more people to use public transport. The way to do that is to ensure that it is reasonably priced, safe, clean, comfortable and absolutely reliable—that it arrives when it is supposed to arrive and gets to where it is supposed to go. Our report sets out some straightforward undertakings that we thought were important. The plan that we proposed is useful and could be followed by the Government to advantage.
I shall say one short word about the work of the Transport Committee and Select Committees in general. As long as members of such Committees attend often enough and remain through the sittings, they will hear a variety of evidence, including many written submissions. Indeed, the evidence submitted to us is varied and sometimes contradictory, but it is always useful. People who are called before our Committee as witnesses have given interesting written evidence. That places responsibilities on Members of Parliament: they have to turn up, do their homework, think reasonably intelligently about the questions that they will ask and surprise themselves by listening to the reply—a task that does not always enamour itself to politicians. I believe that since it was constituted after the 1997 general election, the Select Committee has done a responsible job. It worked hard and produced many more reports during the first Session than any other Select Committee. It has continued to address the whole gamut of transport issues during this Session. If it is dissolved, that will be a great loss, and if it is replaced by a slightly more amenable Committee, I shall not be surprised. The House of Commons operates best when it has sufficient confidence in its hon. Members to allow them to ask difficult questions of any elected Government, to wait for the replies and to use that process as the basis of its reports. That is how it has always operated.
This report is slightly different from some others because it contains a clear minority report from two Committee members who are part of Her Majesty's Opposition. Therefore, unlike the others, it is not a totally agreed text. However, that is an exception. The majority of the Committee's reports have been agreed, because some people give a little and others are prepared to abandon one or two of their beloved ideas. That is how Select Committees work, and it is a credit to the House of Commons and to the parliamentary system.
I have regarded it as an honour to chair the Committee and have enjoyed it. I find it very amusing. I do not regard myself as in the pocket of the
328WH
Conservative Members, or even of the Whips Office or the Back-Bench Labour Members. However, to have served on a Transport Committee that has, if I might say so immodestly, produced high-quality and properly researched work, is something that I value and that I hope the House of Commons will continue to value.
2.51 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: On a personal note, may I declare a number of interests with which the members of the Committee are only too familiar? I owned shares in Railtrack and own shares in Eurotunnel and First group, but it is not my intention to set up as a financial adviser. In view of the latter remarks of the distinguished Chairman of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), may I say what a privilege it has been to serve under her chairmanship. It is no secret that politically and personally we do not agree on everything. Sometimes she must feel that we agree on nothing, or very little. However, I have learned a huge amount from her, and it has been a privilege to serve under her and her colleague, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett). Long may that continue.
I should also like to put paid to certain allegations, nuances and innuendos that were made in a recent article in Tribune magazine. It may not surprise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not normally subscribe to the magazine—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Lady to confine her remarks to the report.
Miss McIntosh: There were allegations that there was all-party support for the main Committee report. As the Chairman has just said, Conservative Members did not, regrettably, hijack the main Committee report, despite our best endeavours, but we felt so strongly that we were moved to table a minority report. It is a matter of regret to me that we were unable to persuade distinguished members of the Committee to join us in our views. There is still time before the end of the debate for them to change their minds.
The Chairman commenced by saying something with which I disagreed. She called the process of privatisation faulted and fragmented. That is the main issue on which the minority report showed a strong difference of opinion. I do not wish to dwell on that, but if the argument is that the fundamental process of the original privatisation was flawed, the Government compounded that fragmentation from 1997 and made the situation worse. They created the Strategic Rail Authority and the Office of the Rail Regulator and then proceeded to ignore the advice of both. We have recorded our disappointment in the minority report and in the main report.
The previous Secretary of State ignored the advice of the former chairman of the SRA, notably with regard to his recommendation to give a long-term renewal of the east coast main line franchise to GNER, which was my personal wish. I do not have a financial interest in GNER, but I use it most weekends to go home and I know that constituents overwhelmingly supported such a franchise renewal. The decision not to award a long-term renewal of that franchise is jeopardising GNER's investment in rolling stock, which is regrettable for the travelling public.

329WH
Even more serious was the fact that the then Secretary of State overruled the advice of the rail regulator, particularly when Railtrack was put into adminstration. I do not wish to revisit this old chestnut but, in my view, contrary to what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich suggested, the incontrovertible evidence was that Railtrack was commercially viable and had returned a very good financial result in that year. That is why our minority report tabled a robust amendment in paragraph 26(a) on page 56 expressing our extreme concern that, following the Government's refusal to support Railtrack and their decision to force it into administration, private sector confidence in the railways has evaporated.
Mr. George Stevenson: Would the hon. Lady care to reflect on the evidence that the Committee received that, in spite of suggestions that a review by the rail regulator may have been appropriate in January, it was not taken up by Railtrack and, indeed, not taken up when the High Court agreed the administration order.
Miss McIntosh: I do not want to get drawn into a long, protracted argument on this point, because, with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, there is evidence that points to the contrary. Railtrack did not oppose the order in the High Court for the simple reason that we had taken powerful evidence from the rail regulator that he had, as an independent adviser, given certain advice to the then Secretary of State that he would recommend that Railtrack be allowed to have the rescue package. That is regrettable, especially given the Government's 10-year transport plan. Approximately 55 per cent. of the £34 billion of investment forecast in the 10-year transport plan for rail transport is to come from the private sector. I firmly believe that, by putting Railtrack into administration, the then Secretary of State destroyed industry and private sector confidence and security in any future investment that it may have had. Should the Minister wish to agree with me, he need not respond to that point, but if he disagrees, perhaps he would argue his case to rebut the minority report.
Over the past five years, the Government have failed to act to improve rail freight. There is all-party agreement in the Committee and elsewhere that more freight should be moved by rail instead of by road. Ministers in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and in the Home Office—I gather that this is largely a Home Office matter—have failed to act to improve rail freight through the channel tunnel. That is a matter of regret on which the Committee commented several times, and it has had a great impact. The Government have failed to meet even their targets in the 10-year transport plan. I have tabled several parliamentary questions on that subject, but have not yet received satisfactory answers. As a result of the Government's failure, one of the companies involved, English Welsh and Scottish Railway, has had to take a complaint to the commission and losses have been incurred, not least by Potters of Melmerby in my constituency.
330WH
I am delighted that the Committee will visit northern England to take evidence on railway franchises and operation. In the minutes of evidence for Wednesday 10 April, on page 9, paragraph 28, I had the opportunity to ask the present chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority whether the poor industrial relations and bad strike record of one of the applicants for the new franchise currently operated by Arriva Trains Northern, formerly Northern Spirit, might jeopardise its case. I was delighted that Mr. Bowker said that that would be taken into consideration.
With regard to our second conclusion at paragraph 26(b), if the Strategic Rail Authority is to remain a viable force, the Government must allow it to operate independently, free from Government interference, and it must be held to account and publish an annual report and update its strategic plan. I hope that the Transport Committee will hold the SRA to account.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich also referred to the relationship between contractors and Railtrack. I do not disagree with her entirely, but I hope that the recommendations in the Cullen report will be implemented as soon as possible. As a shareholder, I have taken a keen interest in these matters, but I understand that it is not unusual for independent contractors to provide their services as subcontractors to other engineering systems besides the railway. I regret that the three central recommendations of the Cullen report on managing contractors were not implemented by the deadline of March 2002—that was mentioned in Railnews. I fervently hope that the Committee and the House will put pressure on the Government to ensure that those three central recommendations are given effect as soon as possible.
Many questions remain unanswered following the demise of Railtrack, including several points to which the hon. Lady and the report referred. For example, false hopes were raised by the previous Secretary of State on the funding of Railtrack from April last year, particularly with regard to Renewco. It is deeply regrettable that on 5 October, after the October deadline, the Office for National Statistics ruled that the use of Renewco as a vehicle would run counter to Government policy. It would have been deemed to have had public sector spending implications and would therefore be considered inappropriate. I believe that that gave false hope to Railtrack—the company and its shareholders. That is regrettable.
Despite the hon. Lady's most charming exhortations, and despite the fact that we were in agreement with many of the Committee's conclusions, we had no alternative but to make a minority report. In it, we record the fact that we were appalled at the Secretary of State's decision to apply for railway administration. We believe that future private sector investment, to which the Conservative party is still committed, has been jeopardised because its security appears to have been threatened by the unilateral decision to put Railtrack into administration. The demise of Railtrack and the failure of the previous Secretary of State to agree long-term franchise renewals will have far-reaching implications for the whole railway industry.
Looking ahead to Newtrack, the successor company to Railtrack, we had the opportunity to question the previous Secretary of State on the specific detail of how the private sector would be involved. However, on page

331WH
45, paragraph 157, the minutes of evidence show a distinct lack of clarity from the Secretary of State. The Committee heard compelling evidence from much of the industry, which thought that its ability to contribute would be threatened.
We have a new Secretary of State for Transport, and I wish him every success. I wish to declare an interest. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and I are both non-practising members of an elite club—the faculty of advocates: we are members of the Scottish Bar. I hope that he will succeed where others have failed. I hope also that the Committee, and any future Committee, will hold him to account, and that it will monitor and scrutinise the Government's ability—or inability—to meet present and future targets.
I commend our minority report to the House. It proved that the previous Secretary of State failed to achieve the Government's targets.
3.7 pm
Mr. George Stevenson: I want to refer to those sections of the report that deal with the future of the railway infrastructure. First, however, I wholeheartedly concur with the congratulations and warm regards that have been expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She has been described as formidable—she has been described also in less congratulatory tones—but in all her doings, I have never had her down as a knife-wielder. I echo the warm regards.
I shall confine my comments to the strong recommendation in paragraph 54 on page 29 that
"the Government should consider the role and responsibility of the Strategic Rail Authority in relation to maintenance, renewal and development of rail network."
I shall return to those words, which I believe are crucial.
Unlike the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), I believe that the action taken in October 2001 by the previous Secretary of State was right. The majority report certainly reflected that, as the majority of the Committee believed that there was no alternative. Rail privatisation has been a disaster. Disaster is the appropriate term, as it has been a financial and economic disaster and, in some tragic ways, a human disaster.
Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman refers to a human disaster. It is important to remind hon. Members that the Cullen report specifically says that safety on the railways has improved rather than worsened since privatisation. We all regret deeply the tragic accidents that have happened on the railways in recent years, but they cannot simply be attributed to privatisation.
Mr. Stevenson: The hon. Gentleman is correct in his assertion about that report. My view—and we shall have to agree to disagree—is that although the railways remain a relatively safe method of transport, we have witnessed, and continue to witness, human disaster. I make no apologies for raising that point.
Privatisation has been a disaster for the railways. I shall refer to the future and emphasise three problem areas, which are noted in the report, that the Government have begun to tackle only partly. I
332WH
emphasise again that I welcome the previous Secretary of State's decision on Railtrack in October 2001. Any cursory glance at the evidence shows that the problems were remarkably consistent throughout the industry. Three factors exposed our railways to enormous blight: the pre-eminence of the profit motive and shareholders' interests being put before safety; the fragmentation of the industry; and the confidence that needs to be generated, particularly from the private sector, if the Government's 10-year investment plans are to have any chance of success.
I want to deal with the Government's action and the contents of our report on the profit motive. It has been damaging to place shareholder interests before anything else. The evidence was clear from the previous chief executive of Railtrack—he is now the chief executive of Woolworths, although that is another story. There was a clear conflict between the profit motive and shareholder interests and the safety and infrastructure of our railways. The evidence is clear, and the question is whether we can be confident that the Government's actions since October and their pronounced intentions for a replacement will remove the conflict between the profit motive and the interests of the railways. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Minister is nodding his head. I understand why he is gesticulating in that way.
The previous Secretary of State said in his evidence to us that his preferred model was a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. I am not sure how certain he was about that intention, because he said:
"I am not sure that is the model that we will end up with at the conclusion of the period of administration."
It is clear that he was not, by any stretch of the imagination, entirely sure that the preferred model would lead us to where we all want to be.
My concern, which is reflected in the report, is that a not-for-profit company without shareholders will still seek to make a profit. Profits may be ploughed back into the industry instead of going to the shareholders, but they remain profits. That is an important point. It is not a subjective view, but one shared by the rail regulator, Mr. Winsor, in his evidence to us. I will not go through the whole of his evidence, but I shall quote one piece of it. He argued that the not-for-profit company should operate on a commercial basis, and when I asked him how he interpreted that, he said:
"The company is operating so as to make a profit and avoid a loss."
The rail regulator, who is responsible for setting the financial framework in which the new company will operate, is already saying that it will be a profit-making company. The new company may not distribute profits to shareholders, but the profit motive is clearly central to its establishment. Other factors also indicate that, in spite of the Government's well-intentioned and necessary actions, we will still have a railway industry shot through with the profit motive.
We are told that we could have 15 special purpose vehicles, which constitutes investment by the private sector in the development of strategic rail capacity. I readily admit that I am not a member of the honourable company of advocates and am certainly not an economist—I am an ex-bus driver who used to work down the pit. However, one does not have to be a person

333WH
of letters to recognise that if a private company invests heavily in an infrastructure project, it will want a rate of return. It is unrealistic, if not naive, to suggest that private investment in special purpose vehicles will not be subject to the maximum transfer of risk from the private to the public sector and to a rate of return that will make our eyes water.
Those two realities, in addition to the status as a so-called company limited by guarantee, convince me, as a privileged and proud member of the Select Committee, that the railway industry will remain shot through with the profit motive. The fact that the public purse will pay for those profits is neither here nor there, because we will have shareholders in special purpose vehicles and a company looking to make a profit. Who says so? The rail regulator. I am not convinced that the Government have minimised the profit motive. All the evidence received from across the board suggests that the profit motive and the running and development of our railways are simply not compatible.
Mr. Don Foster: I apologise for interrupting the flow of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which are fascinating. Before he moves away from the specific issue of the new Railtrack body, does he agree that tough regulation is needed for any monopoly? Whether that regulation would be enforced through the SRA or another regulatory body is a matter for separate debate. There is a duty to ensure that everything is done in the public interest, as competition regulation requires. Does he agree that the Government's model of moving to a not-for-profit company or a company limited by guarantee is better than the existing one, but could be significantly improved if the public interest were emphasised more?
Mr. Stevenson: Yes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I shall return to that point in my concluding remarks.
The other blight on the industry is fragmentation. The minority report did not challenge the evidence for that, as any member of the Committee who sat through the evidence will know, but I note that many Members present did. Let us consider how the Government propose to remove this blight, which should be removed or at least minimised. The Government are telling us not to worry about it too much as they anticipate that as the years roll by we will have 10 or 15 train operating companies and 10 or 15 franchises, not 25. The rail regulator appears to take the same view. Fine. We will wait and see if that rationalisation happens. I know that the Government accept that fragmentation has blighted the industry, as the Secretary of State says so.
Miss McIntosh: Without going into any great detail, let us assume that there is a difference of opinion. The hon. Gentleman argues that there is fragmentation. Does he agree that the Government compounded that fragmentation by creating the Strategic Rail Authority and the rail regulator, and then dissociated themselves from the advice of those bodies?
Mr. Stevenson: No, I do not accept that. The Committee produced a report, which I believe was
334WH
unanimous, that congratulated the Government on setting up the SRA. This is the first time in many years that a strategic vision has been possible. I am not the only one who says that. We based our report on evidence, not individual opinions. I asked Mr. Christopher Garnett, the chief executive of GNER,
"would you agree that one of the major blights on the railway industry has been fragmentation?"
He said, "Yes." That is not a political or dogmatic opinion, but a statement from a major player in the railway industry.
What have the Government given us? We had Railtrack, and we have the SRA and the rail regulator. The new company, Network Rail, will look after the maintenance of the current network, and the SRA will be responsible for developing the new network, which is another split. Some 15 special purpose vehicles will develop their own bits of railway throughout the country. There will also be up to six regional companies, which are offshoots of Network Rail. If fragmentation is a blight on the industry, how will the new structure reduce fragmentation? I argue that it will do exactly the opposite: it will increase fragmentation, which does not bode well for the future development of the railways along the lines indicated in the report, which we all want.
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I presume that the hon. Gentleman signed up to the majority report. I shall highlight two paragraphs. In paragraph 29, the Committee expresses its concern about the new franchise for East Anglia going to Liverpool Street and states that it is not convinced that having one franchise operating from one London terminus is a good thing. However, in paragraph 56, on vertical integration, the Committee concludes that there is no evidence that vertical integration would work. How could the hon. Gentleman sign up to both of them?
Mr. Stevenson: The debate on vertical integration was interesting. Some doubts were expressed, particularly by the train operating companies, that vertical integration was the way forward. I share that doubt, and the sections of the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred reflect that. The situation in London is not typical of what the rest of the country is experiencing, but although the hon. Gentleman is right to quote from it, the tenor of the report in many paragraphs reflects the evidence that we took that fragmentation is a blight on the industry.
Mrs. Dunwoody: It is important to understand that all the companies told us that vertical integration has not been proved. They do not know whether it will work, but they are frightened that the Government might take an area, such as Scotland, do a trial and then say to the rest of the country that it works in that area. It is an important point. There is no inconsistency in the arguments. There was a clear acceptance by the industry that it had no evidence that vertical integration would work.
Mr. Stevenson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention.
The last matter that I want to mention is investment and confidence in the future. It will be no surprise to hon. Members that I have serious concerns about the

335WH
removal of the profit motive. As I have said, I think that the industry will still be shot through with the profit motive in the future. I have also expressed my concerns about fragmentation, which is likely to get worse in spite of the Government's best efforts. Rather than the actions of the Secretary of State being to blame for the private sector's diminished confidence about investing in railway infrastructure, it is those two areas that the City and the private sector have doubts about. Until we act decisively on those two areas, the confidence that we need from the private sector will not be forthcoming.
What do we need to do? I think the logic is compelling. All the work that is being done—or not being done, as in the case of the east coast main line—on the railway infrastructure is, with one exception, either paid for directly or guaranteed by the taxpayer. As an example, I quote from my questioning of Mr. Grant, then the chief executive of Railtrack, about the east coast main line. I asked him who is paying for it, and he replied, "SRA is paying." I asked, "In total?" and he said,
"In total… The agreement reached so far…is for £28 million of development work."
The SRA is paying for it; the Government are paying for it. I asked the Secretary of State who is paying for the east coast main line and he confirmed that. I also asked him who is paying for the west coast main line. Every single penny of phase 1 of the west coast main line—in excess of £4 billion—is coming from the public purse. The second phase is being held up because costs have escalated to £7.5 billion, £10 billion—who knows?—and the Treasury is baulking at the prospect. All the infrastructural investment in this country's railways is, with one exception, either guaranteed or paid for directly by the public purse. Public sector responsibility for railway infrastructure is important. It is abject nonsense to split the maintenance of our current railways from the development of new railways.
The entire railway infrastructure, including maintenance and development, should be incorporated within the Strategic Rail Authority, for which the public has paid and will continue to pay. We do not have the commitment to the public interest that the circumstances demand. As we heard in evidence, the private sector invests in rolling stock, but not necessarily in infrastructure, and has a formidable job to do in operating our trains. The interface between the public and the private is not the Government but the rail regulator. In future, the Government—probably the present one—will be faced with that compelling logic. We are half way there: we now need the Government to take the next step in the public interest.
3.30 pm
Chris Grayling: I rise to speak as co-author of the minority report and co-hacker, but I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) who was a fair, if robust, Chairman of the Select Committee. The idea that anyone could hijack her Committee is a fantasy writ large.
I also pay tribute to Select Committee members of all political persuasions. Our debates took place in good spirit, despite significant divisions over certain aspects of the report. It was a happy and constructive
336WH
Committee and I hope that the reconfiguration following the reshuffling of Government portfolios will not destroy the Committee's valuable parliamentary contributions. Parliament would be a poorer place if the Committee failed to make the same constructive criticisms that it had in the past.
I shall start by focusing on aspects of the minority report and then ask the Minister about developments that took place since the report was published, which remain pertinent to its content.
Government Members have spoken about privatisation. I am no universal defender of every aspect of it. Some aspects did not work as intended, but I do not accept that everything bad is attributable to privatisation. There is much to be proud of in rail privatisation—not my words, but those of the Strategic Rail Authority in its plan published in January. The SRA is a creature of Government. We should recognise that consensus exists between the Government and the Opposition that privatisation included much to be proud of and has worked quite well.
The minority report refers to the strong growth in rail usage since privatisation and to the investment in new locomotives and wagons in the freight industry, and in rolling stock in the passenger industry. It highlights many positive developments on the network during the past few years. It also provides some specific examples of private companies making a difference—the Chiltern franchise, for example.
I was brought up near the Chiltern line, which today bears no relation to the form that it had under British Rail. There are services and new lines on the route now that would never have been dreamed of in those days. Services now go to Kidderminster and Birmingham when once they made it up a single track to Banbury. That is one example of positive developments. Likewise, we are now seeing an expansion of cross-country services from Basingstoke to East Anglia and on a number of other routes throughout the country. There have been some powerful service innovations since privatisation.
The rolling stock industry is another example of success. Indeed, other countries are seeking to adopt the leasing formula, which has been a strong way of delivering substantial new rolling stock to the network. Having been ordered two, three, four and five years ago, that stock is now beginning to come on stream, and that is one of the real fruits of rail privatisation.
I intervened when the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) referred to safety. I differ from him on this point, although not in relation to the circumstances of the individual accidents that have taken place, because they clearly resulted from structural, operational and human failings within the privatised rail industry. My point is that those failings are not unique to the privatised industry. I think back to the Clapham disaster of 15 or so years ago, when human error and failings in the engineering environment caused a disastrous accident under BR. Over the history of BR, there were many such incidents, but every incident, whether under BR or the private sector, is regrettable and lessons have to be learned.
I cannot escape the conclusion that came from Lord Cullen, of all people: the trend of improved safety on the railways that has been the case over generations has

337WH
continued since privatisation. Any of us who jumps on the bandwagon—I am not accusing members of the Committee, but it does happen in this place—to accuse rail privatisation of having caused accidents is in danger of undermining confidence in the rail industry, and we all know that that would not be the right thing to do. Rail is a safe way to travel—much safer than the roads—and we should do nothing to undermine it while working to improve it.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: No hon. Member would blame privatisation for all safety problems on the railways, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the respected commentator, Christian Wolmar, who regularly writes on railway matters. In his most recent article, he says of safety on the railways:
"We are back to the way the industry was privatised and fragmented, which introduced a new and incalculable risk into the railways which has caused these disasters: interface risk."
Did not privatisation introduce a new risk into the railway system and is not that why Mr. Wolmar concludes:
"The Tory ministers who foisted an unworkable structure on the railways have blood on their hands"?
Chris Grayling: I know, like and respect some of Mr. Wolmar's work; I do not always agree with him. In this case, I prefer to take the opinion of Lord Cullen, who looked exhaustively through all the evidence surrounding the accidents into which he chaired inquiries. His report clearly says that the trend of improved safety on the railways has continued since privatisation.
Mrs. Dunwoody: May I point out that that trend started under British Rail? Some of the things now claimed for the privatisation of the railways are actually changes that were instigated by the safety divisions of British Rail. Central door locking is a classic example; it made an immediate impact on the number of deaths. The two-year period afterwards was directly attributable to what happened under British Rail.
Chris Grayling: I still say that I have yet to hear anyone seriously dispute Lord Cullen's conclusion that over generations the trend of improved safety has continued. As I said, there have been structural failings, but it is not right to say that all the problems are because of privatisation.
The minority report aims to highlight our severe misgivings about what took place last year. As Opposition members of the Committee, we are committed subscribers to the idea of the importance of the railways. However, we believed that the actions of the Secretary of State last year were likely to retard rather than help the development of the railways, and I fear that subsequent events have reinforced our views on that front. We heard a number of worrying elements in the evidence. There were inconsistencies from the Secretary of State and some degree of evasiveness, for example, in the reporting of his meeting with John Robinson, the chairman of Railtrack last July. There was a lack of willingness to answer questions.
338WH
The Secretary of State strenuously avoided answering the question, put to him repeatedly, about the date on which he took the decision to draft the proposed legislation to bypass the rail regulator and to remove his right to carry out an independent review of Railtrack's finances. We subsequently learned from the reports about the meeting that he held with Pam Warren a month before Railtrack was put into administration that he had been thinking about it for a considerable period before he took the decision. Pam Warren's evidence made it clear that the decision was not taken at the last minute.
We heard about a lack of consultation. I was particularly worried that the Secretary of State should have dived into a process like this without taking serious advice from the people who could have steered him one way or another. Sir Alastair Morton told us that he knew nothing about what had happened. The Strategic Rail Authority knew nothing about it. Tom Winsor, the rail regulator, knew nothing about it either: his evidence showed that he was shocked when the Secretary of State told him what was planned.
Much of that has come home to roost. It contributed significantly to the Secretary of State losing his job. We have also seen the Government forced into a U-turn over compensation to shareholders. Their initial dogmatic approach was that shareholders do not matter but they have now been forced to face the reality that one cannot walk all over shareholders and expect to carry on regardless in an environment where private money is needed. Ironically, the Government will end up spending more than Railtrack asked for in the first place.
Mr. Stevenson: While the hon. Gentleman is on that subject, would he care to attempt to answer the question that I asked of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh)? Why did Railtrack not take up the option of seeking a review from the rail regulator in January of the year in question and still had not taken up that option nine months later?
Chris Grayling: My immediate answer is that I think that the Railtrack management was very foolish not to object to the High Court action and not to pursue its claim for an interim review. However, I can understand why it did so, given that it had just discovered that the Secretary of State, in an almost unprecedented step, had informed the independent rail regulator that if he took a decision that favoured Railtrack he would have his powers removed by Act of Parliament.
Mr. Stevenson: This is a crucial question. I am not talking about the events of late September and early October that were reported to us in evidence from the rail regulator, but about events of the previous January. Why, from January to October, when Railtrack had a perfect entitlement to seek a review of its financial base, did it refuse to take up that option?
Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. We have to think back to the timing of the establishment of the budget for control period 2, which was produced immediately after the Hatfield crash, although the detailed work was done before then. As the financial consequences of Hatfield became more

339WH
clear, Railtrack became increasingly aware that it would require more money. At the same time, Tom Winsor was making a number of public statements to say that Railtrack was over-ambitious in its financial demands. He used the phrase "begging bowl".
Early last summer, one of the City institutions that provided finance to Railtrack wrote to the company expressing grave concern about its relationship with the rail regulator. I know that because I have seen the letter. It said that if the matter was not resolved, it would undermine the company's ability to raise finances in the markets in future. My belief is that there was a fundamental breakdown in the relationship between the rail regulator and Railtrack, which ultimately led it to go to the Government rather than the rail regulator to sort out its financial problems.
Miss McIntosh: I apologise for disturbing the flow of my hon. Friend's speech. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) seems to be disingenuous in overlooking two points that I raised, one about Renewco and the other about the interim review. Renewco was meant to be part of the funding that was disqualified only after Railtrack was put into administration, which might be another reason why Railtrack did not oppose the High Court review.
Chris Grayling: I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is important to remember that John Robinson said publicly that he did not ask the Government for more money. He asked them most immediately for a letter of comfort that would enable Railtrack to raise bond finance in the markets.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to those of us who are very simple the difference in real terms between asking for money and asking someone to guarantee every penny that is borrowed?
Chris Grayling: The key issue is the lack of confidence in the City that led Barclays Capital to send a letter to Railtrack to say that future powers to raise bond finance would be jeopardised by the problems between the company and the rail regulator. The purpose of seeking a letter of comfort was to reassure possible investors that the Government would continue to support Railtrack and provide funding for it.
Mr. Don Foster: I have a sense of deja vu. It is perfectly possible to debate who said what to whom and when and where, and to say that the issue was not well handled. Equally, we could have a debate in which we say that we want to get on and put the solution in place as quickly as possible.
We have been over the ground many times, and I would be much more interested to hear whether the hon. Gentleman believed that all would have been well had the then Secretary of State done nothing whatever. Alternatively, does the Conservative party have a solution to what was undoubtedly a problem that had to be solved one way or another? The then Secretary of State at least had a solution, and I would love to hear what the hon. Gentleman's was.
Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have been doing hon. Members the courtesy of
340WH
responding to questions that they have raised. I mentioned that I intended to go on to some of the substantive issues that face the industry, and I shall do so now. In a debate on the report, it is important to explain some of the context for the divisions in the Committee and the publication of the minority report.
The consequences of administration and Government decisions on passenger rail franchising are proving extremely serious for the industry, and I want to set out some of the reasons why. Most immediately, the factor that has not been adequately taken into account in consideration of the industry's situation is capacity. Many of the practical problems on the network are caused by the fact that there is simply no space. During the past five to seven years, there has been almost unprecedented growth in the number of people using the railways, to the extent that there are more passengers today than there were before the Beeching cuts, with a network at a fraction of the size.
We see the consequence of that in the performance figures. Last week, 70 per cent. of services by South West Trains arrived on time. As a regular user of South West Trains, I realise how full the trains are on that network and how easily the timetable gets out of kilter for hours if something simple goes wrong. The capacity problem is at the heart of the rail challenge that the Government face. Unless that is tackled, we will not see the improvements that the rail network needs.
A tragic consequence of that background, and the reason for my main criticism of administration, has been the confrontational environment that it created. The industry should have worked together to deal with its problems, reshaping by consensus not by confrontation in the courts, if reshaping was truly necessary to deliver improvements. Another consequence has been a delay in the major projects needed to ease the capacity problems.
I shall give a specific example. South Central operates from Victoria to Brighton, and has other routes that head down through my area, among others. South Central has a project on the books to upgrade its line, to create new flyovers and to do station improvements for new loops that would greatly improve the capacity problems on its network. When Railtrack was put into administration, it had a team of 200 people on that project, working towards the creation of a special purpose vehicle that could make it a reality. That team has been disbanded. A skeleton staff of 12 people are now working on the project, which will take years to revive. The delay has happened and the team has been disbanded because there is nobody to work with it on the infrastructure side in the long term.
The Government are causing problems for the future development of the network by over-reliance on organisations that are concepts and not realities. The first is Network Rail. I wish Network Rail well, because it is the only option that the Government have left us with. However, it is a shell company with a small group of people, mostly financiers, operating out of an office in Tottenham Court road. It has no expertise in transforming railways. We hope that it will deliver and succeed. However, there is no reason to believe that it has the ability to deliver something that Railtrack could not.
There are fundamental questions about Network Rail. Who carries the risk? What happens if something goes wrong? Tom Winsor has said repeatedly that

341WH
shareholders bring a cushion against things going wrong, because if they do, the shareholders lose their money. What happens if something goes wrong in Network Rail, such as major cost overruns or major under-performance in the business? Who carries the can and picks up the cost? The inescapable answer is the Government. There is nobody else. Who is accountable and responsible for Network Rail?
I have found it particularly frustrating in recent weeks asking the Department questions about Network Rail. It is a company that has been established by the Strategic Rail Authority, and its senior directors were recruited, and paid, by the SRA, but the Government continue to behave as though it were a stand-alone company for which they have no responsibility. If something goes wrong, who is accountable for Network Rail? We have no answer. The Government are clear that they are not, but I am far from clear that they can shirk that responsibility.
Mr. Foster: I happen to agree with the hon. Gentleman's concerns. However, I would go further. We have the ludicrous situation in which the SRA is meant to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for the future while separately, but borne by the SRA, another company is making its recommendations. The Secretary of State is meant to choose between the various bids, yet we know that he has already made up his mind. A great deal of money is being wasted in the production of alternative bids that will fail because the new body will succeed.
Chris Grayling: The Government have been lucky in that those who were preparing alternative bids and ideas have not banged more strongly on their door, especially since the developments in March.
The other concept area is that of special purpose vehicles, to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South referred. They are untried, untested and unestablished. We are months, if not years, away from the establishment of a special purpose vehicle that can start to deliver improvements on the network. However, I have spoken to senior people in the rail industry who have real doubts that those vehicles can be established and can work.
There are fundamental financial issues about special purpose vehicles. First, the Government depend almost entirely on such vehicles to deliver the 10-year plan for transport. We recently heard in evidence to the Select Committee from the previous Secretary of State that there is only some £4.5 billion of uncommitted cash in the 10-year plan from the public sector for investment in the railways. The rest is for routine subsidy or specific regular routine maintenance grants for Railtrack, which include only the west coast main line, and money for the channel tunnel rail link or for paying debt—the interest on the private sector contribution. So, of the £33 billion of public finance, there is only £4.5 billion spare. That means that the £34.5 billion of private sector finance in the 10-year plan for the railways has to take up most of the slack in delivering improvements.
That is where the special purpose vehicles must play a vital role. But how will that work? One can set up a special purpose vehicle, which is effectively a public-
342WH
private partnership scheme, to make station improvements or to modernise the east coast main line, but ultimately a separate company cannot own the east coast main line in isolation from the rest of the network, because it is not a separate, stand-alone entity.
Even if we find contractors who will put together a financial package and take on the modernisation of the east coast main line, at the end of the process, the line must be transferred back to Network Rail in some way. Assuming that the people who had built the line would want to be paid back, Network Rail would have to buy it back, either in cash up front or in long-term liabilities.
Out of the £34.5 billion, £7 billion or so is allocated for rolling stock investment and will come through the leasing companies, but the other £25 billion to £27 billion is infrastructure investment that will be channelled through special purpose vehicles. At the end of the process, that investment will have to be bought back by Network Rail.
The successor is a company limited by guarantee, owned by we know not who, controlled by we know not who, that needs to start off by raising £9 billion of debt in the City and then needs to buy £25 billion of assets from various special purpose vehicles during the next 10 years. The basis for that is a business that, as Railtrack, had a turnover of £2.3 billion. Does anyone understand how that arithmetic will work? Does anyone think it credible for a company to have debts that are 10 times larger than its income? I do not believe that the current model will or can work. The problem is that although special purpose vehicles can deliver some of the improvements needed they can provide only a fraction of what is necessary. The 10-year plan is stuck in a siding and I do not understand how the current financial approach will get it out.
It is important to remember that the report began as one into passenger rail franchising, but circumstances on the networks steered us down the infrastructure side. We were, and we should still be, extremely critical of the introduction last summer of short-term franchise renewal—the two-year extension to the GNER franchise is an example. The Government have defended the practice using the example of the Midland Mainline two-year franchise extension, saying that it has not affected investment. However, that is disingenuous, because the Midland Mainline extension was a two-year extension to a closing date far in the future. We effectively turned a franchise with five years remaining into one with seven years remaining. GNER is not like that. The extension was for two years and it is a short-term measure.
We know, because we took evidence from the company, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said earlier, that GNER will not invest in rolling stock in the way that it had hoped and expected because of that short-term franchise extension. Common sense says that if somebody is given a two-year extension to a franchise, they will not rush out to make major investments in the network. The Government need to be careful before going down that path again and I hope that there will he no more such franchises.
We also need clarity about the number of franchises that we are to have. I believe that there were too many, although I temper that remark by saying that if we get rid of some of the smaller franchises, we might get rid of

343WH
some of the more successful ones. The Chiltern franchise has done so well that one would not wish to replace it. However, there have been too many franchises. I was particularly concerned by the Government's decision to create a separate Wessex franchise and split the South West Trains franchise into two. I am delighted that the SRA is holding consultations on that proposal at the moment but I wish that the Government would draw that consultation quickly to a close and get on with a single franchise for the whole of the south-west.
The Government's actions over the past few months have exacerbated the industry's problems, which were undoubtedly there already. They are now creating a situation where projects are being delayed unnecessarily because of the hiatus in the industry. The danger now is that it will become impossible to deliver the 10-year plan, not just for financial reasons but in logistical terms. All those projects will be condensed into such a short period under the plan that it will be logistically impossible to build them all at once. It is a shame that our country cannot afford to do so, because we need to get things moving.
I urge the Government to get at least some of those much-needed projects under way. They must do what they can to ensure that Network Rail gets Railtrack out of administration quickly and to sort this mess out. If they do not, I fear that the Committee—in whatever guise it takes—will return to the issue in two or three years' time and come up with a report that makes the Government as uncomfortable as our recent reports have made them.
4 pm
Jane Griffiths: Although I am not a member of the Transport Committee, I am pleased to have the chance to take part in this vital debate. Paragraph 71 of the conclusion to the Committee's report states:
"As the Prime Minister has said, there are two reasons why the problems with the railways have arisen. The first is related to privatisation which 'is generally accepted to be a disaster'… Secondly, there is the under-investment in the industry which went on for 'a considerable period'".
We have heard much about the disaster of privatisation, the problems caused by the fragmentation of the railways and privatisation's destruction of the safety culture. I shall not repeat those arguments, but instead confine my remarks to issues that, while somewhat historical in nature, are none the less pertinent to the report.
In 1833, the Great Western Railway company was formed to build a railway from London to Bristol. Such moves were supported in Reading by public opinion and by the Liberal-supporting paper, the Mercury. It was opposed by the landed gentry, and the paper that was set up to support the Conservative cause, the Berkshire Chronicle. Despite strong support, the first Great Western Railways Bill was defeated in the House of Lords, but a second Bill, in 1835, was successful.
The line reached Maidenhead in 1838, but because of the difficulties caused by the construction of the Sonning cutting, it did not reach Reading until early 1840. On 24 March, just before the line opened, a freak whirlwind struck Reading: it drowned two fishermen in the River Thames and tore off a 4-ton section of the station roof,
344WH
hurling a young man, Henry West, to his death. His colleagues erected a memorial to him in St. Laurence's churchyard in Reading. As an aside, I should mention that the whole episode often features in pub quizzes in Reading. I shall return later to the problems caused by high winds.
The expansion of the railways saw Reading connected to Newbury and Hungerford in 1847. In Basingstoke in 1848, the Great Western line linked up with the South Western line from London to Southampton. In 1849, Reading's South Eastern station opened on the line connecting Reading with Guildford and Reigate. In 1856, the completion of the line between Wokingham and Staines gave Reading a second link to London, at Waterloo.
That growth in the rail system was matched by growth in Reading, with the result that Huntley and Palmer biscuits were eaten all over the empire. That growth also allowed the seeds grown by Mr. Sutton at his Royal Berkshire Seed Establishment, which were widely known among British farmers, to be exported all over the world. The tin boxes of Huntley Boorne and Stevens were taken on the railways, and iron founding and brick and tile making all grew.
The great age of the railways stretched from the 1850s to the first world war. Very little investment took place during the war, and some people blame the subsequent state of the railways on that. To remove the duplication and waste of resources caused by the existence of more than 120 companies, the Railways Act 1921 created the big four companies. In his excellent book, "Broken Rails", Christian Wolmar describes the big four companies' unsuccessful attempt to achieve profitability, which in turn led to serious under-investment. The London and North Eastern Railway company paid no dividend to shareholders and chose to invest any moneys in the system, whereas GWR paid the highest dividends, and although some companies invested in the electrification of the heavily used southern commuter routes and in creating extra capacity on the east coast line, GWR undertook little electrification.
After the second world war, the railways again suffered from years of intensive use and under-investment. Contemporary accounts record that nationalisation was rushed, which resulted in as complex a management structure as privatisation created 50 years later. Furthermore, the Government paid over the odds: shareholders in the big four were paid £20 billion at current prices. It is interesting to compare that figure with the £2.5 billion received for Railtrack in 1996.
In the 1950s, a modernisation plan was drawn up to deal with predicted future losses by investing heavily to reduce costs—in particular, in mass electrification and the introduction of diesel trains on branch lines. That plan resulted in the electrification of the west coast main line and investment in new trains, but then the tap was turned off. Thereafter came the pro-roads Transport Minister, Ernest Marples—the man who started serious motorway building in this country and who, amazingly, owned a company that did very well out of the massive investment in new roads.
Mr. Marples employed Beeching, who proposed making massive cuts in the railway network. If Beeching's report had been implemented in full, there

345WH
would remain only lines to the north-west, Glasgow, Edinburgh and south Wales, but the implementation of his report was patchy, with some profitable routes being axed and other loss-making and duplicated routes surviving.
Barbara Castle's Transport Act 1968 heralded some improvements. The 1970s saw the electrification of the east coast main line and the introduction of high-speed trains out of St. Pancras station and on the western region lines out of Paddington station. At the time, however, they were seen as a low-tech solution that would be replaced by the advanced passenger train. Although the 1980s saw massive fare increases, and the boom of the late 1980s saw passenger numbers increase, the advanced passenger train did not happen; and the recession of the early 1990s and the fall in the number of passengers led to privatisation.
We are now back at the conclusions of the Committee's report. In his review of the 50 years of state control of the railways, Christian Wolmar talks about the problems caused by stop-go investment, and adds:
"the biggest mistake of successive British governments has been the failure to think strategically and to develop the kind of grand plan whose success makes the British so envious when they travel on the French TGV system."
Huntley and Palmer, Suttons, Huntley Boorne and Stevens, the iron foundries and the brick and tile makers of Reading have gone, to be replaced by Microsoft, Oracle, WorldCom, Thames Water and Prudential. I have been into some historical depth to illustrate the lack of investment in the western region for most of the period since the first world war. Our railways, both private and state-controlled, have been given promises of investment that, by and large, have not materialised.
The western region has not been electrified, except for the stretch used by the Heathrow express. One of the reasons that I was given for the lack of electrification was that Cornwall was too windy for the overhead wires, which would be blown down by Cornish winds. I am grateful to my constituent, Dr. John Missenden, for telling me that when the same overhead wire system was sold to China in the 1980s, it was described as typhoon proof. Reading has had only one whirlwind, and I am sure that the overhead wire system could have stood up to it.
To that extent, I wholeheartedly support the recommendation of the Select Committee report at paragraph 62:
"that the Strate gic Rail Authority should implement a programme of electrification without delay."
It could do no better than start with the western region. However, the Government's response to that recommendation was:
"The SRA does not believe that electrification is a current priority for investment…The SRA believes that the benefits of electrification are not as clear cut as they were twenty or thirty years ago. It is…expensive to provide both the necessary infrastructure and the high standard of reliable power supplies which modern electric trains require. There is also now no significant fuel cost saving between the use of diesel and electricity. Similar performance characteristics and noise levels between modern electric and diesel powered trains mean that most passengers can no longer discern any difference between them."
I am sure that that is all true. However, the Government's response makes no mention of the undoubted environmental benefits of electrification.
346WH
At Reading station, we have a capacity bottleneck that Railtrack's network management statements said was one of 10 worst in the country. We have had more than a decade of promises from Crossrail of a line from Reading to the east of London, passing under London en route, but it is not built and we still face reports on its viability and consultations on what its route should be. The west coast main line is receiving an upgrade to its upgrade, and planning is being don for the upgrade of the east coast line upgrade. The strategic plan for the Strategic Rail Authority was finally published at the beginning of the year, and the Select Committee's report details the delay and disappointment. Yet the same plan timetabled any work to modernise or upgrade the western region for the very end of the 10-year period, offering jam tomorrow, yet again.
There is now a route from Heathrow to Paddington, but there are no plans for a route to link with the western region and only a half-baked plan to link up with the railway somewhere south-west of the airport. Reading is at the crossroads of north-south routes and routes between London and the west. Movements on those routes cause conflict at Reading station, which has reduced its capacity. Reading borough council has been talking to developers about redeveloping the area around the station, which could pay for some of the other improvements that I have mentioned, but what chance is there that those who currently run the railways would be interested in working together on such improvements? As much chance as there has been for the past 50 years of electrifying the western region.
This morning, I received a document from the Railway Forum entitled "Building the Railway for the Future: Update 2002". Based on the work of the distinguished transport economist, Dr. Rana Roy, it states that estimates of potential growth contained in the 10-year transport plan are understated. The original document, "Building the Railway for the Future" said that the estimates of railway growth were underestimates, as a result of congestion charging being introduced sooner than expected and because of higher than estimated growth—and there will be even higher growth in future. It is important that railways develop to accommodate that growth, rather than rapidly increase prices to choke it, causing even greater environmental damage as people turn to their cars. There is another debate to be had about how price increases have disadvantaged public transport users by comparison with car owners during the past 25 years.
Railway safety is another important issue. We must be careful that, as a result of a few high-profile accidents, we do not focus too much on spending all investment on railway safety rather than on improvements to the system.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Lady share my concern about the lack of investment to provide extra coaches on popular services that are heavily used, particularly those in rural areas, where there might be a service only every two hours? There seems to be a deliberate attempt to minimise the amount of space available in order to choke demand; meanwhile, as she mentioned, investment is made in

347WH
safety measures, which do not have the same beneficial effects of encouraging people to get out of their cars and travel by rail.
Jane Griffiths: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about lack of progress on increasing the number of coaches, but I do not agree that it is a deliberate ploy. I simply want to warn against such a strategy, which would fail regardless of its effect on the railway system.
Since privatisation, there have been eight deaths a year as a result of train accidents. That compares with an average of 3,400 deaths a year on the roads. It says something about our society that we seem to be more relaxed about deaths on the roads.
Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Lady raises an important point by comparing safety on roads and on rail. Is she aware that new statistics have been published today which show that there has been a 1 per cent. increase in road deaths in the past 12 months? One per cent. might appear a small increase, but it represents about 34 additional deaths—far more than the total number in any year on the railways. That illustrates her point even more forcefully.
Jane Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
The railway service from Reading to London is fine. Sufficient trains come from Wales and the west country that passengers do not need to use a timetable: they just turn up at Reading station and catch a train within 10 or 15 minutes. Journeys elsewhere are a different matter. A member of my family who lives in Cornwall needs to travel regularly to Bristol: she leaves three hours leeway to ensure that she arrives at meetings in Bristol on time.
I talked about the past and present in relation to the report, but I shall conclude by talking about the future into which the report must lead us. There should be an electrified western region, from Reading to the southwest and Wales; Crossrail should finally be introduced with Reading at its western end, offering a link from Reading and the west straight through to Stratford and the channel tunnel rail services; and there should be a link to Heathrow airport on to the western region from the west. That would make it possible to have an airport and channel tunnel check-in at Reading station as they have on similar stations on Swissrail, which allow luggage to be checked in and dealt with before reaching the international plane or train. Reading station should he rebuilt to increase capacity as part of the redevelopment of the station area.
I talked earlier about the important part that railways have played in Reading's growth. It has become more than a sleepy market town as a result of its place on the transport network; it is at the centre of a region that is helping this country's economy to expand, and it is important for Reading, the region around it and the whole country that there is a modern and efficient rail network. We will not have such a network if we repeat the mistakes of the last century and fail to invest. I have set out a vision for the future of rail, but it is up to the Government, the Strategic Rail Authority and the companies to implement that vision. I call upon them not to fail in that challenge and not to allow the under-investment that characterised the last century.
4.16 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: On behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, I welcome the Committee's excellent report. We do not have a minority view on it, as we do not have a place on the Committee—indeed, we have no place on any departmental Committee, but that is a separate complaint. The report shows the stamp of the Chair, who is to be congratulated on her sterling work in the past few months in keeping the issue alive and at the top of the political agenda. It is a long time since railways dominated the political agenda as they do now. I would say that some of the responsibility for that lies with the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), who dug some holes that he did not have to dig, but some of it certainly lies with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She should be congratulated on that, and the Committee as a whole should be congratulated on the report.
I intend to address three key aspects of the report that affect Wales and, to an extent, Scotland: first, the delays in the franchising procedure—Wales and the borders will form one franchise area for the first time, which is a huge step forward but the delay is of great concern; secondly, the placing of Railtrack in administration; and thirdly, the nature and some of the limitations of the 10-year plan. I shall start with the 10-year plan and the underfunding that can clearly be seen in it, especially in the light of what we want to achieve in Wales.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) outline her plans, which were not in the least ambitious. My ambitions for Wales are even smaller and more minor than her plans for Reading. The Minister knows what those plans are, but they are as far from fulfilment as they were two years ago, and almost as far from fulfilment as the hon. Lady's.
The 10-year transport plan allows for £60 billion to be spent on the railways by 2010, of which half will come from public funds. We have questions about exactly how the rest will come from the private sector, but that subject has been discussed already. The Committee's report makes it clear that the Government must give a commitment to that public funding. If long-term funding does not come from the current Government or future Governments, the switch to roads will continue, there will be an increase in road traffic and a failure to deliver on the Deputy Prime Minister's promise. A 1 per cent. increase in road deaths can be linked to the increase in road traffic, although that is somewhat decoupled from the growth in gross domestic product.
In the Welsh context, that £60 billion amounts to only £20 million a year, whereas a rough calculation based on the Barnett formula and the needs of the Welsh railways gives us a figure of about £300 million a year. That is backed up by work from Professor Stuart Cole from the Wales Transport Research Centre. Wales receives about a fifteenth of what it needs. The Minister was challenged on that when he gave evidence to the Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) helpfully asked him whether Wales was being short-changed. His answer—"Yes"—was even more helpful. It is now clear that it is less a matter of short change than of no change. What will the Minister do to rectify the problem? We have some short-

349WH
term ability to rectify it, mainly because the National Assembly is plugging the gap with its own funds even though it has no responsibility for rail, but in the long term—over the 10 years of the plan—there is a huge funding gap for the railways in Wales.
My constituency offers a prime example of how the problems are affecting Wales in general. The National Assembly has been working with the Strategic Rail Authority and the companies to agree a £6.5 million upgrade of the line from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth. All we want is an hourly service, the reinstatement of some sidings that were removed in the 1980s so that trains could pass on a single track and to save costs, and an upgrade of the Dovey junction. I do not know if anyone has been to Dovey junction, but it must be the loneliest junction in the world. If anyone got out there, they could not leave without another train coming to pick them up, because it lies in the middle of a marsh. Nevertheless, it is vital as it is where the line from Aberystwyth diverges up to Pwllheli and the north Wales coast. It is a hugely important line for tourists, and for linking local communities in a rural area.
We will not be short of the £6.5 million—at least, no one says that finding it will be a problem. The National Assembly put up £2.5 million of its own money from a transport grant, and the SRA earmarked £4 million. However, the plan was put on hold just before Railtrack went into administration, and it is now no further forward. I understand that that is to do with engineers and the Railtrack's inability to undertake the work. I am talking to the bidders for the Wales and borders franchise about whether they are prepared to take on the work as part of the bidding process, as there is no reason why the company that takes over the franchise cannot undertake the part of the work for which Railtrack was responsible and use the money available to employ engineers from other private companies.
Small but significant regional upgrades like the ones in my constituency are being overlooked in the planned, but not yet delivered, massive investment in the south-east of England and in schemes such as the train protection warning system. I hope that the companies are amenable to them in principle, as the SRA was when I talked to it. I hope that the Minister will take up the proposal and use some of his good offices to whisper a suggestion in the right quarters. If that were to come off, many people in mid-Wales and in the National Assembly would see that the relationship between his Department and the Assembly has become better in recent months, even though it is due in part to the Railtrack fiasco.
The process of franchising in Wales is currently a minefield. Eight pre-qualified parties want to run the Wales and borders franchise. I believe that one recently withdrew—the Minister might be able to say something about that—but there were certainly eight in the initial announcement. The parties have been disgruntled by the way in which the SRA has handled aspects of the franchise process. The first guide for the franchise was produced only after the bidders had pre-qualified—they pre-qualified for a process without knowing what the guidelines for it were, which is a curious approach. The companies now within the franchising process complain that they do not have sufficient insight into the criteria
350WH
used to measure the selection of the final company, despite the fact that the draft franchising statement of June 2001 said that
"all bidders…must be aware of the criteria upon which their bids are being assessed."
Clearly, we have another hole.
A final problem is that the aspirations of people in Wales have been raised. The National Assembly has its own transport infrastructure projects and ideas involving buses, road transport and community transport. The railways are not devolved, but Welsh people's expectations about what can he achieved by railways have been raised. The companies applying for the Wales and borders franchise know that those aspirations cannot be met by the present subsidy for the Welsh franchise.
We were initially promised some redress for the years of underfunding in Welsh railways, but it is now clear from the facts ascertained so far and from the evidence given to the Select Committee that no significant move in that direction will be forthcoming. The Government have recently significantly increased investment in railway infrastructure of the UK as a whole, but if we focus on the regions and nations of the UK, glaring gaps emerge—gaps that could create huge problems in future.
Emergency cuts were made in Wales and the borders when Aberystwyth and Wrexham services took over the shadow franchise last winter. Organisations such as the Shrewsbury and Aberystwyth Rail Passengers Association and I were told that cuts were necessary to make the timetable work, and we had to accept that. What is really annoying is those cuts have now been removed from the core franchise. In other words, the core franchise is now what is was minus the cuts, yet the cuts were made on an ad hoc, temporary basis. We have already lost, if not a whole arm, at least a hand from the Welsh railways, a loss that will affect their reach to Pwllheli and Wrexham.
Significant difficulties remain with the Wales and borders franchise. They all revolve around the precise sum of money made available within the franchise area for Wales. The Government and the Strategic Rail Authority seem to have made a reasonable proposal. The major railways infrastructure is based in the southeast of England, where 70 per cent. of rail journeys take place, so the major investment is focused there; but we will miss a trick if we fail to remember the small and significant improvements that could be made elsewhere in the United Kingdom which could enhance the number of journeys and the comfort of passengers. The mid-Wales lines, which have two carriages, are dreadfully overused in the summer, and at weekends, when students go back and forth from the midlands to Aberystwyth, the services are dreadfully overused. The handling of franchising in Wales is confusing and is unlikely to deliver even the minimum aspirations of people in Wales, which were raised following the refranchisement process and the headline figures of fairly massive investment at UK level.
I conclude by dealing with the business of administration and Network Rail. Both my party and the Scottish National party fought the last election on the principle that Railtrack should be renationalised. We felt that it was the safest, quickest and cleanest

351WH
option. Because the stock in Railtrack had fallen, it was reasonable for the Government to buy it back until it had a 51 per cent. controlling interest in shares. If that had been done, compensation would not have been such a burning issue. The Government could have reassumed control of Railtrack without the mess that the administration created. Bob Kiley, who is now responsible for the London underground, used that model for the New York subway. It would have given us the necessary public ownership without completely alienating the private sector, which is a danger in the current handling of the matter. I support the need for Railtrack to come back in to the public fold, but I question whether Network Rail is the correct vehicle with which to achieve that.
The speeches from the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) are relevant to the replacement for Railtrack, Network Rail. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell will recall that Glas Cymru—Welsh Water—was used as the model. The Glas Cymru model is interesting and would bear examination by hon. Members from outside Wales. There is no question that profit has been taken out of Welsh Water; there is still profit, but it is now being ploughed back into the company. It does not go to shareholders, which is a positive move.
On the question of accountability, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, there is no element of democratic or public accountability within Glas Cymru. It was promised that Glas Cymru would draw members from all sections of Welsh society and that the executive and non-executive directors and the board of management would reflect the interests in Welsh society. However, the old officers and guard—I should probably not use the word "hacks"—of Hyder have turned up again. There has been no expansion of public accountability or any element of public ownership in Glas Cymru.
Glas Cymru seems to be working well at the moment, which pleases me. It is a different way of trying to deliver private sector control over utilities, but I would not confuse what Glas Cymru is doing with public ownership or control. Accountability has not been resolved with Glas Cymru or in the proposals for Network Rail.
Chris Grayling: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to another difference between Glas Cymru and Network Rail. He rightly referred to Glas Cymru's ability to plough money back into the business. However, economic ups and downs mean that railway revenues rise and fall, while water company revenues, because they are regulated, tend to be reasonably static and reliable. Therefore the weakness in the Network Rail model is that if there is a major downturn and revenues fall significantly, there is no cushion to absorb short-term financial problems.
Mr. Thomas: I accept that point, and it is notable that Glas Cymru got its bonds in the City on the basis of the regulator's comments about its prices over the next five years. The quinquennial review by Ofwat gave Glas Cymru its collateral to get the bonds in the City. Network Rail will not be able to do that in the same way
352WH
because of the recent history of administration and the differing nature of income streams that the hon. Gentleman pointed out.
I hope that Network Rail succeeds and that there will be an element of public accountability in the new body. However, the Minister should take the opportunity today to say how the members of Network Rail will he appointed. He must answer the key questions: who will appoint the members, and who will then appoint the executive and non-executive directors? Any shadow of public accountability and ownership rests on those questions, and if they cannot be answered satisfactorily, the euphoria of several months ago about the idea that administration was taking Railtrack into public ownership will dissipate. We will be left with the fact that Network Rail is a private sector company in a different form, which should concern Labour Members.
A key lesson that we picked out from both the Committee's report and the recent experiences of railway infrastructure in Wales is the need for stronger devolutionary procedures. I will not argue for the immediate devolution to the National Assembly of responsibility for railways in Wales, but that is my party's position, and the Scottish National party holds the same views about railways in Scotland. However, I believe that the role of the representatives on the SRA needs to be strengthened. A member is appointed to represent Wales and a member is appointed to represent Scotland, although they have a slightly different remit in legislation. The National Assembly must be able to discuss the needs of Wales with that member, and able if necessary to issue some form of instruction about how they should be argued. That is almost the case in Scotland, although the position could be beefed up a little.
At present, we have representation without a voice. It is representation selected by the Department—there is no real interface to allow the National Assembly's views to be voiced at a senior level in the SRA. That must change because the Assembly is responsible for all other aspects of transport in Wales. If we want an integrated transport system, we must get better collaboration in Wales. My personal way of achieving that would be to have a passenger transport authority for Wales, but that is some way down the line. In the meantime, I hope that we will have a stronger representational role for Wales on the SRA.
I hope that the Minister can tell us how the franchise can be improved in Wales, and that there will be some extra money for that, although I might be hoping for too much. I hope that he will also listen to the concerns of organisations such as the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth Rail Passengers Association about the delays in some of the smaller infrastructure projects. There is no financial barrier to those projects going ahead, only the barrier of Railtrack's administrative chaos. The Government are now responsible for Railtrack, and as the sole funder of Network Rail they will de facto be responsible for that body. They are paying the money and they must start calling the shots.
4.36 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe

353WH
and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, the report goes into the issues in considerable depth. As a non-member of the Committee, I took the time to read the report and most of the evidence and the appendices. It is an extensive report. Tempting though it is to add my two ha'porth on the wider issues, particularly after the interesting speeches that we have heard today, I hope that members of the Select Committee will not regard is as a discourtesy if I restrict my comments to local issues. Indeed, I expect they would prefer it. Those local issues exemplify some of the wider problems that have been the subject of the debate. I hope that the Minister can respond to them either today or in writing at a later stage.
My most recent local experience in this matter comes from the two years that I spent immediately prior to the last general election as the executive member responsible for transport on Edinburgh city council. In that capacity I was heavily involved in the council's efforts to extend rail services in and around Edinburgh. That experience showed how the structure—or perhaps one should say the chaos—left by the Conservative Government's privatisation made it difficult to improve our local network. It is illuminating to consider how fragmentation such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) described affects what one can do to improve local transport services.
I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), with whom I often disagree. Many of his accounts of the difficulty of taking forward local projects match my own experience. That is the result of fragmentation. It happens in rural Wales, urban Scotland and elsewhere. It shows how the rail network is suffering from the consequences of privatisation by the Conservative Government.
There are two local examples to which I should like to refer. The first is the Edinburgh crossrail project; one area in which the rail industry has not been extravagant is in choosing names for urban railway projects. No city in the UK seems without its crossrail project, but no matter. The development phase of that project began about seven years ago. Shortly afterwards, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority was established and funding made available. To cut a long story short, an essentially simple project to build two new single-platform stations to take passenger rail services on a stretch of line just over a mile long that was already fully functional for freight services became bogged down in a mire of negotiations with Scotrail and Railtrack. The prices initially demanded by the signalling contractor—signalling was a major element of the project—were, in the view of council officials, utterly outrageous and possible only because there was only one supplier in a privatised market. Without competition, it could demand the price it wanted. The delay resulted in the project being completed last month, about two years late. I am glad to say that it is operating successfully.
The second local example is the campaign to open a railway station to serve Edinburgh Park, a major and prestigious office quarter in west Edinburgh, which is the fourth biggest centre of office employment in Scotland, behind Glasgow, Edinburgh city centre and Aberdeen. Road access to the area is heavily congested
354WH
for much of the day, but the Edinburgh-Glasgow main line runs right through it. Many of those who work in the office quarter would much prefer a speedy rail journey to work. The obvious solution was for the developers and the city council to open a station, and from the beginning they provided joint funding of around £4 million for that purpose. However, the effort of trying to get all the parties involved moving to open the station was enough to drive a person up the wall. It was one of my biggest headaches when I had responsibility for that area of activity on the city council.
What should have been a simple exercise of building two platforms on each side of an existing passenger rail route was, again, bogged down in a mire of negotiations. Railtrack made demands for new loop lines to be built, which would have more than doubled the cost. Those demands were subsequently withdrawn and then raised again. Scotrail would not agree to stop its main Edinburgh-Glasgow trains at the new station, denying it much potential benefit. Most recently, Railtrack raised the issue of additional compensation, because it was concerned that stopping trains at the new station would cause delays to existing services, and it claimed that that would make it liable to fines from the SRA for failure to meet performance targets. My constituents, along with many others who struggle with daily traffic jams to get into Edinburgh Park, find it difficult to understand how a new station and new services that would take many people off the roads and on to the rail network, thereby creating higher earnings for the rail operators, should attract a penalty for failure to perform. The system should surely encourage rather than discourage success.
The long and short of the matter is that a date has still not been set for work to begin on that project. It is now four years late, and we are seriously worried that potential jobs in the area could be lost because of traffic congestion. I was pleased that last week the Minister responsible for transport in the Scottish Executive intervened to try to break the logjam, but given the involvement of the Strategic Rail Authority and Railtrack, the matter is also the responsibility of Westminster. I urge the Minister to help his counterpart in the Scottish Parliament to sort out the mess. Will he give a commitment at least to consider what can be done to resolve the delay?
My purpose in highlighting those two local examples at some length is to show that, if relatively small-scale projects involving only three stations can get bogged down in the bureaucracy of the post-privatisation railway network, it is not surprising that much bigger schemes, such as the west coast main line, have run into so much difficulty. Those examples certainly emphasise the need to simplify the structure of the rail network, for which I think everyone is now calling, even though their solutions may differ.
My local experience does not only show what fragmentation means for the rail system. A knock-on effect of the delays to which I have referred is that other projects linked to the new stations have been knocked back. Other proposals to develop the bus system have been affected by delays in opening rail stations, so the knock-on effects go beyond the rail system.
I am perhaps more positive than some members of the Select Committee—I may be doing them an injustice—about the signs of strong leadership now coming from the Strategic Rail Authority. The excellent publication

355WH
from the Railway Forum, which we all received this morning, says that in its view the Government's 10-year plan and the SRA strategic plan have laid the essential foundations for a long-term view of Britain's railway needs as part of an integrated transport solution. I endorse that conclusion. Simplification and decisive leadership by management and politicians are required, and the SRA plan provides the basis for such a change.
I also welcome the SRA's intention to simplify the franchise system. I fully endorse the Select Committee's support for longer-term franchises. I urge the Government to consider giving much more positive backing for longer-term franchises than seems to be the case at the moment.
My constituents are particularly interested in the east coast main line franchise. I accept that, in the circumstances, the two-year short-term extension agreed last year was right. It gives us a breathing space to get the terms right for a long-term franchise of 15 or 20 years, which could bring substantial reductions in journey times and improvements in reliability and frequency that will benefit not only Edinburgh but towns and cities further south and further north.
I was interested in the Select Committee's conclusion that consideration should be given to building new railway lines alongside existing routes because of the difficulty of upgrading routes already in operation. I can see the strength of that argument, but I suggest that the logic be taken further.
I urge the Government to give their backing as soon as possible to the idea of an entirely new north-south high-speed line—a TGV-type line—linking London, the midlands, the north of England and central Scotland. Such a line would not be an alternative to upgrading the east and west coast main lines, as some opponents of the proposal fear. In fact, it would complement those lines. Yes, the idea is ambitious—perhaps even more so than the agenda proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), who has now left the Chamber—but it is attracting growing support from the industry, commentators and hon. Members. The early-day motion that I tabled on the topic earlier this year now has the backing of some 69 MPs.
When I called for that new line, some people looked at me as if I was bonkers for suggesting something so ambitious, but perhaps that reflects the poverty of ambition that we have had for our rail network over generations. What would be the norm in other countries in Europe and Asia does not seem to be easily understood and accepted in this country. To give such a proposal the green light would be a good idea for improving journey times, helping economic development, releasing capacity for freight elsewhere on the network and relieving pressure on roads and airports. It would also be a massive vote of confidence in the future of the rail network in this country.
4.49 pm
Mr. Don Foster: We have had a fascinating debate, and I begin by doing what at least one other hon. Member has done and publicly pass on my best wishes to the new Secretary of State. The debate shows the difficult job ahead of him and the various bodies that serve him.
Like many other hon. Members, I congratulate not only the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody),
356WH
but its members on a helpful and informative report. Although it did not have all-party support this time, it is interesting to note that the minority report refers to only a small aspect of one of the issues, and I take it that there is widespread support for the vast majority of the report. I congratulate the hon. Lady on the achievement of some notable successes. As she rightly said, the Committee produced more reports than any other Committee and, more importantly, produced extremely helpful and provocative reports that have praised the Government when they have done well and made tough statements when they have got it wrong.
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), because both he and the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) helped to provide an interesting counterpoint and a context to the debate. By giving her historical perspective of the railways, the hon. Lady rightly reminded us that problems and developments on our railways have not started only recently. She was also right to refer to the underlying cause of the current problems, which was the failure of Governments of all political persuasions, including the Liberal Governments at the end of the 19th century as well as Labour and Conservative Governments, to invest adequately in our railway system. Separately and more recently, the disastrous privatisation of the railways led to the fragmentation of our railway system and the huge difficulties that that has created. Many hon. Members commented on that, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith did so most effectively.
I was delighted that several hon. Members made reference to safety on our railways, which must be our No. 1 priority in anything that is done in the future. However, as others pointed out, we must continue to stress that, comparatively speaking, our railways are a safe form of transport. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Reading, East, the 1 per cent. increase in road deaths in the past 12 months represents more deaths than occurred on the railways during the same period.
The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) spent much of her contribution discussing the alternative report that was published by the Conservatives and focused on Railtrack. I respect their concerns about some aspects of what has happened since Railtrack was put into administration. We made it clear that we supported the Secretary of State's move, and pointed to the fact that we recommended it many months before he did it. Despite that, we have subsequently criticised how the move was handled and the delays in resolving problems. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends are right to point to legitimate concerns about how the issue was dealt with, but I do not believe that the decision was wrong in principle merely because of subsequent difficulties.
What matters now is how quickly we get Railtrack out of administration. Answers on that from the Minister would be helpful. It was somewhat disappointing that all that the Government were prepared to say on the subject in their response to the excellent report of the Select Committee was:
"We share their hope that the period of Administration will be as short as possible."

357WH
That is not good enough. By now, the Government must surely be getting some feel for when the period will end, yet we understand that there are still difficulties ahead, as I alluded to in my intervention on the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling).
It is worth remembering that the legislation that allowed the then Secretary of State to put Railtrack into administration required that the administrators develop a solution in the best interests of the shareholders. The Secretary of State is rightly trying to find a solution in the best interests of the public, especially the travelling public. The legislation creates a conflict, and the Secretary of State will have to find a way through that legal quagmire before he can announce how we will move forward.
It will also be worrying if we continue to have a delay, with Railtrack staying in administration. As the Government made clear on page 9 of their response to the Committee's report, their main concern is getting Railtrack out of administration, which
"means leaving any structural change for consideration until a successor company is in place".
The Government admit clearly that all their interests are focused in one direction—sorting out of the mess of Railtrack—which means that everything else will be put on hold. I strongly urge the Government to act as quickly as possible.
In a compelling speech, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) talked about fragmentation, which I agree has caused great difficulty in our railway system. He also mentioned his concerns about the profit motive, many of which I share. I do not necessarily concur with his conclusion, although I was increasingly convinced as he spoke. There is no doubt in my mind that the solution to the Railtrack problem must include in the final agreement a clear specification that the role of the new body—Network Rail, or whatever it is called—must be in the public interest. I hope that that will appear clearly in the documentation.
The hon. Gentleman may rightly be concerned about profit motive in our railways, but he must not be too confident that his views are widely shared by the Government whom he supports. I have referred before to the document produced by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office "The UK Railway Sector Group—Releasing the Power of Rail", in which a Labour Government extol the virtue of the profit motive in our railways. For example, it states:
"The whole structure has been underpinned by intense competition for performance based contracts to drive down costs and guarantee results".
As we know, all the evidence now shows that that is not the case.
The document goes on to boast about privatisation. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell was right to say that not everyone in the Government disagreed with the Conservative privatisation. The document states:
"Privatisation has also opened the British railway market to competitive forces. There are now 25 train operating companies, instead of just one. These not only compete with each other for passengers; they seek out the best offers from railway suppliers and consultants. Suppliers have emerged as stronger, leaner
358WH
organisations intensely conscious of the need to strike deals. Everything must now be justified in business, not just engineering terms."
If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has not already seen the document, he should read on, because it gets worse.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell gave us the benefit of his views on Railtrack and those expressed in the minority report that was published by the Conservatives. He went on to talk about the crucial issue of capacity. He is absolutely right to say that we have a real capacity problem on our railways that must be addressed. Several hon. Members rightly referred to the excellent document that we received today from the Railway Forum. That document makes matters absolutely clear. The letter that accompanied it states that
"the 10-year plan growth targets have not been updated, even though it now appears that there will be a more rapid introduction of congestion charging and road pricing, the latter initially for road haulage by 2006, than was previously envisaged."
Referring to Dr. Rana Roy's updated work, it states that
"he reaffirms that underlying growth in demand for rail travel remains significantly above the 10-year target figures but the capacity constraints have every prospect of choking off this demand."
The Minister will be aware that, partly as a result of the Select Committee's excellent report on the 10-year plan, there have been many comments to the effect that the Government intend to revise the plan. They would be right to do so, but it would be helpful if the Minister were to tell the House whether the targets in the plan are to be revised. If they are, and assuming that they would be revised upwards, what will be done about the capacity issue?
The Government, in dealing with overcrowding on our trains, fail to gather any of the data that would help us to understand the nature of the problem. The PIXC system takes only a snapshot of a small area of the country and fails to give us any real indication of the level of overcrowding, yet we know from the SRA's customer satisfaction survey that it is estimated that 40 per cent. of our trains are overcrowded.
When the Government update the plan, it would be good if they also did something about the statement of policy on passenger rail franchising, which is the basis for the SRA's plan documents and the starting point for this debate and the Select Committee's report. In that document, the Government say that they expect eight different outputs from the franchising operation. Not one mention is made of fares, yet as hon. Members have rightly said there is a real problem with that. We are squeezing out the growing demand not only through lack of capacity but through ridiculously high fares that are not regulated as they should be.
I hope that the Government will start collecting data on fares and do something about them. Perhaps, as a start, they could examine the complete farce of the London area railcard. Even senior members of the Association of Train Operating Companies whom I talk to immediately acknowledge that what they have done with the railcard will do nothing to help the Government to meet their growth targets, and indeed will hinder them. I hope that that issue will be considered in more detail.

359WH
The hon. Member for Reading, East rightly referred to the Railway Forum document. I am glad that she did so, because if other hon. Members have not yet seen it, it deserves more exposure. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) supported much of the report, but said that there are holes not only in the funding system devised by the Government but in the 10-year transport plan. His final remarks about the need for a transport authority for Wales deserve detailed consideration, as does the development of genuine transport authorities, along the German model, across the United Kingdom.
One of the issues that we have failed to address today is that of the integration of the different modes of transport. I am well aware of the various reports that are being made on that subject, but I am conscious that many of them have been delayed for far too long.
Three other very brief—
Andrew Bennett: There is little time available for the wind-ups, and the hon. Gentleman has had his third of it.
Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is why I shall take only another 30 seconds. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government's plans are in respect of the asset register for Railtrack, which I think is very important, and that he will give us his views on vertical integration, which the Committee has criticised. Finally, I hope very much that next time the Committee produces a report that is as good as this one, it will receive a more detailed response.
5.5 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: Give the Liberal Democrats an inch and they take a mile. I shall be brief, because we want to give the Minister plenty of time to wind up. I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the members of her Committee who worked so hard on an excellent report. May we also express our desire that she continue her fair and scrupulous work as Chairman of the Transport Committee? May she produce many more reports of this quality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) touched on privatisation. The Government are not backward in coming forward, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, when it comes to espousing the benefits that accrue to privatisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell pointed to the stimulus to the growth in traffic—both of freight and of passengers—the greater investment that has gone in through the private sector, the new rolling stock that has been produced, and the improved services. Mention was made of the Chiltern line. I would add to that GNER, which I use to travel from the eastern region. That was transformed overnight as a result of going into the private sector.
Complaint has been made. The hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) spoke about the assets of the rail industry being sold at too low a price. The problem occurred because the Labour Opposition opposed privatisation tooth and nail and gave the impression that when it came to power it might
360WH
renationalise. That made it difficult to get a true value for the assets in the City. As for fragmentation, it might be that in the light of that problem the Treasury told Ministers at that time that it needed to maximise the return on the equity by making fragmentation possible.
It is clear from the report that the Committee was not happy with the way in which the Government handled the failure to achieve long-term franchise contracts. From GNER's point of view, the franchise replacement programme suffered from
"a lack of clarity and strategic vision."
According to GNER, bidders were invited to embark on a costly journey without knowing the conditions of carriage and unclear as to the final destination.
The report also refers to the problem of introducing new trains if there is a change of franchise. It says that it is no good the Government's saying that that is covered by section 4 of the Railways Act 1993. The industry's experience—GNER is an example—is that it is virtually impossible to get deals in the private sector under section 54 because of the uncertainty beyond the two-year extension.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) in respect of fragmentation. His argument goes further than the report in wanting to take the Railtrack enterprise back into the public sector—at least, that is what I read into what he said. The report's conclusions on fragmentation are not clear. First, it says that there is no evidence for vertical integration, yet even on a regional basis that would be an obvious way of solving the fragmentation problem. It has been put on one side, however, because the industry as a whole obviously does not want to go down that road. The private operating companies may not wish to take on board the incredible problems that they see in the infrastructure and the network. It is important that the Minister takes the opportunity to clear up whether successor franchises could take on new rolling stock under that section.
As far as enhancement is concerned, the report is clear about concerns about special purpose vehicles. We share that view, because the City has not yet come forward with a clear policy, even though it is at the heart of delivery by the private sector. If £30 billion-odd is to be made available for enhancement of one kind or another—even new line build—but the SPVs being promoted by the Government do not work, the industry will face one heck of a problem. It is vital that the Government make clear soon rather than later precisely how they expect the things to work.
On administration, the report divided into two—a majority and a minority report. It did so mainly on political lines, but the evidence seems to point in the direction taken by the minority report. That was back in January, or even December 2001, but subsequent events have tended to support the minority report's conclusions on how and why Railtrack was taken into administration by the then Secretary of State. For example, it was claimed that Railtrack was insolvent, but evidence has since emerged that in October last year it certainly was not insolvent, and that if the Government had made money available, Railtrack might have been able to go to the City for further loans.
The former Secretary of State was also preparing the ground for Railtrack to be taken into administration long before he admitted doing so. A press report—it was

361WH
not denied by the Government; if the Minister wants to deny it this afternoon, he can—said that under a project code-named Ariel, the Secretary of State began the process of winding up Railtrack fully six weeks before he acted. Furthermore, the Department asked the Stationery Office to print orders relating to Railtrack's administration on 28 September, a week before the Secretary of State said that he took his decision to wind up the company. Further evidence has come to light in the last few weeks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell pointed out. The Paddington Survivors Group claimed that, at a meeting with the Secretary of State on 12 September, they were told that Railtrack would be replaced, yet he told Parliament on 7 October that he had made his decision on 5 October.
The media anticipate an announcement being made tomorrow—it would help if the Minister could clarify this—that Network Rail has finally done a deal to get Railtrack out of administration. Of the money available for that, £500 million will be used to buy off shareholders, despite the fact that Ministers have said more than once that that would happen over their dead bodies. That £500 million works out at about £2.50 a share; the shareholders are asking for £2.80 a share, so the two figures are close. However, that £500 million includes a £300 million bung from the Strategic Rail Authority. That is Government money so presumably it will either come out of the public sector borrowing requirement or have to be repaid. It would be helpful if the Minister would say which.
The total package is some £9 billion. It will be made available by various banks as bridging finance, but underwritten by the SRA—for which read "the Government". Will all that money count against the PSBR, and if not, why not? From the £9 billion, £6.5 billion will pay the debts of Railtrack plc. It will also settle £400 million of inter-company loans and provide £2 billion for working capital for the next few years of ongoing operations. Will the Minister confirm whether those figures are correct? If they are, will he say whether an announcement will be made tomorrow or early next week? There should be a statement made on the Floor of the House by the new Secretary of State.
This is an excellent report. Reading it, I got the impression that the Committee wanted to go further but held back. However, it gave pointers to the direction that the Government should take, which includes more centralised control, especially of the SRA's operations, and tighter control of the activities of Network Rail. It would be interesting to hear whether the Minister agrees with the direction for the rail network suggested by some members of the Committee.
5.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): It is a pleasure to respond to the wide-ranging and interesting debate on the Select Committee's report and the Government's response. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who said that the Select Committee exists to protect the interests of the voter and the travelling public. I totally subscribe to that view. I congratulate the Committee on its prodigious high-quality output since 1997 under my
362WH
hon. Friend's leadership. She said that transport was important to the economy and important in improving the quality of people's lives. I agree wholeheartedly.
One or two hon. Members made remarks about Select Committees. I think that I am right in saying that I am the only person in the Chamber who has both been a Select Committee member and had to appear before one as a Minister. When I was a Select Committee member, I believed in rigorously challenging the Executive and in holding Ministers to account. I have not wavered from that opinion. Select Committees should be independent and should make their views known forcefully I congratulate the Transport Committee on having done that.
Following on from one of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), one of the great benefits of the Select Committee system is that Back-Bench Members from a rich diversity of backgrounds—miners, bus drivers, advocates and teachers—can all make a special contribution to Select Committee reports. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to as many points as time allows.
Under the commendable stewardship of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, the Select Committee has produced a report on a subject of vital importance to the people of this country—the railways. The Government and the Select Committee agree substantially on many areas. For example, the Committee recognised that the Government were right to petition the High Court to put Railtrack into administration. To take up the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), it was not the Government but the High Court that took that action, which was not opposed by Railtrack at the time.
The Select Committee recommends that
"The Government must ensure that the Strategic Rail Authority provides the industry with a clear direction."
We agree with that, and the Secretary of State's directions and guidance recognise the importance of the SRA's leadership role. The Committee went on to say that the Government should not interfere with the day-to-day management of the SRA, and we agree with that, too. We are pleased with the progress that has been made since Richard Bowker was appointed SRA chairman. We particularly welcome the publication on 14 January this year of the SRA's strategic plan, which sets out a series of measures to improve Britain's rail network and ensure that Government growth targets are met.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South made a valuable contribution on the issue of fragmentation. The SRA was established to provide leadership for an industry that had already been fragmented by privatisation. Our directions and guidance to the SRA recognise the importance of its leadership role, and require it to provide leadership and to work co-operatively towards common goals. In creating the SRA, we have introduced measures that will, I hope, end some of the fragmentation that has been criticised today.
The Committee also says:
"It is essential that Railtrack's successor has access to sufficient funds to operate, maintain and renew the rail network adequately".

363WH
We agree. The Government have stated that they expect Railtrack's successor to be financially sound and to have a sufficiently strong investment-grade credit rating to finance its activities in an efficient and cost-effective manner. We also agree that Railtrack's successor must learn from the past. It must focus on the key task of delivering an efficient operational rail network and on its operation, maintenance and renewal.
I shall now take up as many of the points that have been made in the debate as I can. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich raised the important issue of maintaining the rail system. Railtrack has admitted that its approach to maintenance after privatisation was mistaken—that too much decision-making responsibility was placed with contractors and that it carried out too few inspections of contractors' work. As my hon. Friend will know, Lord Cullen made recommendations to improve the management of contractors and the training of the work force in the rail industry, and we have asked the Health and Safety Commission to ensure that those recommendations are implemented in full. The HSC report published last week shows that contractorisation itself is not the problem—it is used successfully in other industries. The need is for better management and control and for a well-trained work force, and the implementation of the Cullen recommendations should deliver those improvements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South asked whether Network Rail was a not-for-profit company. It has been described as a not-for-dividend company because any profit will be ploughed back into the rail system, which would not be the case if there were shareholders. We should bear in mind recent experiences with projects such as the construction of the Jubilee line, which went twice over cost and was two years late. Lamentably, that was in the public sector and the taxpayer bore the inconvenience and the extra cost.
We want to create special purpose vehicles to take forward some of the big projects. The financial risk of overrunning on time and cost would be borne by the private sector, not the taxpayer, and the channel tunnel rail link, on which we are making excellent progress, is a good example of that.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am interested to hear the Minister say that the private sector would bear the risk. Jarvis is a company that is much in the news at present. Has he seen the statement that the company made this week, that the return on its deal on the underground would be beyond its wildest dreams and produce considerable sums? That rather suggests that the risk will lie with the taxpayer, not the company.
Mr. Jamieson: Sadly, the overrun and the cost to the taxpayer on the Jubilee line were well beyond anyone's wildest dreams. We want to ensure that there is no profiteering from the contracts, that they are delivered efficiently, that we know the cost up front, and that the risk is taken by the private contractor.
The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) came up with an interesting concept, saying that if I did not disagree with her then I must agree with her. That sounds like something out of "Alice in Wonderland". She also said that we had destroyed private sector
364WH
investor confidence, but nothing could be further from the truth. If anything destroyed confidence, it was the way in which the Conservative Government carried out rail privatisation. We have been given every indication of great interest in investing in our rail system, and the hon. Lady will see that happen over a period of time.
At one time I tipped the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) as a candidate for the Opposition Front Bench, but he could give no answer when he was challenged by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) about what the Conservatives would have done about Railtrack. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire could not come up with an answer either. If the Conservatives are to be credible when criticising the Government, they will have to come up with some ideas of their own, and those ideas will have to stand the same tests of criticism and examination as our own policies do. However, I wish the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell well in his career.
Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: I shall, although time is short and several other hon. Members want their points answered.
Miss McIntosh: I simply wanted to ask whether the Minister has read the evidence from the Freight Transport Association, whose members went on record as saying that they would require more financial certainty before they were required to invest in the railway system?
Mr. Jamieson: If the hon. Lady considers what is actually happening, she will see that the rail industry received £4 billion of private investment over the year 2001–02, and that more is on stream.
At half-time in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) gave us an interesting historical interlude. However, I was confused at one stage because I thought that she was saying that Bristol was in Cornwall. I am sure that it is not—at least, it was not when I last passed it on the train.
Electrification is not necessarily the answer, because the benefits that would have been gained 30 years ago would not be gained now. The people of the west country would no doubt be pleased if the trains on the line that goes through Reading to the west country were efficient, ran on time and did not break down, so I am pleased to say that new rolling stock is being introduced on that line. They would also be happy if the problems of the bottleneck between Reading and London were solved, as it causes major inconvenience not only to people in the west country, but to people in south Wales as well. However, electrification is not the answer to that problem, and it would be of environmental advantage only if the electricity were produced by renewable means, which is not always the case.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) rightly referred to the important issue of the Shrewsbury to Machynlleth, Aberystwyth and Aberdovey branch lines. I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman on that matter. As I have said on the Floor of the House, the finance is there, but we lack the skilled engineers needed to carry out the work. He proposed

365WH
that another body might undertake the work, but I find it hard to believe that those skilled workers exist, because all companies are having difficulty finding such workers. If he knows of a project and wants to propose it, we shall consider it carefully, but I have to disappoint him on another matter: we are not going to consider renationalisation, although it is an interesting idea, because if we did so, there would be huge disruption and we would fall several years behind on investment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) made a studied contribution to the debate, as he always does. He referred to some of his local problems, and I would be happy to discuss those issues in correspondence.
366WH
The hon. Member for Bath and others asked about Network Rail and when we could expect to hear when Railtrack will come out of administration. Negotiations are under way, and if those negotiations are successful our hope is that Railtrack might be brought out of administration by the end of July. That is a challenging target, but we continue to work with all interested parties to achieve it.
I am sad to say that I have had less time to respond to the debate than the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench speaker took. None the less, the debate has been extremely valuable. If hon. Members want to make further points through correspondence, I shall be happy to respond—
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

DEFENCE

  NATO Forces (Balkans)
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on restructuring NATO's forces in the Balkans; and if he will make a statement. [62522]

  Geoffrey Hoon
  At our meeting in Brussels on 6 June, NATO Defence Ministers approved a series of changes to SFOR and KFOR following the Joint Operational Area (JOA) Review.

  The Review advocates a regional approach to NATO's peacekeeping operations in the Balkans, whereby both Bosnia and Kosovo will be treated, for military planning purposes, as a single theatre. The security situation in the Balkans has changed since the initial deployment of SFOR and KFOR. NATO's operations will be restructured accordingly, to provide a smaller, lighter and more flexible force that will be better able to meet current challenges.

  Implementation of the JOA Review will take place over the next 12 months. It is planned that, by the end of 2002, SFOR will reduce from some 18,000 to some 12,000 personnel and KFOR from some 38,000 to some 32,000. By June 2003, it is envisaged that KFOR will reduce further to some 29,000 troops. Responsibilities for support of civil implementation will be transferred to local authorities and other international organisations, as appropriate. The United Kingdom welcomes the outcome of this review.

  This reduction in troop numbers does not signal any reduction in NATO's commitment to the Balkans. Rather, these changes are a sign of the Alliance's achievements to date in bringing security and stability to the Balkans. The United Kingdom, with the rest of NATO, remains committed to the security and stability of the Balkans and will continue to play its full role in achieving the international community's objectives for the region.

  Individual nations are now considering and discussing with one another how to adjust their troop contributions in the light of the JOA Review.

  Anthrax
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to offer immunisation against anthrax to the armed forces. [62523]

  Geoffrey Hoon
  Following the delay to the voluntary immunisation programme against anthrax that was caused by difficulties at the Centre for Applied Microbiological Research, which was supplying the vaccine, the programme was re-launched for personnel deployed to the Gulf in May 2001. But continuing 1346W
  uncertainty over the licensing of future supplies meant that it was not extended further to other members of the Armed Forces.

  The problems over the licensing of future supplies have now been resolved and the Ministry of Defence took delivery of the rest of the supplies that are required at the end of March this year. We are confident that there will be no difficulties with the future, large-scale production of the vaccine.

  It takes six months for immunisation against anthrax to become fully effective. But we may not have nearly so much warning of a change in the threat, nor of the requirement for British Armed Forces to deploy to a high threat area. Given that we cannot expect to predict exactly where or when a threat might arise, or which units of the Armed Forces might be called upon to respond. We have decided to expand the immunisation programme so that all Service personnel, including reserves, and those essential civilians who are likely to deploy on operations, are routinely offered immunisation against anthrax. We plan to expand the programme gradually over the next few years, beginning with those units that are held at the highest readiness.

  Immunisation against anthrax is safe and effective. As before, and in keeping with long-standing medical practice, it will be offered to personnel on the basis of voluntary informed consent. By accepting it alongside their other defensive measures, this will ensure that they have the very best protection against anthrax used as a biological weapon.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Secondary Care Agency for the financial year 2002–03. [62524]

  Dr. Moonie
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency (DCSA) for financial year 2002–03. The targets build on the progress already made by the Agency since it formed in April 1996, and are as follows:

  Key Target 1—The Operational Requirement

  From within the personnel resources provided to the DSCA by the single Services, to meet 100 per cent. of the requirement of the Commanders-in-Chief (CinCs) for secondary care personnel for operational deployments.

  Key Target 2—Outpatient Waiting Times

  To ensure that 45 per cent. of Service patients referred to the Agency are offered a first outpatient appointment within four weeks of receipt of a referral and 90 per cent. within 13 weeks.

  Key Target 3—Inpatient Waiting Times

  To ensure that 80 per cent. of Service patients are offered a treatment date which is within 13 weeks of the decision to give inpatient treatment.

  Key Target 4—Efficiency

  To implement revised medical equipment management policies and make savings of 10 per cent., or more, in the costs of procurement, support and associated training.
  1347W
  Key Target 5—Military Training

  To ensure that 80 per cent. of all DSCA personnel, whose medical category permits, are released to receive their Service's annual mandatory military training.

  Key Target 6—Personnel for Exercises

  To ensure that 80 per cent. of DSCA personnel nominated to established posts in their Service's operational core requirement are released to attend appropriate exercises.

  Key Target 7—MQR Implementation

  To ensure that the Agency completes the tasks assigned to it by the Medical Quinquennial Review within agreed timescales, including the orderly and effective transfer of functions to other designated organisations and its closure on 31 March 2003.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Medical Training organisation for the financial year 2002–03. [62525]

  Dr. Moonie
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Medical Training Organisation (DMTO) for financial year 2002–03. The targets build on the progress already made by the Agency since it formed in April 1997, and are as follows:

  Key Target 1—Academic Success (Quality and Quantity)

  To achieve the following academic success rates:

  Per cent.

  Phase 2 Training Course (formerly entitled Common Core Course)

  96

  Specialist Registrars (SpR)

  95

  Pre-Registration Nurses(PRN)

  96

  Key Target 2—Academic Success (Timeliness)

  The following percentage of trainees achieving academic success to be delivered on time, as agreed with the customer.

  Per cent.

  Phase Two Training Course (at first attempt, remainder at second attempt—which normally is within three months

  96

  SpR

  95

  PRN

  98

  Key Target 3—Implement the Recommendations of the Medical Quinquennial Review

  To implement the recommendations of the review in liaison with Surgeon General's change management team by 31 March 2003, to ensure that the new Defence Medical Education and Training Agency has full functionality with effect 1 April 2003.

  Key Target 4—Corporate Efficiency Target

  To achieve a 4.5 per cent. cumulative efficiency improvement demonstrate by the DMTO corporate efficiency index for 2002–03, using 1999–2000 as the baseline year.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Dental Agency for the financial year 2002–03. [62526]
  1348W
  Dr. Moonie
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Dental Agency (DDA) for Financial Year 2002–03. The targets build on the progress already made by the Agency since it formed in March 1996, and are as follows.

  Key Target 1—The Operational Requirement

  From within personnel resources allocated to the DDA by single Services to achieve 100 per cent of personnel called forward, trained to required professional and military standards, at the specified readiness for deployment with the Joint Rapid Reaction Force and all operations.

  Key Target 2—Dental Risk

  To develop a SMART target (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time Related) for Dental Risk categorisation by 31 March 2003.

  Key Target 3—Treatment Needs

  To reduce the Treatment Need Index (TNI) for each Service to the following:

  RN at or below 470;

  Army at or below 637;

  RAF at or below 330.

  Key Target 4—Dental Fitness Category D

  To reduce the number of personnel in Dental Fitness category D4 to zero by 31 March 2003.

  Key Target 5—Military Training

  To ensure that 80 per cent. of all DDA personnel, whose medical category permits, are released to undertake annual military training as specified by respective single Services.

  Key Target 6—Personnel for Exercises

  To ensure that 100 per cent. of all DDA personnel nominated to established posts in the operational core requirement of their parent Service are released to attend appropriate exercises.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Medical Supplies Agency for the financial year 2002–03. [62527]

  Dr. Moonie
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Medical Supplies Agency (MSA) for financial year 2002–03. The targets build on the progress already made by the Agency since it formed in March 1996 and are as follows:

  Key Target 1—Composite Medical Material

  To build, completely, to schedule and within budget, by 31 March 2003, 100 per cent. of all modules on the mutually agreed Operational Build Programme, as authorised by Surgeon General's Department (SGD).

  Key Target 2—The Operational Requirement

  To meet demands from units on active operations for blood products and scaled medical materiel, within the MSA Charter Response Time (Next Day—three Day) as follows:

  Within Charter Response Time—90 per cent.;

  Follow up (within five days)—97 per cent.

  Key Target 3—The Exercise and Training Requirement

  To meet 100 per cent of the Services requirements for modularised medical materiel, First Aid Kits, blood and blood products in support of exercises, training, Air Shows and other major events.
  1349W
  Key Target 4—Response to Demands

  To meet demands for Category B items (commonly used items with a unit cost of less than £100 and approved by SGD) from units not on active operations, within the MSA Charter Response Times (Next Day—three day), as follows:
  Top 250 by value

  Within Charter Response Time—95 per cent.

  Follow up (within five days)—97 per cent.

  Overall

  Within Charter Response Time—90 per cent.

  Follow up (within five days)—97 per cent.

  Key Target 5—Stock Issued to Stock Held Ratio

  To improve the ratio of stock issued to stock held from 2.25 to 2.5.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the bases where a US station commander exercised day-to-day operational control over the Ministry of Defence police at(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) 1 June 2002. [61410]

  Dr. Moonie
  US Station Commanders are responsible for security at their Stations and exercise day to day operational control over the Ministry of Defence Police in respect of site security duties. The Senior Police officer is responsible to the Chief Constable MDP in respect of the exercise of constabulary powers. MDP officers are currently deployed at RAF Alconbury, RAF Fairford, RAF Hythe, RAF Lakenheath, RAF Menwith Hill, US Navy London (Eastcote) and RAF Welford. These sites also had a MDP detachment on 1 May 1997.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of Ministry of Defence police serving on US bases in the UK are provided accommodation free of rent. [61184]

  Dr. Moonie
  Eight MDP officers stationed at bases made available to US Forces currently occupy housing made available by the Department. Although the officers are not paying rent, the accommodation has been made available in lieu of the payment of housing allowance.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is paying the costs of the Ministry of Defence police on detached duties at Menwith Hill Station and Fylingdales, including indirect costs incurred through their presence. [61183]

  Dr. Moonie
  All costs connected with MOD Police at RAF Fylingdales are met from the Defence Budget. The cost of the authorised complement of MDP at RAF Menwith Hill and related costs are recovered from the US Authorities. The complement was increased with effect from 1 February 2002. Until officers are posted in on a permanent basis to fill the newly completed posts, cover is maintained using officers on temporary detachment. Costs are recovered as though all posts were filled on a permanent basis, enhanced to cover the additional costs associated with the detached duty while it continues.

  Accommodation Costs
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) of 11 March 2002 Official Report, column 654W, on accommodation costs, what the cost was from April 2001 to March 2002 of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home; how many members of staff were so accommodated in the year in question; and what the average cost was per paid-for night of these stays. [61416]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence does not hold data on hotel bookings and costs in the format requested. However it is possible to give the following figures for MoD civil servants who were required to be away from their homes on official business during the period April 2001 to March 2002:

  £

  Total cost of hotel accommodation (B + B terms)

  15,035,034

  Total number of nights accommodated in a hotel on duty

  246,003

  Total number of bookings

  79,655

  Average cost per night (B + B terms)

  61.12

  The total cost of £15 million quoted above differs from that given in my previous response. This is because the earlier figure was for the period May 2001 to April 2002 and was only a projected figure based on incomplete data.

  HMS Invincible
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Indian Government concerning a possible sale of HMS Invincible. [61162]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence have had no discussions with the Indian Government concerning the possible sale of HMS Invincible.

  Mr. Shaun Rusling
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons officials of his Department altered the medical appeal papers of Mr. Shaun Rusling, submitted to the Pensions appeal Tribunal; and if he will make a statement. [60331]

  Dr. Moonie
  Officials did not alter the medical appeal papers of Mr Shaun Rusling. Evidence was prepared for a Pensions Appeal Tribunal hearing on 10 September 1999. At that Tribunal further diagnoses for appeal were identified. This required preparation of a new set of papers for the further Tribunal hearing on 19 April 2002.

  Empty Service Property
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent in each of the last three years on(a) rent and (b) maintenance of empty service family properties; and if he will make a statement. [60718]
  1351W
  Dr. Moonie
  An accurate breakdown of rental and maintenance costs between occupied and empty Service Families Accommodation (SFA) is not available. Because of Service mobility, turnover of occupancy tends to be high and some properties may have several occupants over a relatively short period and various empty spells between occupants. However, on a proportionate basis, the current vacancy rate would indicate expenditure in the broad order of £20 million per annum in rent and £9 million in maintenance. Corresponding figures for a year ago would be £23 million rent and £11 million maintenance, and two years ago when £27 million rent and £14 million maintenance.

  Of the current 8,600 empty properties in mainland UK, some 2,400 are in the course of disposal, 2,500 are held for future unit deployments and some 1,000 are empty awaiting modernisation. Others are available to incoming occupants or already under offer to them. Since January 2000, over 10,000 surplus properties have been disposed of.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the legal action against his Department being taken by the New Zealand Nuclear Test Veterans Association. [60952]

  Dr. Moonie
  Although the Ministry of Defence is aware of previous press articles reporting that the New Zealand Test Veterans Association intended to mount a class action against HM Government, to date no such legal action has been taken.

  Deysbrook Barracks
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with other Government Departments about possible future uses of Deysbrook Barracks, near Liverpool; and if he will make a statement. [61276]

  Dr. Moonie
  Officials in Defence Estates have recently met with Government Office North West in connection with the disposal of the site and the planning application for residential and mixed-use development which is currently being considered by Liverpool City Council.

  An official from Defence Estates has also visited the site twice, once in March and once in April, with officials from the Home Office.

  No other discussions have taken place.

  Media Relations Manager
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when James Clark is to start work in his Department as a media relations manager. [61163]

  Dr. Moonie
  Following an open competition run in accordance with Office of the Civil Service Commissioners' rules, Mr. Clark took up his appointment as a Communications Adviser working for the Director General Corporate Communications on Monday 10 June 2002.

TRANSPORT

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the EC-Poland Joint Transport Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [58411]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  This Committee is established under the provisions of an Agreement between the European Community and Poland establishing certain conditions for the carriage of goods by road and the promotion of combined transport. The remit of the Committee is to ensure that the proper implementation of the Agreement. The Committee would be made up of representatives appointed by the Community and Poland. But I am not aware that it has met in recent times or that there are any plans for it to meet in the immediate future.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the EC-Slovak Republic Joint Transport Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [58409]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  This committee is established under the provisions of an Agreement between the European Community and the Slovak Republic establishing certain conditions for the carriage of goods by road and the promotion of combined transport. The remit of the Committee is to ensure the proper implementation of the Agreement. The Committee would be made up of representatives appointed by the Community and the Slovak Republic. But I am not aware that it has met in recent times or that there are any plans for it to meet in the immediate future.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Joint Committee on the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway (EC-Czech Republic—Republic of Poland-Slovak Republic) 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. [58407]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have not been able to identify the Committee referred to by the hon. Member.
  1353W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the EC-Czech Republic Joint Transport Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [58408]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  This Committee is established under the provisions of an Agreement between the European Community and the Czech Republic establishing certain conditions for the carriage of goods by road and the promotion of combined transport. The remit of the Committee is to ensure the proper implementation of the Agreement. The Committee would be made up of representatives appointed by the Community and the Czech Republic. I am not aware of recent meetings or that there are any plans for it to meet in the immediate future.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the EC-Romania Joint Transport Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [58410]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  This Committee is established under the provisions of an Agreement between the European Community and Romania establishing certain conditions for the carriage of goods by road and the promotion of combined transport. The remit of the Committee is to ensure the proper implementation of the Agreement. The Committee would be made up of representatives appointed by the Community and Romania. I am not aware of recent meetings or that there are any plans for it to meet in the immediate future.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Committee for the implementation of the Regulation establishing an instrument for structural policies for pre-accession (ISPA) 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. [56769]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply. The mandate of the ISPA Committee is to oversee the implementation of Council Regulation EC Number 1267/1999, which established ISPA. This determines the strategy framework for ISPA, and approves annual and multi-annual allocations to country and regional programmes.
  1354W
  The ISPA Committee has met three times in the last year. The UK is represented by the Department for International Development (DFID) and the UK Permanent Representation to the European Commission.

  The annual cost to public funds of the Committee's work principally comprises the work of DFID officials in assessing and discussing with the EC strategy and programme proposals, as well as the costs of attendance at meetings of the Committee. The precise amounts concerned are not readily available.

  The ISPA Committee recently considered a range of 19 environment and seven transport projects across the range of Candidate countries.

  Pre-accession programmes and/or work related to them are subject to scrutiny by Select Committees of Parliament. Under Council Decision 1999/468/EC the EC has undertaken to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first such report was deposited in the libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Commission Document 5685/02). We have encouraged the EC to make available on its website a record of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions.

  Transport Modes
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the modal share of transport is by numbers of trips made. [60454]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The percentage of transport trips by mode for those living in Great Britain, from the National Travel Survey for the period 1998–2000 (the most recent data) is as follows:

  Main Mode

  Trips per person per year

  Percentage share

  Walk

  271

  26

  Bicycle

  16

  2

  Car driver

  411

  40

  Car passenger

  228

  22

  Motorcycle

  3

  —

  Other private

  8

  1

  Bus in London

  13

  1

  Other local bus

  45

  4

  Non-local bus

  2

  —

  LT underground

  7

  1

  Surface rail

  12

  1

  Taxi/minicab

  12

  1

  Other public

  2

  —

  All modes

  1,030

  100

  Fires at Sea
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many fires have occurred on vessels within 12 miles of the Scottish coastline in the last three years; and how many such incidents involved requests for assistance from coastal fire brigades. [60820]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been 29 occasions reported in the last three years of fires occurring on commercially operated vessels within 12 miles of the Scottish
  1355W
  coastline. Of these 29, 12 involved requests for assistance from coastal fire brigades. Statistics are not recorded for other types of vessels.

  Dartford Thames Crossing
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on ending toll collections at the Dartford Thames Crossing; and to what timetable. [61099]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The powers that permit tolling at the Dartford Crossing, contained in the Dartford Thurrock Crossing Act 1988, expire on 31 March 2003. However, it was announced on 4 April 2002 that we have decided to introduce a road user charging scheme at the Crossing using powers contained in the Transport Act 2000. The Act requires that the net revenues from the charging scheme be spent on transport projects. It is expected that the charging scheme will commence on 1 April 2003.

  National Air Traffic Service
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the insurance industry concerning the availability of insurance cover for the National Air Traffic Service. [61105]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been no recent discussions relating to insurance cover for National Air Traffic Services.

  Galileo Project
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much the Government will spend on the Galileo Project in each of the next three years. [58242]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Galileo satellite navigation programme is funded and managed jointly by the European Community and the European Space Agency (ESA), and the UK is supporting the programme through its contributions to these organisations. The development and validation phase (2002–05), approved in March by the EU Transport Council, is estimated to cost Euro 1.1 billion. Negotiations within ESA over Member States' contributions to its Euro 550 million share of this have yet to be concluded.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much the Department has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61056]

  Clare Short
  In the last five years my Department's spending on staff training and development has been as follows.
  1356W

  £

  2001–02

  2,466,066

  2000–01

  2,041,755

  1999–2000

  1,304,265

  1998–99

  833,976

  1997–98

  1,032,585

  In addition, coaching and on the job training are regular features of the line management role but are not included in the overall financial cost for training and development.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Bali Summit
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the outcome of the Fourth Preparatory Committee for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Bali; and if she will make a statement. [61924]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Fourth Preparatory Committee meeting for the World Summit on Sustainable Development gives us a basis for the final run up to Johannesburg. Progress was made on a Programme of Action, which includes the importance of sanitation in eradicating poverty and meeting the Millennium Development Goal on safe drinking water. Broad agreement was also reached on key issues such as the urgent need to restore fish stocks and address illegal fishing, and on the important role non-governmental actors can play in achieving sustainable development. The meeting also recognised the need for a strong focus on Africa.

  Other difficult issues remain outstanding, such as how the Summit can address trade and finance issues to complement the Monterrey Consensus and the Doha Development Agenda. There are also specific targets on sanitation, biodiversity loss and energy, which have yet to be agreed. The UK will continue to work constructively with partners to ensure a successful outcome for Johannesburg, including concrete actions and coherent work programmes on energy, water and sustainable patterns of consumption and production.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) officials, (b) Ministers and (c) special advisers in her Department are travelling to Bali at public cost. [57838]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]There were 12 officials, one Minister and one special adviser travelling to the fourth preparatory meeting for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Bali from DEFRA.

  Rural Affairs
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many meetings of the Forum for Rural Children and Young People have taken place; and what recommendations she has received from the Forum. [61128]
  1357W
  Alun Michael
  The Forum for Rural Children and Young People meets quarterly and is supported by DEFRA via a grant from the Countryside Agency. The group is represented on the Rural Affairs Forum for England which I chair.

  The co-ordinator for the Forum for Rural Children and Young People—Andrew Brown—was appointed in September 2000. The Forum's Advisory Group includes representatives from most of the major voluntary sector bodies working with children and young people and observers from key Government departments, has held quarterly meetings since then. The Countryside Agency receives quarterly reports from the Forum and approves the Forum's annual report and work plan.

  The Forum is working closely with a number of key Government departments on issues involving children and young people. This includes "Connexions", the Children's Unit, and the Department of Health as well as DEFRA. Other work includes a "Guide to the Rural White Paper", and the production of a video, Experts in Their Fields, in which children and young people speak about their experiences of living in the countryside. Recently, the Forum has contributed to the crosscutting review on Children at Risk. We have also established strong links between the Forum for Rural Children and Young People and the Rural Affairs Forum for England that I chair.

  I shall be meeting members of the Forum on Tuesday, 18 June.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place the minutes of the Rural Affairs Forum meetings since January in the Library. [61134]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural Affairs Forum has met twice, on 9 January and 10 April. Copies of the minutes of these are available on DEFRA's website (http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/rafe/index.htm), where we will post future minutes and meeting papers. Copies of the minutes of the first two meetings have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the(a) first year and (b) average annual running costs of the proposals for the England Rural Development Programme advocated by the Policy Commission on the future of farming and food. [61562]

  PQ 6418: UK imports of meat and meat products (1999–2001)

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Country of despatch

  Thousand tonnes

  £ million

  Thousand tonnes

  £ million

  Thousand tonnes

  £ million

  Netherlands

  333.2

  577.6

  414.2

  651.8

  361.0

  666.9

  Denmark

  218.4

  330.1

  250.0

  382.2

  274.1

  504.9

  Irish Republic

  192.4

  332.3

  208.5

  360.4

  226.1

  423.7

  France

  155.6

  231.3

  142.4

  216.9

  141.0

  228.5

  Brazil

  81.6

  124.0

  97.7

  145.5

  124.1

  190.0

  New Zealand

  99.8

  167.5

  97.4

  171.3

  84.3

  165.2

  Germany

  43.6

  75.6

  58.7

  106.9

  79.5

  143.5

  Belgium

  42.4

  72.6

  43.6

  77.6

  42.5

  81.8

  Thailand

  23.6

  44.9

  28.9

  58.5

  41.4

  83.6

  Australia

  22.3

  45.6

  18.9

  38.1

  16.0

  36.3

  1358W
  Alun Michael
  The Commission made a wide range of recommendations relating to the England Rural Development Programme. These referred to the agri-environment schemes, to the Vocational Training Scheme, to the Processing and Marketing Grant, to Hill Farm Allowance, and to the Rural Enterprise Scheme. The commission also advocates a shift in the overall balance of Common Agricultural Policy support between production subsidies and rural development measures. The recommendations would involve a range of different timescales for implementation, and the administrative costs involved in each would depend on a number of further decisions on the manner of implementation. For that reason it is not possible at this stage to give an assessment of the costs of the Policy Commission recommendations as a whole. We will publish our response to the recommendations in the Autumn.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her proposals to penalise, deter and prevent abandoned vehicles; and if she will make a statement. [52225]

  Margaret Beckett
  We are determined that keepers of vehicles should take full responsibility for them. The Finance Bill includes enabling powers to reform the vehicle registration and licensing system to improve the accuracy of the vehicle record and thus to ensure that those who abandon cars can more easily be brought to book. The Government intend to consult motoring groups and other stakeholders on detailed reforms. The maximum penalty for abandoning a vehicle is a fine of £2,500 or three months' imprisonment or both.

  Imported Meat and Poultry
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from which countries meat and poultry products have been imported into the United Kingdom in the last three years. [60329]

  Mr. Morley
  The attached table shows the countries from which the UK imported meat and poultry products between 1999 and 2001, as recorded by the Official Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Official overseas trade data are subject to a degree of statistical error. Whilst overall level of errors will be low, there will be a much greater proportional effect on countries with low levels of trade. As such, great care is needed when interpreting the data.
  1359W

  PQ 6418: UK imports of meat and meat products (1999–2001)

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Country of despatch

  Thousand tonnes

  £ million

  Thousand tonnes

  £ million

  Thousand tonnes

  £ million

  Italy

  14.7

  42.0

  14.2

  4.8

  24.4

  65.9

  Spain

  14.1

  28.1

  15.1

  29.2

  16.9

  34.6

  Uruguay

  11.3

  21.7

  9.6

  20.9

  10.0

  16.5

  Argentina

  10.1

  18.0

  10.5

  19.6

  6.6

  11.8

  Botswana

  6.2

  17.5

  5.7

  16.9

  11.2

  30.5

  Namibia

  6.7

  22.8

  5.7

  19.9

  8.6

  29.0

  Zimbabwe

  6.5

  16.2

  5.9

  14.8

  4.6

  10.4

  USA

  3.8

  7.8

  3.8

  8.3

  2.3

  5.3

  Sweden

  3.8

  3.1

  1.7

  1.7

  3.0

  4.4

  Chile

  1.8

  3.2

  2.5

  5.1

  4.2

  7.8

  Poland

  1.8

  4.2

  1.7

  4.2

  1.9

  4.8

  Hungary

  0.9

  2.3

  0.8

  2.1

  2.4

  6.3

  Croatia

  0.7

  1.0

  0.8

  1.0

  0.7

  1.2

  Slovenia

  0.5

  1.0

  0.7

  1.0

  0.8

  1.3

  Israel

  0.1

  0.3

  0.4

  0.9

  1.0

  1.8

  Portugal

  0.2

  0.1

  1.0

  0.8

  0.2

  0.3

  Switzerland

  0.0

  0.1

  0.7

  0.9

  0.4

  0.6

  Mauritius

  0.7

  1.0

  0.4

  0.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Swaziland

  0.3

  0.5

  0.6

  1.7

  0.1

  0.2

  Finland

  0.2

  0.1

  0.4

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  South Africa

  0.3

  0.8

  0.2

  0.5

  0.3

  0.6

  Japan

  0.7

  1.6

  0.1

  0.2

  Greece

  0.1

  0.1

  0.3

  0.5

  0.3

  0.6

  Austria

  0.1

  0.2

  0.0

  0.1

  0.4

  1.4

  Singapore

  0.3

  0.8

  0.1

  0.2

  0.1

  0.2

  Iceland

  0.0

  0.0

  0.2

  0.0

  0.3

  0.3

  Canada

  0.1

  0.2

  0.1

  0.2

  0.1

  0.2

  China

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Paraguay

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  Hong Kong

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.2

  Russia

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Norway

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.1

  Cayman Islands

  0.0

  0.1

  Dominica

  0.0

  0.1

  Luxembourg

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Mozambique

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Panama

  0.0

  0.1

  Turkey

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Czech Republic

  0.0

  0.0

  Faroe Islands

  0.0

  0.0

  Jamaica

  0.0

  0.0

  Uganda

  0.0

  0.0

  India

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Vietnam

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Indonesia

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Columbia

  0.0

  0.0

  Malaysia

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Nigeria

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Burkina

  0.0

  0.0

  South Korea

  0.0

  0.0

  Barbados

  0.0

  0.0

  Eritrea

  0.0

  0.0

  Pakistan

  0.0

  0.0

  Antigua & Barbuda

  0.0

  0.0

  Trinidada & Tobago

  0.0

  0.0

  Taiwan

  0.0

  0.0

  Dubai

  0.0

  0.0

  Qatar

  0.0

  0.0

  Nb. Figures rounded to one decimal place. A blank entry indicates no recorded imports for that year.

  © Crown Copyright.

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise

  Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities and Food) Account and Trade, ESD, DEFRA.

  2001 EU data is provisional and subject to amendment.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common
  1360W
  organisation of agricultural markets for oils and fats 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

  1361W
  to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55249]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Management Committee for oils and fats is to assist the Commission in the management of the common organisation of the market for oils and fats as established by Article 37 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 136/66. The Committee has met 17 times over the last 12 months and one official attends; the cost of this attendance to public funds over the last year was £8,500. The Committee considers matters relating to the management of the market for fats and oils.

  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 has encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Peat
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when peat cutting will end at(a) Thorne Moor, (b) Wedholme Flow and (c) Hatfield Manor. [61172]

  Mr. Meacher
  Commercial peat cutting has already ceased on sites previously operated by the Scotts Company (UK) Ltd at Thorne Moor and Wedholme Flow. Peat cutting on Hatfield Moor will cease by 30 September 2004. Until then cutting of peat at Hatfield Moor will be subject to revised operating protocols agreed between the operator and English Nature that will be set so as to achieve enhanced restoration of the site.

  National Parks
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the review of National Park authorities will be completed. [61132]

  Alun Michael
  We expect to complete the review next month.

  Devolution
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to review the way in which Scottish agriculture issues are dealt with by the UK Government at the EC level. [60058]

  Mr. Morley
  [Holding answer 10 June 2002]As necessary, this Department will continue to deal with Scottish agricultural issues at the EU level in accordance with the provisions of the "Memorandum of Understanding and supplementary agreements between the United Kingdom Government, Scottish Ministers 1362W
  and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales" (Cm 4444) and a bilateral concordat with the Scottish Executive.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions her Department had with the Scottish Executive in formulating the UK's negotiating position on the mid-term review of the CAP. [60057]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]The UK's negotiating position on the mid-term review of the CAP is the subject of an ongoing dialogue between this Department and the devolved administrations. It is, for example, a recurring item for discussion between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Agriculture Ministers from the devolved administrations at their regular meetings, most recently on 22 May 2002.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether a Scottish Executive Minister will be a member of the UK delegation to the Agriculture European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 27 May; and what information is being provided by her Department to the Scottish Executive in connection with pre-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament.[60277]

  Mr. Morley
  No Scottish Executive Minister attended the EU Agriculture Council meeting on 27 May. As regards pre-Council scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 24 April 2002,Official Report, column 276W.

  Biosecurity (South Korea)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the risks of foot and mouth disease being brought into the United Kingdom by(a) travellers and (b) goods from South Korea. [60275]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]South Korea is not a country that is authorised to export meat or animals to the European Union. We have received veterinary advice that there is no significant risk of football fans or other travellers bringing Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) back from South Korea. We understand that all South Korean World Cup stadia are a long distance from the affected areas and most games will be played in Japan, which does not have FMD.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to improve the biosecurity arrangements for the arrival at ports of(a) travellers and (b) goods from South Korea. [60274]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]Veterinary advice is that the risk of travellers bringing foot and mouth disease back from South Korea is not significant. We have, however, issued advice in recent weeks via the Football Association website and the British Consulate in Seoul to advise travellers not to visit farms, and to either keep to the current personal import allowance of 1kg of meat cooked in a hermetically sealed container or, preferably, to bring no meat at all. We have also advised our port and airport enforcement authorities of the outbreak of foot and mouth in South Korea. These measures are in addition to those
  1363W
  announced in our Action Plan of 28 March which sets out measures to reduce the risk of animal and plant diseases entering the country.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food obtained in 2001 about sheep movements from Longtown market, Cumbria; whether any of that information was subsequently mislaid by the Department; and if she will make a statement. [61573]

  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food obtained a great deal of information about sheep movements form Longtown Market, both by consulting the Market's paper records and by discussions with the staff involved. At no time was any of the information mislaid by the Department and all information obtained was followed up.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on small abattoirs of the introduction under S.I., 2002, No. 843 of a requirement that the vertebral column from cattle over 30 months should be removed in licensed cutting plants. [61577]

  Mr. Morley
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment for the TSE (England) Regulation 2002 (S.I. 2002/843) is placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much illegal imported meat was confiscated in the last financial year. [60334]

  Mr. Morley
  We are still receiving data from the enforcement agencies about animal products seized in the last financial year. As at 6 June 2002, we have been advised that the weight of produce seized since 1 April 2001 is about 60 tonnes. We are unable to provide a precise weight of the volume of meat seized because weight has not always been provided and some consignments contain more than one type of product. We estimate however, that about 43 tonnes of the produce seized contained meat.

  Developments in methodology for identifying nitrate vulnerable zones

  1996 Methodology

  Proposals set out in "How Should England Implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive?", DEFRA December 2001

  Surfacewater NVZs

  More comprehensive monitoring network, covering all waters, not just drinking water abstraction points.

  491 monitoring points established under Drinking Water Directive (1975).

  Environment Agency's (EA) Genera] Quality Assessment (GQA) network. Over 7,000 monitoring points established for assessing river water quality.

  More data for each monitoring point.

  One year's data.

  5 year dataset (1996–2000) enables a more robust statistical approach to identifying pollution.

  Trend analysis to identify waters which "could contain 50 mg/litre nitrate" if action not taken.

  —

  Robust statistical technique to identify any additional waters which would be expected to become polluted by 2004 (date of next monitoring review required by Directive), based on 10-year dataset (1990–2000).

  1364W
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many arrests there were in respect of the illegal import of foodstuffs in each of the last 12 months; [54851]

  (2) when she will reply to the question from the hon. Member for North Norfolk tabled on 1 May, reference 54851. [61317]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 May 2002]Last year, HM Customs and Excise arrested three people for offences under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) involving illegal meat imports. Of these, two were convicted of a CITES offence, both received prison sentences of four months. The third person was acquitted but convicted under a separate Animal Health charge resulting in a penalty of a conditional discharge for one year and costs of £100.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to consult farmers and growers about the Government's proposed changes to the designation methodology for nitrate vulnerable zones. [61559]

  Mr. Meacher
  Details of the methodology used to identify potential new Nitrate Vulnerable Zones were set out in Annexe A of the recent consultation paper "How should England implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive?".

  We are currently considering all the issues raised responses to the consultation, including comments on this methodology, and hope to make an announcement soon about how we will proceed.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will place in the Library a detailed statement in the changes in methodology that she is applying now to the designation of nitrate vulnerable zones compared with the methodology employed at the time of earlier designations; [61558]

  (2) what the scientific basis is for the Government's changes to the designation methodology for nitrate vulnerable zones. [61554]

  Mr. Meacher
  Below is a table that explains the scientific development of the methodology used to identify Nitrate Vulnerable Zones between the time that the first designations were made in 1996 and the publication of our consultation paper "How should England implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive?" in December 2001.
  1365W

  Developments in methodology for identifying nitrate vulnerable zones

  1996 Methodology

  Proposals set out in "How Should England Implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive?", DEFRA December 2001

  Designation as NVZ of all land draining into polluted waters.

  Only land draining directly into the polluted water was identified as an NVZ. Land draining into the polluted water via a tributary was excluded.

  All land in catchment draining into polluted waters identified as an NVZ, as nitrate leaching from any of this land contributes to the pollution. Precise upstream catchment area identified using hydrologically accurate model and Geographical Information Systems (GIS).

  Eutrophk NVZs

  Designation of eutrophic area NVZs.

  Criteria for identifying eutrophic waters developed, but not applied in time for 1996 designations.

  Criteria applied to identify estuarine/coastal areas where agricultural nitrate contributes to eutrophication.

  Groundwater NVZs

  Extend coverage beyond just drinking water boreholes to all groundwaters.

  Monitoring data from Water Supply boreholes.

  All available public and private borehole monitoring data has been gathered and fed into the development of a GIS-based groundwater vulnerability model to identify land draining into all high nitrate, highly vulnerable groundwater areas. Scientifically robust, developed by EA's National Groundwater Centre and a consortium of consultants including University of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she has(a) sought and (b) plans to seek advice from the European Commission on the legality of designating the whole of England as a nitrate vulnerable zone under Article 3(5) of the EC Nitrates Directive while different approaches are pursued in respect of Scotland and Wales. [61557]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have kept the European Commission informed of the options that we are considering for implementing the Nitrates Directive, which were set out in our consultation document "How should England implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive?". We are currently considering responses to the consultation and hope to make an announcement soon about how we will proceed, at which point we will inform the Commission further.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the proposals by the Scottish and Welsh executives for the implementation of the EC Nitrates Directive; and if she intends to apply the(a) Scottish and (b) Welsh approaches to the Directive in her policy for its implementation in England. [61556]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales both intend to implement the EC Nitrates Directive through applying Action Programme measures within discrete Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs). This is one of the options set out in our consultation document "How should England implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive?". We are currently considering responses to the consultation and hope to make an announcement soon about how we will proceed.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the advice that she received from the Food Standards Agency in respect of the implementation of Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001. [61575]
  1366W
  Mr. Morley
  The Food Standards Agency has a clear interest in many of the areas covered by Regulation (EC) 999/2001 laying down the rules on the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and was consulted throughout the creation of a Statutory Instrument for the enforcement and administration of the Regulation.

  The Chairman of the Food Standards Agency has also advised Lord Whitty on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001. Information about his advice is available on the following web site: http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/64890.

  Fly-tipping
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many successful prosecutions there were in(a) England and Wales, (b) Greater London and (c) Enfield for fly-tipping in each of the last five years; what steps she is taking to strengthen protection against this activity; and if she will make a statement. [57853]

  Mr. Meacher
  Local authorities and the Environment Agency may prosecute for fly-tipping offences. Between 1996 and 2001, the Agency recorded prosecutions for general waste offences on a financial year basis. The data do not distinguish fly-tipping offences from other waste offences. From 1 April 1999, the Agency recorded, on a regional basis, whether an incident involves the unlawful deposit of waste, and whether prosecutions led to convictions or acquittals. This information is given below, but is not broken down within a region. No central register is kept of local authorities' prosecutions.

  Prosecutions (England & Wales)

  General waste offences

  Unlawful deposit of waste

  1996–1997

  241

  1997–1998

  345

  1998–1999

  367

  1999–2000

  342

  219

  2000–2001

  439

  225

  2001–2002

  264

  1367W

  Convictions (England & Wales)

  Unlawful deposit of waste1

  1999–2000

  211

  2000–2001

  210

  2001–2002

  253

  Convictions (Thames Region)

  Unlawful deposit of waste1

  1999–2000

  25

  2000–2001

  30

  2001–2002

  43

  1 Prosecutions under section 33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

  There are stringent controls in place to deal with fly tipping, which is a criminal offence. In the event of a conviction, severe penalties are available to the courts, including an unlimited fine and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years. The Environment Agency or the local authority have powers to remove fly-tipped waste and to recover their costs from those responsible.

  The Agency is currently working to establish a central unit to co-ordinate its approach to environmental crime. This unit will work with other key enforcement bodies, such as local authorities, the Police and HM Customs and Excise, and will target particular environmental and economic threats such as fly tipping.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Royal Society's report on developing UK policy for the management of radioactive waste. [58900]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Royal Society's response is one of 330 replies to the consultation paper Managing radioactive waste safely published last September by the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We are evaluating the responses, and we shall shortly publish a summary as well as announcing what we plan to do next.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which organisations are responsible for clearing(a) hazardous and (b) non-hazardous items left through fly-tipping; what ability local councils have to charge organisations for the removal of items; and if she will make a statement. [60099]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides local authorities, as waste collection authorities, and the Environment Agency, as the waste regulation authority, with certain powers to require the removal of hazardous and non-hazardous fly tipped waste, or to remove it themselves. Under this section, local authorities and the Agency have the power to recover their costs incurred in removing any such waste from the occupier of the land 1368W
  in question, unless the occupier proves that he neither made, not knowingly caused, nor knowingly permitted the deposit of the waste. In any case the authorities may recover their costs from the person who deposited the waste.

  World Summit on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role she played in ensuring the views of women's organisations are heard at the forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development. [58252]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are working to engage all stakeholders as part of the preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Women are one of the nine key stakeholder groups identified in Agenda 21 and we have been in consultation with womens' groups to involve them in the preparations for the Summit.

  DEFRA officials have met with representatives from Women's Institute to discuss their postcard campaign "What Women Want" which is featured on the Government's sustainable development website (www.sustainable-development.gov.uk). Margaret Beckett has agreed to meet Baroness Crawley, chairwomen of the Women's National Commission, to discuss with her how the groups she represents can become more closely involved with the preparations for the Summit.

  DEFRA officials have also been working closely with colleagues from the Cabinet Office Women's and Equality Unit to identify ways to raise awareness of the Summit specifically across womens' groups.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) median, (b) upper and (c) lower decile times taken to reply fully to letters received (i) from hon. Members and (ii) from all sources were in each month since June 2001. [58117]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]The information requested for part (i) is in the table below (in days):

  Month

  Median

  Lower Decile

  Upper Decile

  June 2001

  40.5

  12.3

  182.0

  July 2001

  72.0

  21.0

  168.0

  August 2001

  79.0

  29.0

  151.0

  September 2001

  45.0

  18.0

  116.0

  October 2001

  40.0

  16.0

  102.4

  November 2001

  41.0

  16.0

  1

  December 2001

  43.0

  20.0

  1

  January 2002

  23.0

  8.0

  1

  February 2002

  18.0

  3.0

  1

  March 2002

  14.0

  3.0

  1

  April 2002

  19.5

  5.0

  1

  1 It is not yet possible to calculate the upper (90 per cent) decile for these months.

  Figures are not available for part (ii), as there is no information held centrally for the time taken to answer letters from all sources and its assembly would incur disproportionate cost.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list for each NDPB or agency sponsored by her Department(a) the maximum retirement age adopted for most employees, and that age and (b) whether they have a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age, and that age; [59583]

  (2) if (a) her Department and (b) its agencies have a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59584]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]The Department and the Agencies it sponsors have a common policy on retirement age. The normal retirement age is 60 although staff in Administrative Officer and Administrative Assistant grades may stay on until the age of 65, no age bar is set on applications for employment beyond the retirement age for the grade in question.

  The normal retirement age for members of the Senior Civil Service is determined by the Cabinet Office and is currently 60. Heads of Departments and Agency Chief Executives have some flexibility to retain members of the Senior Civil Service beyond the age of 60 in exceptional circumstances subject to the approval of the Head of the Home Civil Service for the Senior Appointments Selection Committee (SASC) Group.

  It is for individual Non Departmental Public Bodies to determine their own policies about the age limits of those they employ, in accordance with existing equal opportunities legislation and good practice guidelines.

  Wildlife Projects
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which global wildlife projects her Department has funded in 2001–02. [61169]

  Mr. Meacher
  In addition to funding for the Darwin Initiative, my Department paid a total of £1.212 million in 2001–02 on assessed contributions to a number of international conservation Conventions and Agreements, and on voluntary payments to those conventions' grants funds to finance specific initiatives. The projects supported are listed below.

  United Nations Environment Programme

  Great Ape Survival Project (GrASP)

  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

  Bushmeat working group

  Seahorse workshop

  Range State meeting for the hawksbill turtle

  Convention on Migratory Species and Related Agreements

  Contribution to the costs of a range state meeting and set-up costs for the Memorandum of Understanding for the conservation and management of marine turtles in the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia

  1370W

  The production of a brochure on Bactrian camels

  Guidelines on avoidance of introduction of non-native migratory waterbirds

  A study on the potential impacts of marine fisheries on migratory waterbirds

  Rehabilitation of important sites for migratory waterbirds, which have been degraded by invasive species of aquatic weeds

  Surveys on cetacean abundance and seismic surveys have been

  supported under the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS)

  A project to establish effective national bat conservation and monitoring programmes in Romania and Moldova under the Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe (Eurobats).

  Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

  Western Palaearctic Waterbird Monitoring Programme

  Contribution to the Ramsar small grants fund

  IUCN—the World Conservation Union

  Species Specialist Group on African Elephants

  Species Specialist Group on Sharks

  In addition we made contributions to the costs of the General Assembly of the Global Tiger Forum and to the Flagship Species Fund.

  Darwin Initiative
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding, broken down by project and amount, was provided by her Department through the Darwin Initiative in each of the last five years. [61166]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Darwin Initiative is a £3 million annual programme of grants which was launched at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. It uses UK expertise to help countries that are rich in biodiversity but poor in resources to help safeguard the world's biodiversity. Information on the total funding for each project is contained in the reports on the Darwin Initiative covering the periods from 1997–98 to 2000–01. The first three are already available in the House of Commons Library. I am arranging for copies of the fourth report to be placed in the House Library. The fifth Annual report, covering the period 2001 to 2002 will be published on 17 June 2002. I will also arrange for a copy to be placed in the House Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Subtitling/Sign Language
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to introduce for full TV licence fee payers the opportunity to receive a full service with the option of(a) 100 per cent. subtitling and (b) British Sign Language translation. [60109]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer Monday 10 June 2002]Statutory requirements for the provision of subtitling on Channel 3 and Channel 5, and for the provision of subtitling and sign language translation on digital terrestrial television (DTT) services are included in the 1990 and 1996 Broadcasting Acts respectively. The targets for DTT services are that 80 per cent. of programming should be subtitled and 5 per cent. signed by the tenth anniversary of the start of the service. The
  1371W
  recently published draft Communications Bill (Cm 5508–1) extends these targets on DTT to digital cable and digital satellite channels.

  In setting these targets, we have aimed to strike the right balance between practicability and benefit. It would be extremely difficult and expensive to meet 100 per cent. targets. In addition, there are a number of unresolved technical issues in the development of a reliable closed signing system, and resultant problems caused by open signing. We believe that the current targets are challenging but achievable, but will keep them under regular review.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many computers were replaced in her Department in each of the past three years; how the replaced units were disposed of and by which companies; and at what cost. [60742]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department replaced two computers in 1999–2000, 23 in 2000–01 and 327 in 2001–02. All machines were disposed of through our outsourced service provider, SchlumbergerSema, and the proceeds from the disposal of the equipment was used to offset future purchases. There was no cost to the Department.

  Document Name

  Date

  (a) Number of Responses

  (b) Percentage of those specifically consulted who responded

  Consultation of cricket bodies on measures to address disorder

  July 2001

  9

  100%

  Report of the Gambling Review Body

  17 July 2001

  4,996

  Not known

  National Museum of Science & Industry Review: stage one consultation

  1 August 2001

  44

  16%

  Geffrye Museum/Horniman Museum/Museum of London Review: stage one consultation

  8 August 2001

  50

  57%

  Consultation on the draft Digital Television Action Plan

  12 October 2001

  36

  52%

  English Heritage Review: stage one consultaiton

  16 October 2001

  136

  40%

  National Maritime Museum Quinquennial Performance Review

  22 November 2001

  14

  14%

  Consultation on Media Ownership Rules

  26 November 2001

  8,093

  22%

  Public Lending Right. Quinquennial Performance Review: Consultation Paper

  13 November 2001

  49

  85%

  Fixed Term Directive

  November 2001

  30

  56%

  Quinquennial Review on the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art

  19 November

  50

  14%

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester Quinquennial Performance Review

  5 December 2001

  42

  56%

  Spectrum Planning Consultation

  11 December 2001

  52

  36%

  Council of Europe—Convention on the Protection of Audiovisual Heritage

  20 December 2001

  32

  86%

  Review of Progress towards digital switchover

  14 February 2002

  11

  11%

  The Draft Communication Bill

  7 May 2002

  Not yet completed

  Regent's Park Sports Facilities Consultation

  March 2002

  151

  35%

  Changes to Licensing Hours during All New Year's Eve

  24 April 2002

  Not yet completed

  UK's Open General Export Licensing (OGEL) Limits

  April 2002

  Not yet completed

  Prize Competitions

  23 May 2002

  Not yet completed

  Sports/Leisure Database
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made in the establishment of a national database of sports and leisure facilities for England; and if she will make a statement. [61288]

  Dr. Howells
  Information on sports facilities in England is currently held by a variety of organisations and a single database will enable more strategic Government investment in those areas and facilities which are most important. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has recently written to Ministerial colleagues at the DfES, the Office of the Deputy Prime

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last visited(a) Wembley, (b) Coventry and (c) Birmingham. [60159]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last visited Coventry on 19 March 2002 to attend the Cultural Services conference organised by the Local Government Association. She has yet to visit either Wembley or Birmingham in an official capacity but she has visited both during recent months on party business or in a personal capacity.

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the public consultations undertaken by her Department since June 2001, stating in each case the(a) number of respondents and (b) percentage of those specifically consulted who responded. [60140]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer Monday 10 June 2002]The Department is actively following the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation. The table below lists the public consultations carried out by the Department since June 2001, indicating (a) the number of respondents and (b) the approximate percentage of those specifically consulted who responded where known.

  Minister, the Department of Health, Home Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Local Government Association seeking their views on the scope, content and funding of the proposed database of sports facilities in England.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Science Funding
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria she will use to decide
  1373W
  the allocation of science spending between the research councils and the universities. [58226]

  Alan Johnson
  In allocating the Science Budget, my right hon. Friend takes into account the strategic needs of the UK's science and engineering base, and aim to maximise the contribution it makes towards innovation, economic growth, enhanced quality of life, and a more sustainable environment.

  Automotive Industry
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent measures she has taken to support the automotive industry. [58229]

  Alan Johnson
  Last month I announced a package of £45 million for the automotive sector to include an automotive academy, two centres of automotive excellence, and support for cross-regional supply chains as a first step to implementing the recommendations of the Automotive Innovation and Growth Team. In 2001 the Department delivered Regional Selective Assistance and Training grant offers totalling £35 million. The Department also spent about £2 million last year on various other projects to promote competitiveness and productivity improvements in the sector. The Department is continuing to support process improvements through the SMMT Industry Forum and research and development through the Foresight Vehicle Programme with commitments to date exceeding £13 million.

  Industrial Relations
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the impact of union recognition on industrial relations in the last two years. [58230]

  Alan Johnson
  Indications suggest that the statutory procedure for trade union recognition has had a positive effect on industrial relations and has encouraged the voluntary settlement of requests for recognition. The Government will examine the operation of the statutory procedure as part of the forthcoming review of the Employment Relations Act 1999.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the impact of EU enlargement on UK business. [58231]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) earlier today.

  Post Office Network
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the rural post office network. [58233]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices and placed a formal requirement on the Post Office in November 2000 to maintain the network and to prevent any avoidable closures of rural post offices.
  1374W
  The Government have already invested in modernisation comprising some £480 million to computerise the whole post office network. We have made available a £2 million fund to support volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or re-open post office facilities in rural areas where traditional services would otherwise close. Figures for end May 2002, showed that 64 applications—to a value of £500,000—had been assessed and approved and to that date payments of £231,000 had also been made.

  In addition, we have received advice form the Postal Services Commission on transitional financial assistance and proposals for the rural network are being developed in the context of that advice.

  Office of Science and Technology
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what priorities she has identified for the Office of Science and Technology for the next three years. [58235]

  Ms Hewitt
  The OST supports me in my role as the Cabinet-level minister with responsibility for science. It helps me deliver our policies on science, as set out in Excellence and Opportunity, the Science and Innovation White Paper, which identified our priorities as excellence in science, opportunities for innovation, and confident consumers. II also helps me to deliver against my Department's Public Service Agreement Objective II, namely to make the most of the UK's science, engineering and technology.

  Social Enterprises
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to support social enterprises in the north-west. [58237]

  Alan Johnson
  The Strategy for Social Enterprise, to be published in the summer, will address the support that is available to social enterprise throughout the country. It will build on some of the excellent work that is already being done in the regions to facilitate the growth and development of social enterprise.

  In the North West, the North West Development Agency aims to invest at least £2 million per annum by 2004–05 on strategic measures to support social enterprise. A package of projects to support social enterprise on Merseyside has been developed to which the Agency is contributing, together with regional partners and EU funding.

  Consumer Protection (Software)
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures her Department is taking to protect consumers' interests in the software market. [58238]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Sale of goods and supply of services legislation provides a wide range of protection to consumers in the software market.

  Manufacturing (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on encouraging manufacturing in the West Midlands. [58239]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published a document on 16 May setting out the Government's Manufacturing Strategy. I understand this has been broadly welcomed in the West Midlands.

  Small Businesses
  Joan Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further measures she is taking to tackle the problems caused to small businesses by late payment of invoices. [58240]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David).

  Postal Services (Competition)
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations she has had with the CWU regarding potential job losses following Postcomm's plans to introduce competition into the postal market. [58244]

  Mr. Timms
  Consignia, or Royal Mail as it will be known in future, is losing 1.2 million a day. Cost saving measures, to put the company on a firmer footing, are a matter for the Board in consultation with the unions.

  Ministers have met representatives of the CWU on a number of occasions when a range of issues was discussed. I met the General Secretary on 5 June following publication of the Postcomm proposals.

  Postcomm's decision on competition in the postal market published last month takes account of responses to the consultation from stakeholders, including Consignia and the CWU, and the Government welcome this.

  Competition
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to strengthen United Kingdom competition policy. [58245]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  UK competition policy will be strengthened by the provisions in the Enterprise Bill, which was introduced into Parliament on 26 March 2002.

  Women Incentive Network
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to prevent the activities of the Women Incentive Network. [58246]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department and Trading Standards Officers are aware of the existence of the Women Incentive Network. It appears to be a gifting scheme, like "Women Empowering Women". My hon. Friend the Minister for Competition, Consumer and Market's letter of 15 September to the hon. Member set out the Department's position on such schemes.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her objectives are in sponsoring the construction industry. [58247]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department is seeking to establish a culture of continuous improvement in the construction industry, leading to improvements in productivity, competitiveness, and quality of delivery. The industry is key to the delivery of our investment plans aimed at improving quality of life.

  We are taking forward three key policy initiatives as part of our improvement agenda with the industry:

  First, Rethinking Construction proves the business case for change and delivers a culture of continuous improvement. In partnership with the industry we are using demonstration projects, case studies and best practice dissemination to show the practical steps construction companies can take to improve their productivity and competitiveness and whereby clients can demand products which offer best value and enhance their own performance. We have agreed to continue the initiative until April 2004.

  Second, my Department supports a substantial programme of construction-related innovation and research to support industry improvement. Sir John Fairclough, a former government chief scientist, has recently conducted a review of how we should best provide that support in the future. The report establishes an excellent framework for improving the effectiveness of construction research. We are consulting the industry on how we can work with them to take forward the recommendations.

  Finally, through the Quality Mark Scheme, we will enable builders to demonstrate their competence and to distinguish themselves from their less reputable rivals. The Scheme will be rolled out across the country over a three to four year period.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with representatives of the manufacturing industry on the costs of the climate change levy. [58248]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government are continuing to keep in touch with business on the climate change levy to monitor experience with its operation. Primary responsibility for the levy lies with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  The Budget proposals for the levy show Her Majesty's Government's readiness to listen to industry views and to amend the levy's design, where justified. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget that he proposed to:
  introduce complete exemption from the levy for electricity from good quality combined heat and power and from coal mine methane, subject to EU state aid approval;

  1377W
  add new areas of energy saving technology to the list of those benefiting from enhanced capital allowances; and
  introduce a new relief for certain recycling processes that compete with processes that benefit from the dual-use or non-fuel use exemptions.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has also proposed that the levy rates are to be frozen this year.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on her Department's review of the economic benefits of the Export Credits Guarantee Department; and when it will be completed. [58249]

  Ms Hewitt
  Good progress is being made on the review of the economic benefits of ECGD, and we are expecting the majority of the work to be completed by the Summer.

  Unsolicited Mail
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has had on the subject of unsolicited mail. [58234]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have received a large amount of correspondence from the public about unsolicited mail. Unsolicited mail can be a legitimate marketing technique but it can also be a nuisance and includes deliberate scams. Action can be taken by registering with MPS and by enforcement bodies where scams are involved.

  Accommodation Costs
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham, of 11 March,Official Report, column 699W, on accommodation costs, what the cost was from April 2001 to March 2002 of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home; how many members of staff were so accommodated in the year in question; and what the average cost was per paid-for night of these stays. [61415]

  Ms Hewitt
  From April 2001 to March 2002, the average cost per night of hotel accommodation for DTI staff working away from home was £80.10.

  The DTI has devolved to local management the authorisation of travel claims for its staff, subject to checking procedures. It does not record details of the number of staff requiring hotel accommodation when working away from home. To provide the information requested would entail disproportionate cost.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60900]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI spent £6,534,426 on all forms of advertising through COI in 2001–02. This figure, which is subject to audit confirmation, includes the COI rebate, but excludes VAT. Advertising expenditure in 1378W
  2002–03 will be determined by individual programme budget holders; this information is not held centrally and could only be produced at disproportionate cost.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the implementation of the multi-annual Community action plan on promoting the safe use of the internet 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. [56739]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Internet Action Plan Programme Committee was established by Decision 276/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 January 1999, adopting a multi-annual Community action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks. The Committee has met three times over the past 12 months: on 11 September 2001, 22 February 2002 and 28 May 2002.

  It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the Committee without incurring disproportionate cost. The programme develops self-regulatory approaches to dealing with illegal or harmful content. Issues currently under consideration are: the selection and funding of awareness and hotline proposals, the terms of reference of the call for tender for the final evaluation of the present programme, and a proposal for a two year extension to the programme.

  Together with Member States, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government has encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Management Committee on Horizontal Questions Concerning Trade in Agricultural Products is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of it 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. [55366]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Management Committee on Horizontal Question Concerning Trade in Agricultural Products (usually known as the "Trade Mechanisms Group") is to oversee a number of CAP market support and control measures. The Committee's
  1379W
  main role is in connection with the regulations pertaining to the import and export of agricultural products.

  The Committee meets monthly, with the exception of August.

  The UK's usual representation consists of two officials from The Rural Payments Agency ("RPA"). However, officials from other Departments such as HM Customs also attend occasionally, depending on the agenda for the meeting in question.

  Travel expenses of approximately £11,000 for two delegates were reimbursed by the Commission. Other costs, consisting of subsistence allowances and travel expenses for additional officials, are met by the parent Agency or department of those in attendance and amounted to approximately 6,300 over the last 12 months.

  Issues presently under consideration include a number of amendments and clarifications to the main external trade regulations in response to, for example, reports issued by the Court of Auditors.

  Arrangements are in place to report on the Committee's activities through DEFRA, RPA's parent Department. RPA has a range of measures to communicate changes to the regulatory regime to its customers and other interested parties. The activities of RPA generally are subject to scrutiny by various audit bodies, including the National Audit Office.

  The Committee may be regarded as a comitology committee. Consequently the following points are relevant in regard to increasing its accountability and transparency:
  Together with Member States, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission";
  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final).
  As part of the review process, the UK Government has encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the application of the rules on the manufacture and placing on the market of certain substances used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotiopic substances 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. [56790]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The procedures and guidance for meetings of the Drug Precursor Committee are contained in Article 10 of both Council Regulation 3677/90 and Council Directive 92/109/EEC.
  1380W
  This Committee usually meets every quarter. In the last 12 months it met in May, September and December 2001, and in March 2002.

  The Home Office is the lead United Kingdom Government Department for this Committee and is represented at all meetings. When necessary representatives of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise also attend.

  The annual cost to public funds of the work of this Committee is not available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Items currently under consideration by this Committee include: increasing licensing procedures required for the export of the precursor chemicals acetic anhydride and potassium permanganate; evaluation of European Union precursor legislation; and negotiation of a bilateral precursor agreement with Turkey.

  The Commission, together with Member States, 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 Library on 26 February (Commission Document 5685/02).

  As part of the review process, the United Kingdom Government has encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Stationery
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent by her Department on stationery in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99. (e) 1999–2000, (f) 2000–01 and (g) 2001–02; what suppliers were used in each of these years, and how much was spent per supplier; what tender processes were undertaken, and what the frequency was of such processes; and if she will make a statement. [61377]

  Ms Hewitt
  The main provider of stationery to DTI over this period has been Guilbert UK Limited with whom we have a framework arrangement awarded by competitive tender in June 1998. Expenditure under this framework for the years for which information is available is as follows:

  FY 1998–99—£1,078,069 (July 1998—March 1999);

  FY 1999–00—£1,384,281;

  FY 2000–01—£1,567,334; and

  FY 2001–02—£1,536,726.

  Arms Export Licences
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what licences have been granted for equipment on the military list to(a) India and (b) Pakistan in each month since December 2001,
  1381W
  including military list and dual-use ratings; what equipment is covered under these licences; and if she will make a statement. [60625]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]The number of Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) covering items on the military and dual use lists, issued to end users in India and Pakistan in each month since December 2001, is set out in the tables that I have placed in the Libraries of the House. Individual licences might cover a range of items with various ratings. Where this is so, the licence is included in the tables in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  The summary description of the items covered by these ratings will be published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which will be available in the Libraries of the House. In addition India and Pakistan are permitted destinations on certain Open General Export Licences, copies of which are also placed in the Libraries of the House. All relevant export licence applications for India and Pakistan are considered very carefully in the light of the latest developments in the region, on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter's statement of 15 March 2002.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of small arms production equipment to Pakistan ordnance factories. [60693]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of small arms production equipment is controlled under entries ML18 and ML21 in Part III of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended. Details of all relevant export licences including any for small arms production equipment issued to Pakistan since 2 May 1997 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 Annual Report will be published as soon as possible.

  Information on export licences for particular end users is commercially confidential and exempt from disclosure under Part II, Section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of components or subassemblies for the MP5 sub-machine gun to Switzerland where the final end-use destination was(a) Turkey, (b) Finland and (c) Pakistan. [60700]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of components and subassemblies for machine guns is controlled under entries ML1 and ML16 in Part III of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended.

  Between 2 May 1997 and 27 May 2002 no Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) were issued covering entries ML1 and ML16 where the consignee was Switzerland and the end user was either in Turkey, Finland or Pakistan.
  1382W
  The Export Control Organisation's computer database records only permitted destinations for all Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs). Details of all relevant SIELs and OIELs issued since 2 May 1997 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 Annual Report will be published as soon as possible.

  Information on export licences for components and sub-assemblies for particular machine guns in commercially confidential and exempt from disclosure under Part II, Section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of small arms production equipment to MKEK in Turkey. [60692]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of small arms production equipment is controlled under entries ML18 and ML21 in Part III of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended.

  Details of all relevant export licences including any for small arms production equipment issued to Turkey since 2 May 1997 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 Annual Report will be published as soon as possible.

  Information on export licences for particular end users is commercially confidential and exempt from disclosure under Part II, Section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of small arms production equipment to Iran. [60694]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of small arms production equipment is controlled under entries ML18 and ML21 in Part III of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended.

  Details of all relevant export licences including any for small arms production equipment issued to Iran since 2 May 1997 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 Annual Report will be published as soon as possible.

  The Government's policy with respect to export licensing for Iran was set out in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth on 28 January 1998, Official Report, columns 273–74.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licences for military equipment have been granted by her Department in each of the last three years. [60706]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The number of export licence applications in respect of items controlled for strategic reasons that have been approved and rejected since 1997 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on
  1383W
  Strategic Export Controls Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House.

  The 2001 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls will be published as soon as possible.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of components or sub-assemblies for the G3 rifle and MP5 sub-machine gun to Iran. [60688]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of components and subassemblies for rifles and machine guns is controlled under entries MLI and ML16 in Part III of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended.

  Details of all relevant export licences including any for components or sub-assemblies for rifles and machine guns issued to Iran since 2 May 1997 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 Annual Report will be published as soon as possible.

  Information on export licences for particular rifles and machine guns are commercially confidential and exempt from disclosure under Part II, Section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The Government's policy with respect to export licensing for Iran was set out in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth on 28 January 1998, Official Report, columns 273–74.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of CS pellets to Malaysia; and what the(a) quantities and (b) end-users in each case were. [60695]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of CS pellets is controlled under entries ML3, M L4 and ML7 in Part III of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended.

  Details of all relevant export licences including those for CS pellets issued to Malaysia since 2 May 1997 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 Annual Report will be published as soon as possible.

  Information on export licences to end users, and the quantities involved, is commercially confidential and exempt from disclosure under Part II, Section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for technology transfers to Turkey for the licensed production of the T-40 HK33E 40 mm grenade launcher. [60691]
  1384W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of technology for the production of grenade launchers is controlled under entries ML21 and ML22 in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended.

  Details of all relevant export licences including any for technology for the licensed production of grenade launchers issued to Turkey since 2 May 1997 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 Annual Report will be published as soon as possible.

  Information on export licences for technology for the production of particular grenade launchers is commercially confidential and exempt from disclosure under Part II, Section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of components or sub-machine guns to Germany where the final end-use destination was(a) Turkey, (b) Switzerland, (c) Finland and (d) Pakistan; [60689]

  (2) what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of components for the MP5 sub-machine gun to Germany where the final end-use destination was (a) Turkey, (b) Switzerland, (c) Finland and (d) Pakistan. [60699]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of components and subassemblies for machine guns is controlled under entries MLI and ML16 in Part III of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended.

  Between 2 May 1997 and 27 May 2002 no Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) were issued covering the ratings MLI or ML16 where the consignee was Germany and the end user was either in Turkey, Switzerland, Finland or Pakistan.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer database records only permitted destinations for all Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs). Details of all relevant SIELs and OIELs issued since 2 May 1997 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 Annual Report will be published as soon as possible.

  Information on export licences for components and sub-assemblies for particular machine guns is commercially confidential and exempt from disclosure under Part II, Section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of components or subassemblies for the HK33 rifle to Turkey where the final end-use destination was in a different country. [60704]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of components and subassemblies for rifles is controlled under entries ML1 and ML16 in Part III of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended.
  1385W
  Between 2 May 1997 and 27 May 2002, two Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) were issued covering the ratings ML1 or ML16 where the consignee was Turkey and the end user was in a different country.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer database records only permitted destinations for all Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs). Details of all relevant SIELs and OIELs issued since 2 May 1997 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 Annual Report will be published as soon as possible.

  Information on licences for components and subassemblies for particular rifles is commercially confidential and exempt from disclosure under Part II, Section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of components for the MP5 sub-machine gun to Finland where the final end-use destination was in a different country. [60703]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of components and sub-assemblies for machine guns is controlled under entries ML1 and ML16 in Part III of Schedule I of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended.

  Between 2 May 1997 and 28 May 2002 no Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) were issued covering the ratings ML1 or ML16 where the consignee was Finland and the end user was in a different country.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer database records only permitted destinations for all Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs). Details of all relevant SIELs and OIELs issued since 2 May 1997 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 Annual Report will be published as soon as possible.

  Information on export licences for components and sub-assemblies for particular machine guns is commercially confidential and exempt from disclosure under Part II, Section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of components or subassemblies for the MP5 sub-machine gun to Pakistan where the final end-use destination was in a different country. [60702]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of components and subassemblies for machine guns is controlled under entries ML1 and ML16 in Part III of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended.

  Between 2 May 1997 and 27 May 2002, no Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) were issued covering the ratings ML1 or ML 16, where the consignee was Pakistan and the end user was in a different country.
  1386W
  The Export Control Organisation's computer database records only permitted destinations for all Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs). Details of all relevant SIELs and OIELs issued since 2 May 1997 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 Annual Report will be published as soon as possible.

  Information on export licences for components and sub-assemblies for particular machine guns is commercially confidential and exempt from disclosure under Part II, Section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of components or sub-assemblies for sub-machine guns to Turkey where the final end-use destination was a different country; [60690]

  (2) what export licences have been granted sine 2 May 1997 for the export of components for the MP5 submachine gun to Turkey where the final end-use destination was a different country. [60701]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of components and sub-assemblies for machine guns is controlled under entries ML1 and ML16 in Part III of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended.

  Between 2 May 1997 and 28 May 2002 two Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) were issued covering the ratings ML1 or ML16 where the consignee was Turkey and the end user was in a different country.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer database records only permitted destinations for all Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs). Details of all relevant SIELs and OIELs issued since 2 May 1997 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 Annual Report will be published as soon as possible.

  Information on licences for components and subassemblies for particular machine guns is commercially confidential and exempt from disclosure under Part II, Section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of Pains Wessex CS pellets to Malaysia; and what the(a) quantities and (b) end-users were in each case. [60697]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of CS pellets is controlled under entries ML3, ML4 and ML7 in Part III of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended.

  Details of all relevant export licences including those for CS pellets issued to Malaysia since 2 May 1997 are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 Annual Report will be published as soon as possible.
  1387W
  Information on licences to particular exporters, the end users, and the quantities involved, is commercially confidential and exempt from disclosure under Part II, Section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Arms Exhibitions and Conferences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support has been provided by Trade Partners UK to assist PW Defence to(a) attend and (b) exhibit at MSP exhibitions or conferences in the UK and overseas since I May 1997; which exhibitions or conferences were attended; and what amounts were provided [HL60698]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Trade Partners UK (TPUK) provided support to PW Defence at the following overseas exhibitions under the terms of the Support for Exhibitions and Seminars Abroad scheme since May 1997:

  Date

  Event

  Country

  Support(£)

  Sep 2000

  Africa Aerospace and Defence

  South Africa

  3,100

  Mar 2001

  IDEX

  UAE

  2,300

  Nov 2001

  MILIPOL

  France

  2,300

  Apr 2002

  DSA

  Malaysia

  3,500

  TPUK have no record of supporting PW Defence at any exhibitions or conferences in the UK during this period.

  As the House knows, this company has been under investigation following a recent report on their activities.

  Departmental Reviews
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the period is of the contract between her Department and Gap Gemini Ernst and Young relating to the current reviews of her Department. [61310]

  Ms Hewitt
  Cap Gemini Ernst and Young were appointed to support the DTI's reviews of its Priorities and Structure and its Support for Business in August 2001. Work on the Priorities and Structure finished in April this year while the contract for work currently being undertaken on Business Support will finish on 8 July.

  Business Links
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the national standards applicable to those delivering Business Link branded services; and whether it is her policy that these standards should be made mandatory. [61308]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I continue to view the commitment to the National Standards of Professional Competence as key to improving the quality of service available from the Business Link network.

  The National Standards of Professional Competence for those delivering Business Link branded services are mandatory.
  1388W
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library the annual assessments taken of the Business Links Service by her Department in each of the past four years. [61314]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Business Link quarterly performance information reports were routinely filed with the Libraries of the House until early 2001. Since then copies have been available electronically via the Small Business Service web site (sbs.gov.uk) on request.

  Hard copies will be supplied to the Libraries of the House.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library impact assessments relating to the performance of local business links. [61307]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Yes.

  Small Business
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent measures the Government have taken to assist small businesses in offering more flexible hours; and what plans the Government have to ensure that businesses offer flexible hours to all employees. [61149]

  Alan Johnson
  We are committed to delivering our campaign to promote flexible working in small as well as large businesses. We are working with all businesses to convince them of the business benefits for flexible working, and we are at the same time providing advice on how they can develop flexible working approaches. This includes:

  Providing from April 2003, parents of children aged under six and disabled children aged under 18 with a right to request to work flexibly and placing a duty on employers to consider requests seriously. This important new right has been specifically designed to take account of the needs of small business and will be accompanied by a package of support for both employers and employees, including tailored guidance for small businesses.

  Helping to tackle the long hours culture in the UK, through an International Study Tour, which will share best practice on how best small as well as large companies maintain or improve productivity whilst tackling the issue of long hours.

  Targeting and supporting specific sectors, including small businesses, to facilitate real change in those sectors where there is little experience of flexible working.

  Providing support and guidance to employers who want to adopt flexible working but do not know how, through the Challenge Funds, and disseminating the emerging best practice. Our successful Challenge Fund programme, £10.5 million over three years (2000–03) aims to raise employers' awareness of the business benefits of policies and practices that help employees achieve a better balance between work and the rest of their lives. 166 companies, including small businesses, have already received support through the fund, and we have recently announced another round of successful projects, bringing the total number of companies to benefit from this fund to 399.

  Nuclear Waste White Paper
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the White Paper on Nuclear Waste will be published. [60055]

  Mr. Wilson
  The White Paper on managing the nuclear legacy will be published in the next few weeks. In setting out the Government's strategy for cleaning up the civil nuclear legacy, the White Paper will make reference to the separate consultation process on "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" which is being carried out by DEFRA and the devolved administrations.

  Disadvantaged Areas (Business Start-ups)
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to support the start-up of new businesses in disadvantaged areas. [58236]

  Alan Johnson
  We are spending £170 million over the next three years through the Phoenix Fund and a loan fund for Business Incubators across all regions of England.

  We are currently running 96 Phoenix Development Fund projects in disadvantaged areas and amongst under-represented groups, including one project in Barnsley. So far the Development Fund has enabled the start-up of 424 new enterprises and the creation or safeguarding of 1,613 jobs.

  We are also supporting 46 Community Development Finance Initiative projects in disadvantaged areas and are currently progressing support to a CDFI in the South Yorkshire area.

  The Phoenix Fund is also making £1.5 million available for seven City Growth Strategy initiatives—putting enterprise at the heart of regeneration. A further £3 million is aimed at rural areas through the Development Fund for Rural Renewal.

  In addition, the SBS's Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme has guaranteed loans to the value of £5,588,149 to 106 businesses in South Yorkshire.

  The SBS recently published (May 2002) a consultation document as part of the process for developing a comprehensive strategy for Start-ups. One of the key objectives in developing the strategy will be to identify and remove barriers (real or perceived) that discourage those in under-represented groups and disadvantaged areas from starting a business, so that the gap between their numbers and the national average is reduced.
  1390W
  The DTI will measure its progress in promoting enterprise in this way by reducing the 35 per cent. difference in business start up rates between the 20 per cent. most prosperous and the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged wards.

  Equal Opportunities
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to encourage women to take up science and engineering careers. [58228]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department's Promoting SET for Women Unit will continue to be in existence for another five years to stimulate progress. I have asked Baroness Greenfield to report to me on the development of a more aggressive strategy for women in science and engineering. I also recently announced a new award, in memory of Rosalind Franklin, which will be given annually in recognition of outstanding scientific achievement in innovation and research to raise the profile of women in science. My Department is also funding a national mentoring scheme for women in SET.

  Fishermen's Compensation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims were(a) submitted and (b) paid and what sums were paid out for each fishing port in the scheme for compensating fishermen for the loss of Icelandic waters in the last five years. [61406]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The figures as of 31 May 2002 are as follows:

  Current area of residence of claimant

  Number of payments

  Amount of compensation £ million

  Hull

  1,629

  17.5

  Grimsby

  685

  4.7

  Fleetwood

  320

  2.8

  Blackpool

  46

  £352k

  Cleethorpes

  188

  1.4

  Newcastle

  333

  3.5

  West Yorkshire

  208

  1.9

  Aberdeen

  238

  1.3

  Others

  511

  3.8

  Total

  4,158

  37

  A total of 7,030 claims, not including duplicates, were received but I regret there is no breakdown of this figure by fishing port.

  Employment Agencies Act
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what recent discussions she has had with Bectu and Equity regarding the operation of the Employment Agencies Act 1973; and if she will make a statement; [61100]

  (2) when the new regulations under the employment Agencies Act 1973 will be laid before Parliament. [61101]

  Alan Johnson
  I have had no recent meetings with Bectu or Equity to discuss the operation of the Employment Agencies Act.

  We will shortly be issuing the revised draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2002, which will cover the private recruitment industry, including the entertainment sector. There will be a consultation exercise on certain aspects of those Regulations and they will be laid before Parliament later in the year.

  Company Insolvencies (Employees)
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will give a higher priority in her review of employment legislation to the position of employees as creditors in relation to their contractual entitlements in situations where the employing company becomes insolvent. [60091]

  Alan Johnson
  Under the Insolvency Act 1986 an employee of an insolvent employer has the right to make a preferential claim in the proceedings for certain statutory amounts of unpaid remuneration and unpaid holiday pay. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry does not propose to alter this priority.

  Under the insolvency payments provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the employee is entitled to claim a certain statutory proportion of these debts from the Secretary of State, who will pay them out of the National Insurance Fund. The Secretary of State then "steps into the former employees shoes" and has the same preference as employees would have in respect of those debts—and indeed the same preference as they still do have in respect of the proportion of those debts that exceed the statutory maximum payable under the Employment Rights Act, but which still fall within the statutory maximum under the Insolvency Act. However, current section 189(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 allows the Secretary of State to be paid in priority to any preferential claims lodged in the insolvency proceedings by former employees.

  The Government will be tabling an amendment for Commons Report stage of the Enterprise Bill, following consideration of arguments put forward at Commons Committee stage, to remove this "super preference".

  Fireworks
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have taken place between her Department and(a) the Cabinet Office (b) the Home Office and (c) DEFRA regarding what action can be taken within existing legislation to address neighbourhood safety, noise and nuisance arising from fireworks; and if she will make a statement. [61481]
  1392W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have held several discussions between relevant government departments, enforcement agencies and the industry to explore what more can be done to address neighbourhood noise and nuisance. These are continuing and I shall make a statement in due course.

  Farnborough Air Show
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support her Department is giving to the organisers of the Farnborough Air Show taking place in July; and if the Department is providing assistance to enable overseas visitors to attend it. [60615]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government is committed to a strong UK aerospace and defence industry and my Department is very supportive of this important prestigious event which plays an important role in maintaining the UK's pre-eminent role in the world's aerospace industry. This year, my Department is not providing any financial support to the Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC), organisers of the Farnborough International Air Show to fund inward missions. One application was made to Trade Partners UK under the national inward mission scheme, but this did not meet the required criteria. The Defence Export Services Organisation, part of the Ministry of Defence, makes arrangements for the attendance of official overseas defence delegations to Farnborough International and is supporting the event this year.

  Trading Standards
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many pirated(a) video cassettes, (b) compact discs and (c) DVDs have been confiscated by trading standards officers in each of the last five years in (i) street markets and (ii) other distribution centres. [59668]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Most local authorities are likely to keep records of seizures of pirate video cassettes, compact discs and DVDs by trading standards, but it would cost a disproportionate amount to collect and collate this information.

  Post Office
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what performance standards she sets for delivery of first class letters by the Post Office. [60678]

  Stephen Timms
  Targets for the Royal Mail's scheduled services and standards are set in the licence issued by the Postal Services Commission (Postcomm) and agreed between Consignia and the Consumer Council for Postal Services (Postwatch). Royal Mail's current target for first class stamped and metered post is for 92.5 per cent. of letters to be delivered the next working day.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what consultation took place between her Department and the Post Office concerning the change of name to Consignia; [57693]

  (2) if her Department was asked to approve the change of name by the Post Office to Consignia. [57694]
  1393W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]The adoption of Consignia as the initial name of the Post Office company was a commercial matter for the company, and although Ministers were informed of the organisation's intentions, it was not an area in which the Government sought to intervene.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions of 20 May 2002,Official Report, column 118W, on affordable housing, how many empty homes in each region have been empty for (a) less than 12 months and (b) over 12 months in each of the last 10 years. [61192]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  The information requested is not collected centrally at regional level.

  The number of Local Authority (LA) and Registered Social Landlord (RSL) empty homes in England that have been empty for (a) less than 12 months and (b) over 12 months for each of the last 10 years are set out in Table 1 below.

  Table 1: Number of LA and RSL homes in England empty for (a) less than 12 months, (b) more than 12 months for each of the last 10 years

  Vacant for:

  (a) < 12 months

  (b) > 12 months

  Total vacant

  1 April

  2001

  91,600

  30,000

  121,600

  2000

  96,100

  28,600

  124,700

  1999

  90,100

  23,500

  116,600

  1998

  99,200

  20,700

  110,900

  1997

  89,400

  18,500

  107,900

  1996

  86,000

  17,100

  103,100

  1995

  75,900

  16,700

  92,600

  1994

  74,600

  15,900

  90,500

  19931

  76,900

  20,600

  97,500

  1992

  67,500

  22,100

  89,600

  1Figures for 1993 are unusually high due to many dwellings bought by RSLs towards the end of the financial year (1992–93) under the Housing Market Package.

  Notes:

  Figures rouned to the nearest 100.

  Sources

  The Department's annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP) returns and the Housing Corporation's annual HAR 10 and Regulatory and Statistical Return (RSR).

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress and activities of the affordable housing unit with regard to its remit to provide more affordable homes. [60495]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  The Affordable Housing Unit was established at the end of last year and is part of the Housing Directorate of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Its remit is to work with partners and stakeholders to significantly increase the supply of 1394W
  affordable housing in high demand areas across the country over the next three years and to contribute to the development of policy on increasing housing supply. We expect to make a statement on policies and measures to improve the supply of affordable housing before the summer recess.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1162W, on affordable housing, how many affordable housing units have been built in rural areas, broken down by region, in each year since 1997. [61198]

  Mr Tony McNulty
  A regional breakdown of information provided in the Official Report, 26 February 2002, column 1162W, relating to affordable housing units completed with social housing grant and with local authority social housing grant respectively, is presented below:

  Affordable Housing units built since 1997–98: Rural Authorities in England, by Region

  Units funded through Social Housing Grant:

  (a) Housing Corporation

  (b) Local Authority

  1997–98

  North East

  368

  11

  Yorkshire

  392

  107

  East Midlands

  439

  275

  Eastern

  1,000

  736

  London

  0

  0

  South East

  925

  871

  South West

  1,517

  896

  West Midlands

  401

  360

  North West

  258

  65

  All Rural Authorities

  5,300

  3,321

  1998–99

  North East

  184

  0

  Yorkshire

  421

  97

  East Midlands

  336

  272

  Eastern

  835

  474

  London

  0

  0

  South East

  1,044

  586

  South West

  1,339

  697

  West Midlands

  269

  213

  North West

  576

  143

  All Rural Authorities

  5,004

  2,482

  1999–2000

  North East

  276

  15

  Yorkshire

  187

  121

  East Midlands

  434

  290

  Eastern

  532

  496

  London

  0

  0

  South East

  581

  431

  South West

  1,096

  562

  West Midlands

  363

  378

  North West

  462

  87

  All Rural Authorities

  3,931

  2,380

  2000–01

  North East

  206

  6

  Yorkshire

  412

  56

  East Midlands

  342

  320

  Eastern

  680

  468

  London

  0

  0

  South East

  662

  369

  South West

  1,124

  566

  West Midlands

  160

  85

  North West

  406

  140

  All Rural Authorities

  3,992

  2,010

  1395W
  Notes:

  Completions in respect of any schemes originally approved prior to 1996–97 with both Housing Corporation and Local Authority Social Housing Grant support will be counted under both headings, but cannot be distinguished.

  Affordable housing schemes comprise those for rent (including Tariff, and Mixed Funded schemes); temporary social housing schemes (including MiniHag, and short-life housing); and shared or outright ownership schemes (including leasehold for the elderly).

  Source:

  Housing Corporation returns

  Ordnance Survey
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the National Interest in Mapping Service Agreement Review Group agreed in advance that NIMSA funding could be used for colour photography. [61126]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  No. NIMSA funding has not supported the move to aerial colour photography by Ordnance Survey.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish a breakdown of Ordnance Survey activities funded under the National Interest in Mapping Service Agreement in 2001–02. [61122]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  Since April 1999, National Interest in Mapping Services Agreement (NIMSA) funds have been used by Ordnance Survey for activities that are defined and agreed by the NIMSA review group comprising officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Ordnance Survey. These activities are agreed each year in advance, but are subject to change by the review group.

  Details about NIMSA activities for 2001–02 will be published in an annual report this summer.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the annual payment was in 2001–02 to Ordnance Survey under the National Interest in Mapping Service Agreement. [61123]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  The payment to Ordnance Survey in 2001–02 in respect of the National Interest Mapping Services Agreement was £15,987,245.

  Key Workers' Housing
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money was spent on key workers' housing initiatives in the last year; how the money was spent; how many people benefited from it; and what their occupations were. [60443]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  We are providing £250 million for the Starter Home Initiative (SHI) over the three years 2001–02 to 2003–04 to help 10,000 key workers to buy homes in areas where they would otherwise be priced out of the housing market. This includes expenditure of £2.173 million which helped 90 key workers complete their assisted house purchases between October 2001 and March 2002. The key workers helped were primarily teachers, police officers and health workers.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions between 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002 his(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. [58725]

  Mr. Douglas Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  Between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002, Special Advisers in the Cabinet Office travelled abroad on six occasions, at an average cost of £5,626.26 per trip as the trips involved covered long distance and several countries at a time. All travel by Special Advisers is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code, and the Civil Service Management Code.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Pre-Legislative Scrutiny
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee when he expects that the equipment supplied to hon. Members will be capable of viewing pre-legislative scrutiny on-line. [61622]

  Mr. Michael Fabricant
  The proceedings of the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Bill are webcast as part of a one-year pilot project covering proceedings in the chambers of both Houses, sittings of the House in Westminster Hall, and public proceedings of certain select and joint committees. The pilot project is due to run until the end of December 2002 and is specifically intended as a means by which the general public can follow proceedings in Parliament. It is not accessible via the PDVN since the volume of electronic traffic that might be generated could affect the quality of day to day services on PDVN.

  Once the pilot project has come to an end, an assessment will be made of its value. If a webcasting service is to be provided in the long term, a decision will be taken on whether access will be made available within Parliament, bearing in mind any further investment which would be needed. The hon. Gentleman may want to raise the matter with the Broadcasting and Information Committees later in the year, as the pilot project comes to a close.

TREASURY

  Advertising
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the expenditure by the Inland Revenue on advertising was in each fiscal year since 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [38257]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The expenditure by the Inland Revenue on advertising was in each fiscal year since 1997–98 as follows.
  1397W

  Campaign

  Total (£)

  1997–98

  Self Assessment

  4,152,488

  1998–99

  Self Assessment

  2,351,340

  Construction Industry Scheme

  651,962

  Millennium Gift Aid

  2,686,098

  ISA Campaign

  810,230

  1999–2000

  Construction Industry Scheme

  949,787

  Self Assessment

  1,479,997

  Employers Campaign

  195,637

  Working Families' Tax Credit take-up campaign

  6,664,663

  Disabled Person's Tax Credit take-up campaign

  245,638

  2000–01

  Self Assessment

  3,740,418

  PAYE Online

  879,646

  Call Confidential

  1,024,500

  Self Employed Registration Helpline

  454,972

  Children's Tax Credit

  5,005,254

  Working Families' Tax Credit

  4,848,429

  Disabled Person's Tax Credit

  63,347

  2001–02

  Self Assessment (including online)

  4,718,205

  Working Families' Tax Credit

  1,236,039

  Disabled Persons Tax Credit

  816,426

  PAYE online

  1,309,060

  Children's Tax Credit

  21,168

  Payroll Giving

  191,349

  Share Incentive Plan

  1,068,217

  All figures exclude VAT

  All campaigns were contracted through the COI and are independently audited.

  All have involved an element of awareness raising as well as informing taxpayers of their specific rights and obligations within the tax system.

  As an example, campaign spend on Working Families Tax credit since its introduction in October 1999 has increased awareness of WFTC, with advertising awareness peaking at 68 per cent of the target audience in December 2000. There were 1,293,000 UK families in receipt of WFTC at 30 November 2001, this compares with 833,000 who were receiving Family Credit at its peak.

  Tax Credits (Scotland)
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families are in receipt of(a) working families tax credit and (b) child tax credit in each constituency in Scotland. [61304]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the numbers in receipt of the working families' tax credit (WFTC), I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 293W. Information about the children's tax credit (CTC) is not available by constituency. However, the number of families eligible for the CTC in Scotland is estimated to be 400,000.

  Motor Taxation
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was raised in 2001–02 from(a) duty on motor fuel, (b) VAT on motor fuel, (c) VED, (d) VAT
  1398W
  on the purchase of all motor vehicles, (e) benefit in kind tax on company cars (f) benefit in kind on free fuel to company car drivers and (g) insurance premium tax on motor insurance premiums. [61165]

  John Healey
  In 2001–02, the amount of duty received from road fuel was £21.7 billion; £4.4 billion was raised from Vehicle Excise Duty; £2.5 billion was raised from benefit in kind tax on company cars; and £0.9 billion was raised from benefit in kind on fuel to company car drivers.

  No figures are available for the amount of VAT raised specifically from either the sale of road fuel or the purchase of all motor vehicles.

  Information specifically on insurance premium tax on motor insurance premiums is not collected. Customs & Excise do not require insurers to identify the specific types of insurance policies on which insurance premium tax is paid.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to correspondence from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed of 20 January referring to correspondence dated 23 October 2001 referred to him by the Paymaster General relating to constituents who let holiday cottages and were affected by foot and mouth restrictions. [61319]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have done so.

  AIRMIC
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with AIRMIC concerning the availability of insurance cover in the aftermath of 11 September; and which sectors these discussions covered. [61103]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government is aware that the availability of insurance cover against acts of terrorism has reduced following 11 September. Constructive discussions are ongoing between HM Treasury, the insurance industry and representatives of AIRMIC on possible changes to the Pool Re Scheme which provides terrorism reinsurance for commercial property damage and business interruption. AIRMIC have also been involved in wider discussions between Treasury and industry about the availability of terrorism insurance.

  Internet
  Mr Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what regional differences exist in the home use of the internet. [58241]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 13 June 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question regarding information on regional differences in the home use of the Internet. I am replying in his absence. (58241)
  The attached table presents the most recently available information of households with access to the Internet by Government Office Regions and countries of the UK. The latest

  1399W
  headline estimate is that 39 per cent of households in the UK had Internet access at home in the quarter October to December 2001. The more detailed regional analysis is based on a full sample over a 12-month period. While 39 per cent of UK households had Internet access in the fourth quarter of 2001, the average for the twelve months, October 2000 to September 2001 was 37 per cent. therefore this 37 per cent provides the basis for the regional analysis attached.

  Percentage of households with access to the Internet by Government Office Regions and countries of the UK; October 2000 to September 2001

  Government Office Region and country of the UK

  Per cent.

  North East

  26

  North West

  36

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  31

  East Midlands

  40

  West Midlands

  35

  East

  41

  London

  45

  South East

  45

  South West

  38

  England

  39

  Wales

  27

  Scotland

  30

  Northern Ireland

  26

  UK

  37

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey; Expenditure and Food Survey (April 2001 onwards) Like all estimates from sample surveys these figures are subject to sampling variability. This is greater for sub-groups of the population than for national estimates.

  Euro
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the extent to which British businesses accept the euro as a means of payment. [58243]

  Ruth Kelly
  There is no information available on the numbers or types of UK businesses that will accept euro. Within the UK, the euro, like other foreign currencies is not legal tender but is a legal currency. Businesses can therefore choose to trade in it if they want.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to encourage small businesses to accept the euro. [58223]

  Ruth Kelly
  Details of the information provided to UK businesses to assist those that want to deal in euro now were set out in the Treasury's Fifth Report on Euro Preparations, published on 4 November 2001, copies of which were deposited in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Export Licences (Israel)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has(a)to freeze and (b) to revoke export licences to Israel under the Consolidated Criteria; and if he will make a statement. [57546]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since the outbreak of the intifada in September 2000 and taking into account Israeli military tactics, the Government have revoked a1400W
  number of export licences to Israel. We currently have no plans to freeze extant export licences to Israel. This policy is kept under constant review.

  We consider all export licence applications on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.

  Certified Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the refurbishment projects that(a) are in progress and (b) will start within the next six months; and what action is being taken to ensure that these will procure certified timber. [59757]

  Mr. MacShane
  The FCO has the following refurbishment projects in progress: Buenos Aires Residence, Moscow Residence and staff accommodation, Tunis Residence, New Delhi staff accommodation, Pyongyang staff accommodation. Within the next six months the contract will be let for the Pera House office/Residence in Istanbul. All contractors are instructed to comply with UK Government environmental policy on timber procurement.

  Leila Khalid
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on what grounds Leila Khalid was granted a visa to visit the UK; and if he will make a statement; [59004]

  (2) if he will review the grant of a visa to Leila Khalid to visit the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement; [59005]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It has been a long standing government policy not to disclose information on individual applications on the grounds of privacy of an individual. Under Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information I am unable to provide my hon. Friend with the information that he requires.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received in respect of a mass killing and mutilation of soldiers and policemen in Kisingani, Democratic Republic of the Congo. [60726]

  Mr. MacShane
  MONUC, NGOs and Congolese residents of Kisangani have reported killings on 14 May. However, the origins of the incident, the number and nature of the deaths, and responsibility for the deaths remain unclear. We have encouraged MONUC and UNHCR to conduct a speedy enquiry and to publish their findings as soon as possible.

  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the nature and extent of the recent uprising in the city of Kisingani and on the Haut Plateau in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and what representations he has made to the Government of
  1401W
  Rwanda and the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Democratie about the responsibility for maintaining order. [60725]

  Mr. MacShane
  Dissent amongst RCD-Goma ranks has been reported at several locations, in particular in Kisangani on 14 May and in the Hauts Plateaux since February. Information remains incomplete. It is clear however, that the rebellions have resulted in an unacceptable loss of life and that the local civilian populations have suffered. We have supported EU and UN statements condemning the violent response of the RCD-Goma leadership in Kisangani and calling on Rwanda to use its influence to calm the situation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has raised the events in Kisangani with President Kagame.

  Year

  Attendee

  Council Attended

  Devolved Administration

  1999

  Nil

  —

  —

  2000

  Jane Davidson

  Education and Youth Council, 9 November

  Welsh Assembly Government

  Nicol Stephen

  Education Council, 8 June

  Scottish Executive

  2001

  Nicol Stephen

  Education and Youth Council, 12 February

  Scottish Executive

  Susan Deacon

  Health Council, 4 June

  Scottish Executive

  2002

  Jane Davidson

  Youth Council, 30 May

  Welsh Assembly Government

  Guantanamo Bay
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British detainees at Guantanamo Bay. [62519]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  British officials paid a third visit to Guantanamo Bay between 27 and 31 May. The purpose of the visit was to ask questions relevant to national security, to confirm the identity and nationality of two British detainees transferred there in May and to check on the welfare of all seven British detainees. The officials were from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Security Service.

  The officials met the detainees individually. US officials were able to observe the interviews. One detainee has sustained injuries in Afghanistan. He and the US authorities confirmed that he was receiving medical treatment for them. The other detainees appeared to be in satisfactory physical health, though some of them complained of ailments, which are being addressed. Some detainees raised concerns about their status and other aspects of their detention and conditions at Guantanamo, which British officials discussed with the camp authorities. The officials saw no visible sign of mistreatment.

  British officials delivered to the camp authorities letters from some of the detainees' families to be passed to the detainees. Some of the detainees asked the officials to relay oral messages to their families. We have passed them and the details of the detainees' circumstances to their families. Personal details are not disclosed in the answer for reasons of privacy. The detainees confirmed that they were able to send and receive letters to and from their families through the camp authorities and through the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  Devolution
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times a United Kingdom delegation has been led by Ministers from devolved administrations(a) 1999, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) 2002; who attended in each case; who led in each case; and in what percentage of overall council meetings the United Kingdom delegation has been led by a devolved administration. [60787]

  Peter Hain
  Decisions on Ministerial attendance at Council meetings are taken on a case-by-case basis by the lead UK Minister.

  The table below shows where Ministers from devolved administrations have led a UK delegation. Our calculations estimate this at approximately 3 per cent. of Council meetings.

  All detainees were now housed in recently-built indoor accommodation including individual sleeping, toilet and washing facilities and air-conditioning. The detainees confirmed that they were able to practice their religion and take exercise. The detainees also have access to reading and writing material.

  The visiting team found the US camp authorities open and co-operative.

  The ICRC continues to maintain a presence at Guantanamo Bay and has access on demand to the detainees.

  Sheik Hamad bin Jassin bin Jaber al-Thari
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact has taken place, at what level and on what dates, between(a) Ministers and (b) civil servants and the Jersey authorities in respect of matters connected with the freezing of trusts whose beneficiaries include His Excellency Sheik Hamad bin Jassin bin Jaber al-Thari; and if he will make a statement. [61118]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am informed that there have been no contacts between FCO Ministers and the Jersey Attorney General on this. FCO officials have attended four meetings in March, July and August 2001 at which the Jersey Attorney General or his representatives were present, and have had occasional telephone and e-mail contacts with the Jersey Attorney General's office to exchange information about the investigation. Decisions about the conduct of the Jersey Attorney General's investigation were for him alone.

  Mr. Abdul Bassett al-Megrahi
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has made
  1403W
  to former President Mandela's request that Mr. Abdul Bassett al-Megrahi be moved to a prison in a Muslim country. [61124]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are aware from press reports of former President Mandela's call for Mr Al-Megrahi to be transferred to a prison in a Muslim country. We have not received a formal request from him.

  Libya agreed to hand over suspects for trial in a third country, and if convicted, to their imprisonment in Scotland. This agreement stands with regard to Mr. Al-Megrahi's imprisonment.

  France
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the French Foreign Minister; and if he will raise the issue of the ban imposed by the French Government on imports of beef from the UK. [61327]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met his new French counterpart on 22 May and raised this issue with him. The Government continues to make it clear to the French Government that the ban on UK beef exported under the Date-based Export Scheme is illegal and should be lifted immediately.

  Arms Trade
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings officials in his Department have had over the last two years with officials from Jersey's Attorney General's Office concerning investigation of corruption relating to arms deals; and if he will make a statement. [61329]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am told that over the last two years, FCO officials have attended four meetings at which the the Jersey Attorney General or his representatives were also present. Decisions about the conduct of the Jersey Attorney General's investigation were for him alone.

  HMS Invincible
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the sale of HMS Invincible to India. [61196]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer to my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr James Gray) by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Defence today UIN 61162.

  India/Pakistan
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with colleagues in the EU, UN, India, Pakistan, the US and Russia regarding the situation on the Indo-Pakistan border. [61195]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave an account of his recent contacts with India and Pakistan in his statement to the House on Monday 10 June,Official Report, column 595.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Panel on Red Tape
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the work of the Ministerial Panel on Red Tape. [61334]

  Mr. Douglas Alexander
  The Ministerial Panel on Regulatory Accountability was set up in 2001 to take a strategic overview of the regulatory system; to tackle instances where progress on regulatory reform is blocked; and to call Ministers to account for new regulation and their performance in addressing the burden of existing regulation.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many policy proposals the Regulatory Impact Unit has been consulted on during the past year. [61336]

  Mr. Douglas Alexander
  The Regulatory Impact Unit have been consulted on 597 occasions.

  In addition the Unit is consulted on an ad hoc basis for advice and assistance. This information is not held centrally, and could only be assembled at disproportionate cost.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff were employed by his Department on(a)2 May 1997 and(b)31 may 2002. [60932]

  Mr. Douglas Alexander
  Data on staffing levels are not available for the dates requested as they are only collected twice a year, as at 1 April and 1 October. We are currently in the process of collecting the data for 1 April 2002.

  I would refer the hon. Member to the documents that were released on 5 June 1997 and 21 February 2002, reporting figures as at 1 April 1997 and 1 October 2001 respectively. Copies of the documents were placed in the Libraries of the House at the time of publication.

PRIME MINISTER

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Mr. David
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will respond to the Intelligence and Security Committee's Annual report for 2001–02. [62528]

  The Prime Minister
  I have today laid the Government Response to the Intelligence and Security Committee's Report before Parliament.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall. North of 16 May concerning a constituent. [61110]
  1405W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have replied today, 13 June, to my hon. Friend's letter of 16 May.

  Pupil Absence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of pupil days were lost through absence in(a) each LEA and (b) England in each year since 1997. [59116]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]The information requested is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will define the common funding approach to be adopted by the Learning and Skills Council for(a)2003–04 and (b)subsequent years. [53089]

  Margaret Hodge
  The foremost principle is that funding must follow the learner. Other principles of the funding system are that it should: be easy to understand, determine funding rates fairly, and be simple in design and administration. It must have the flexibility to cope with provision ranging from full-time classroom learning to on-line learning at home. These principles are based on the extensive consultation carried out by this Department in 1999–2000 and confirmed by the Department and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) in November 2000. We have built on the best elements of the former Further Education Funding Council's national system of formula based funding and the LSC are committed to introduce a single non-bureaucratic system. In 2003–04 further education, work based learning for young people, school sixth forms and adult and community learning will be funded through systems which follow the same principles. The LSC will develop the common funding approach further and plan a single funding system for all the main post-16 learning routes in 2004–05.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance has been given to the Learning and Skills Council on the action to be taken to deal with weaknesses identified following an area inspection and the circumstances under which reorganisation of provision ought properly to be considered; and if she will publish that guidance. [60043]

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Further Education Unit Funding

  actual

  actual

  actual

  actual

  provisional

  planned

  planned

  planned

  Funding for participation (£)

  3,050

  3,070

  3,120

  3,360

  3,380

  3,500

  3,550

  3,610

  Real terms index

  100

  98

  97

  101

  100

  101

  100

  99

  Total funding (£)

  3,050

  3,070

  3,120

  3,440

  3,540

  3,810

  3,990

  4,150

  Real terms index

  100

  98

  97

  104

  105

  110

  112

  114

  This table shows two real terms indices for each full time equivalent (FTE) student in FE, including sixth form colleges. The first shows unit of funding for participation and includes funding for Qualifying for
  1406W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]The Department's guidance following an area inspection sets out the key elements of an effective action plan, and the basis on which it will be assessed. This is issued to each local LSC and LEA on publication of their Ofsted area inspection report. I have placed a copy of the guidance in the libraries of the House.

  The LSC is the body responsible for planning 16–19 provision. It is for them, in liaison with their local partners, to decide what action, including reorganisation, is necessary to address the weaknesses in their area.

  Veterinary Science
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many veterinary science students have followed courses in epidemics, farm animals and disease control in universities in each of the last 10 years. [54987]

  Margaret Hodge
  Epidemics, farm animals and disease control are covered in all veterinary science courses. The table below gives the number of students on undergraduate courses.

  Higher Education Students1 on Undergraduate Veterinary Science Courses UK HE Institutions

  Academic year

  Number of Students (thousands)

  1991–92

  1.9

  1992–93

  2.0

  1993–94

  2.2

  1994–95

  2.3

  1995–96

  2.4

  1996–97

  2.5

  1997–98

  2.6

  1998–99

  2.8

  1999–00

  3.0

  2000–01

  3.1

  2001–02

  3.4

  Source:

  Universities Statistical Record (USR) and Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA).

  1. Covers home and overseas students on full-time or part-time courses.

  Funding Awards
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what efficiency gains were factored in the funding awards, made to(a) further education colleges, (b) sixth form colleges and (c) schools with a sixth form in each year since 1997. [56166]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 15 May 2002]

  Success, widening participation and adult basic skills. The second shows a unit of funding for all funding for further education, including funds such as capital, standards fund and Teachers Pay Initiative. Since 1997

  1407W
  colleges have widened participation among learners, broadened programmes of study for 16–19 year olds, increased basic skills provision and improved qualification success rates. Funding for schools with sixth forms was set by individual local education authorities up to 2001–02 and any effciency gains will have varied from place to place.

  National Childcare Strategy
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures have been introduced to enhance the National Childcare Strategy in rural areas. [57458]

  Margaret Hodge
  The National Childcare Strategy offers substantial resources to develop childcare facilities in all areas, including rural communities. The Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative, which is part of the Strategy, encompasses rural communities and was launched in 2001 to create 45,000 childcare places in the most disadvantaged communities. Furthermore, an additional £22 million has been allocated for a round of smaller Sure Start programmes, delivered through Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships (EYDCPs). These new Mini-Sure Starts will provide additional resources to new Neighbourhood Nurseries and existing childcare facilities in rural areas, small towns, and pockets of disadvantage.

  DfES Officials are working closely with the Countryside Agency to maximise support for rural areas and policies which take the needs of rural areas into account in accordance with the Rural White Paper. There is also a rural adviser seconded to the Early Years and Childcare Unit in my Department to advise on rural issues.

  IT Training
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans there are to increase access to IT training for children and adults in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. [57692]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The revised National Curriculum requires all pupils aged 5 to 14 to be taught Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and we have a target of 85 per cent. of 14 year olds reaching National Curriculum level 5 or above by 2007. To support schools in reaching this target we have, in particular, a strategy at Key Stage 3 which is currently in pilot and will be rolled out to all schools in the next academic year.

  For adults, there are a number of learndirect centres and three UK online centres in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. Ufi Limited works closely with organisations involved in local hub partnerships to plan and develop local learndirect provision offering a range of on-line courses including ICT and Basic Skills to individuals over 16. UK online centres provide access to the Internet and email to adults in disadvantaged communities who may have low, or no, ICT skills. There are no current plans to open further UK online centres in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of ICT training funded by the New Opportunities Fund. [57830]
  1408W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The New Opportunities Fund ICT teacher training programme is to ensure that serving teachers feel confident and are competent to teach using ICT within the curriculum, with the aim of raising the standards of pupils' achievements. This is probably the largest scale teacher training programme in the world and over 96 per cent. of eligible teachers and over 99 per cent. of schools have already signed up for the training in England.

  However, the programme still has 18 months left to run and it is therefore too early to assess the full effectiveness and to say whether the training is having the desired impact on classroom practice.

  However, the recent Ofsted report highlighted a number of positive things about the training, namely that the scheme has raised the profile of ICT training in many schools; has helped teachers to improve their ICT skills significantly and that there has been an unprecedented willingness in the teaching profession to embrace ICT.

  The Ofsted report also raised concerns that the training has not had as widespread an effect on classroom practice as might be reasonably expected at this stage of the programme. My Department will be working with NOF and the TTA to ensure that these concerns are addressed and that we establish the most effective support for teachers who are crucial to the successful implementation of the overall ICT Schools programme.

  Learndirect
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many individuals in Crosby have enrolled on Learndirect; how many courses are provided; and of the number of people enrolled how many(a) are new learners and (b) have no previous qualifications; [58044]

  (2) how many SME's are sponsoring Learndirect learners within the Crosby constituency; and how many individuals from Crosby have contacted the Learndirect freephone advice line; [58045]

  (3) if she will list Learndirect centres operating in the Crosby constituency. [58046]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]399 people in the Crosby constituency have enrolled on learndirect courses. There are 621 learndirect courses available currently. Information regarding the number of new learners and learners without qualifications is not available at constituency level.

  Information regarding SME's sponsorship of learndirect learners is not currently available at constituency level. Calls to the learndirect helpline are monitored at Standard Telephone District level only. Information at a constituency level is therefore unavailable.

  There is one learndirect centre in the Crosby constituency.

  This is Crosby Connect-to-Libraries Centre, Crosby Library, Crosby Road North, Crosby.

  Skills (Luton)
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she plans to take to increase the skills levels of businesses and employees in Luton. [58217]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, to write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Further Education
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to bring the level of funding in colleges up to that of schools. [58265]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government are committed to raising the level of funding for colleges towards that of school sixth forms. By 2003–04 funding for further education will have risen by 26 per cent. in real terms since 1997. Further progress can only be made as resources allow and we cannot commit ourselves beyond the resources we secure. We are looking to the current Spending Review to provide the resources needed to deliver the Government's ambitious agenda for further education.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list for each year since 1997 the(a) capital resources committed and (b) additional revenue costs incurred on reorganisations involving 16 to 19 provisions. [60041]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]The information in respect of further education sector funding is estimated as follows:

  Capital Funding

  Revenue Funding

  Year

  Committed

  Incurred

  1997–98

  £0.9 million

  £0

  1998–99

  £0.8 million

  £0

  1999–2000

  £2.6 million

  £0.5 million

  2000–01

  £0.5 million

  £1.2 million

  2001–02

  £19.6 million

  £2.2 million

  These figures relate to the financial year, 1 April to 31 March.

  Information on schools funding is not available because details of allocations to individual schools are held only by Local Education Authorities.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent research has been undertaken by her Department into(a) cost effectiveness and (b) the impact on quality and standards of different forms of organisation of 16 to 19 provision. [60045]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]In October 1999 OFSTED and the Adult Learning Inspectorate commenced a programme of area inspections that looked for the first time at the totalityy of LSC funded education and training for 16 to 19 year olds in an area. These provide an overview for local planning, organisation and delivery of 16 to 19 provision and the starting point for measurable, continuous improvement.
  1410W
  Local LSCs and their partners can consider whether reconfiguration of provision is needed and whether this takes the form of new collaborative arrangements or more far-reaching organisational change. They take a view on the cost effectiveness of their proposals and clearly aim to improve both quality and standards.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions have taken place between her Department and(a) OFSTED, (b) Adult Learning Inspectorate and (c) the Learning and Skills Council about the organisation of 16 to 19 and adult learning provision. [60046]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]Proposals on 16 to 19 organisations were discussed with OFSTED, ALI and the Learning and Skills Council before the publication in September 2001 of our consultation document on 16 to 19 organisation and inspection. DfES Officials have subsequently maintained periodic contact with all three organisations over these proposals and related matters, including progress of the relevant legislation in the Education Bill currently before Parliament. In implementing the legislation, we shall be holding further discussions with all relevant bodies including the inspectorates and the LSC.

  The findings from area inspection reports, (prepared by OFSTED and ALI), may lead to consideration of local re-organisation for 16 to 19 learning opportunities. These are discussed with the LSC on a case by case basis.

  On the organisation of Adult Learning, officials continue to work closely with the LSC ad ALI on a range of issues including both organisations' relationship with learndirect, and the delivery of adult and community learning, workforce development, the Investors in People standard, and information advice and guidance for adults.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she is taking to increase funding for further education colleges in line with funding for school sixth forms. [58370]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government is committed to raising the level of funding for colleges towards that of school sixth forms. By 2003–04 funding for further education will have risen by 26 per cent. in real terms since 1997. Further progress can only be made as resources allow and it would be unwise to commit ourselves beyond the resources we secure. We are looking to the current Spending Review to provide the resources needed to deliver the Government's ambitious agenda for further education.

  Special Needs
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children with special educational needs are unable to read. [58928]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  European Council (Seville)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Government aims to achieve within the European Union's educational competence at the European Council's meeting at Seville; and if she will make a statement. [59102]

  Margaret Hodge
  The formal agenda for the Seville Council meeting on 21 and 22 June has not yet been finalised, and there is unlikely to be much discussion of education issues.

  The European Commission is preparing a feasibility study to identify options for helping secondary schools to establish or enhance an internet twinning link with a partner school elsewhere in Europe. This was agreed in principle at the Barcelona European Council, following a proposal from the UK and Spain. The Commission was asked to report back to the Seville Council on its findings. We believe there are considerable potential educational benefits in extending school twinning.

  Within the limits of Community competence in this area, we always aim to participate fully in any Council discussions, share good practice with other member states and co-operate with each other wherever it makes sense to do so.

  Early Years Education
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 26 October 2001,Official Report, column 453W, on early years' education, if she will publish information on the number of places in early years settings taken up by (a) three year olds and (b) four year olds. [59240]

  Maragret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]The latest national figures on early years provision in England were published by my Department in the Statistical First Release 09/2002 "Provision For Children Under Five Years Of Age In England: January 2002" in May 2002, a copy of which is available from the Library. Figures at LEA level will be made available in the bulletin to be published in October 2002. An electronic copy of the SFR and the 2001 bulletin are currently available on my Department's website (www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics).

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pre-school places there were in the(a) public and (b) private sector in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2001. [59363]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. The headcount for numbers of children aged four in the private and voluntary sector was first collected in 1999 and for children aged three in 2000. The available information is shown in the table.

  The Department does not collect information on the total number of places in the private and voluntary sector.

  Latest figures on provision for children under five years of age in England were published by my Department in the Statistical First Release "Provision
  1412W
  for Children Under Five Years of Age in England January 2002 (provisional estimates) (09/2002)" on 17 May 2002, a copy of which is available from the Library. An electronic copy of this publication is also available on my Department's website (www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics).

  Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring)
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many places there were in day nurseries in each of the past five years; and how many day nurseries there were in each of those years; [56952]

  (2) how many registered childminders there were in each of the past five years; [56953]

  (3) how many playgroups there were in each of the past five years; and how many places were provided by playgroups in each of those years: [56954]

  (4) how many places in after-school clubs were provided in each of the past five years; [56955]

  (5) how many places were provided in school holiday schemes in each of the past five years. [56956]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information is not available in the form requested. The available information is shown in the tables. Local authorities provided the data.

  The decline in numbers in some sectors such as the childminding and playgroup sectors coincided with increases in other forms of childcare over the past few years. Since 1995, the number of registered day nurseries has increased from 4,800 to 7,300, the number of registered holiday schemes from 2,900 to 10,500 and the number of registered out of school clubs from 1,300 to 4,300. The number of places for children attending all day care providers rose from 1,182,400 in 1995 to 1,569,200 in 2000. Latest figures on Day Care facilities in England was published by my Department in the Statistical Bulletin "Children's Day Care facilities at 31 March 2001 (08/01)" in October 2001, a copy of which is available from the Library.

  Since September 1999, we have also invested substantially in new free early years education places for three year-olds. 335,000 three year-olds took up free early years education places in January 2001, up from 214,000 in January 1997. We estimate that there are free early years education places available for all eligible four year-olds in England. Figures on the take up of free early years places was published in a table alongside Statistical Bulletin 11/2001 "Provision For Children Under Five Years Of Age in England—January 2001". An electronic copy of the Bulletin is available on my Department's website (www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics).

  Early estimates of day care provision in England at 31 March 2002 are expected to be published in a Statistical First Release in July.
  1413W

  Table 1: Number of daycare providers, by type1,2 England 1997–2001

  Position at 31 March each year

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Day nurseries

  6,100

  6,700

  7,000

  7,500

  7,800

  Registered childminders

  98,500

  94,700

  82,200

  75,600

  72,300

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  15,800

  15,700

  15,000

  14,300

  14,000

  1Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  Table 2: Number of daycareproviders, by type1,2 England 1997–2001

  Position at 31 March each year

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Day nurseries

  193,800

  223,000

  247,700

  264,200

  285,100

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  383,700

  383,600

  347,200

  353,100

  330,200

  Out of school clubs

  78,700

  92,300

  113,800

  141,100

  152,800

  Holiday schemes

  209,000

  256,500

  435,3002

  490,400

  598,000

  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  2 Additional guidelines were given to providers in 1999.

  Lecturers
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many lecturers in further education have lost their jobs in the last year; and in which institutions these cuts have been made. [59287]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information on numbers of lecturers who lost their jobs is not available.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what(a) teaching and (b) research funding for higher education establishments was given in the last academic year, broken down by (i) new universities and colleges of higher education and (ii) old universities; [59290]

  (2) what HEFCE funding for higher education institutions, divided into (a) new universities and colleges of higher education and (b) old universities there was in (i) this academic year and (ii) each academic year since 1995. [59291]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in its report "Recurrent grant for 2001–02: final allocations" (report 01/57) which records allocations of recurrent grant to higher education institutions and to further education colleges delivering higher education. Information for previous years is published in equivalent reports, the data for 2002–03 are provisional. Copies of all the reports are available at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/

  Primary Schools
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of maintained primary schools have a nursery. [59362]

  Margaret Hodge
  Provisional figures show that 35 per cent of maintained primary schools in England had a designated nursery class as at January 2002.

  Higher Education Students
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what account is taken of the income of(a) resident step-parents or (b) non-resident parents in applying means tests to students in higher education. [59710]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]The means test for students in higher education takes account of the income of resident step-parents only where the step-parent has legally adopted the student. Where parents are separated or divorced it is for the LEA to decide which parent's income should be assessed. Where the resident parent's income is assessed, payments made by the non-resident parent to support the student or the household are included as part of the income assessment.

  Ms. Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the effect of the reduction in the availability of maintenance grants on the participation in higher education of students from poorer social classes. [60251]

  Margaret Hodge
  The proportion of young people from the three lowest socio-economic groups participating in higher education rose from 10 per cent. when loans were introduced in 1990 to 17 per cent. in 1998 when the new student support arrangements were introduced. The proportion had risen to 18 per cent. in 2000, the latest year for which data are available.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the average level of debt faced by students on leaving higher education in the last 12 months. [60253]

  Margaret Hodge
  My Department has not commissioned a survey which includes estimates of student debt since the Student Income and Expenditure Survey of 1998–99. The next Survey is planned for 2002–03. Recent data on anticipated debt are available from the UNITE/MORI poll conducted in late 2001, which suggest today's students expect average debt on graduation of £8,133. Indicative figures in the 2002 Nat West Money Matters Survey suggest graduates in 2002 will leave with average debts of £10,000.
  1415W
  A significant part of the debt arises from borrowing through the Student Loan Company. Repayment relates directly to earnings and the interest charged only reflects inflation. However, some debt is incurred in commercial borrowing to support a higher level of expenditure. These figures have to be considered in the context of graduates currently earning around 35 per cent. more than the national average and potentially £400,000 more over their working lives.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she collects on the social composition of entrants to undergraduate courses in higher education. [60255]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]The most comprehensive information on the social composition of entrants to undergraduate courses in higher education is taken from data collected by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS). Although it is accepted that not all entrants or undergraduate courses use the UCAS route. UCAS assigns social class to applicants based upon the occupation of the parent with the highest income in the applicants household, as reported by the potential student. For applicants aged 21 or over, the occupation of the person contributing the highest income to the household is used.

  The latest UCAS data are shown in the table.

  Accepted applicants for full-time undergraduate courses, 2001 entry

  Social class

  Numbers

  Percentage of known

  Professional

  39,748

  14

  Intermediate

  120,831

  44

  Skilled non-manual

  38,774

  14

  Skilled manual

  48,412

  18

  Partly skilled

  23,114

  8

  Unskilled

  5,604

  2

  Total known

  276,483

  100

  Unknown

  48,989

  Grand total

  325,472

  Other information on the social composition of higher education entrants is also available from the Youth Cohort Study (YCS), a series of longitudinal surveys of young people that track their activities in the years immediately after they have completed compulsory education. The YCS is a sample survey of young people that employs a socio-economic group (SEG) classification that differs from the social class breakdown used by UCAS. Therefore, the two sources of information are not directly comparable.

  University Lecturers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to increase the salaries of university lecturers. [60129]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]The Government play no part in setting the levels of pay in the higher education sector. These are subject to regulations between employers, their staff and their representative trade union bodies.
  1416W
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she has taken to encourage more people to enter into a career as a university lecturer. [60130]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]Our spending plans include £50 million in 2001–02, rising to £110 in 2002–03 and £170 million in 2003–04 to underpin the human resource strategies which each university and higher education college has submitted to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, and which include measures to address issues of recruitment and retention, especially in shortage subjects. Added to that, we gave a commitment to introduce a scheme of "Golden Hellos" for new staff in shortage subjects. We expect to announce our plans in the autumn.

  Oxbridge Admissions Policy
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance(a) she and (b) the Higher Education Funding Council have issued to Oxford and Cambridge universities on admission policy with regard to the (i) social class origins and (ii) schools attended by undergraduate students; and if she will make a statement. [60131]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]Neither my right hon. Friend nor the Funding Council have issued guidance specifically to Oxford or Cambridge universities on these matters. However, my right hon. Friend's letter to the Funding Council (29 November 2001) made it clear that all universities, particularly those significantly below their benchmarks for participation by under-represented groups, need to contribute to widening access to higher education.

  Maintained Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of maintained schools with no ethnic minority pupils. [60510]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]At January 2002 provisional information shows that there were 5,220 maintained schools in England with no recorded ethnic minority pupils.

  Training Expenditure
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the estimated level of expenditure on training in the private sector was in each of the last 10 years. [60775]

  Margaret Hodge
  The total expenditure on training by employers in England was estimated at approximately £23 billion for 2000. This figure is based on the Learning and Training at Work 2000 survey. It includes indirect costs—the largest component is the wage costs of the trainees while in training. Comparable figures for earlier years and a breakdown into public and private sector expenditure are not available.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the requirements
  1417W
  (a) removed from and (b) placed on local education authorities in the last year for which information is available. [60837]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect this information centrally, and to do so would incur disproportionate cost.

  Teachers (Registration Fee)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of(a) the number and (b) the percentage of teachers whose General Teaching Council registration fee has been collected by compulsory deduction by their employer. [60881]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Secretary of State has made no such estimate. The collection of the registration fee is a matter for the General Teaching Council and I have asked the Chief Executive of the Council to write to the hon. Gentleman with information on the present position with regard to compulsory deductions. A copy of her response will be placed in the Library.

  Departmental Grants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which organisations which were in receipt of a grant from her 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. [61395]

  Estelle Morris
  The information cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  "Welcome Back Bonus Scheme"
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the availability of the Welcome Back Bonus Scheme, with specific reference to the deadline and the eligibility for claiming it. [61937]

  Mr. Miliband
  The conditions for payments under the Welcome Back Bonus Scheme were established by the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No. 6) Order 2001, which was laid before Parliament on 27 September last year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking permanently to refuse entry to the United Kingdom to individuals apprehended for attempting to bring illegal drugs into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [56532]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]There are provisions within the Immigration Rules that allow for the refusal of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (UK) of a person who is not a British citizen and who has been convicted of a serious crime, or whose presence here is undesirable. There is also scope for a court to recommend deportation at the end of their 1418W
  sentence of a person when they are convicted in the UK. Any person who is deported from the UK following a conviction for importing illegal drugs would not normally be allowed to return here for a minimum of 10 years.

  MS Christiana Olufunmolayo Olaifa
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a decision on the case of Ms Christiana Olufunmolayo Olaifa (ref. 01010047), referred to his Department's Referred Cases Unit from Lagos on 19 September 2001. [58070]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Referred Cases Unit in Lunar House did not receive the referral from Lagos dated 19 September 2001. A copy will be requested shortly and upon receipt a decision will be made as a matter of priority. I wrote to my hon. Friend on 12 June 2002 setting out the background to the case.

  Dangerous Driving
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the penalties for causing death by dangerous driving; and if he will make a statement. [59592]

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  The Government receive correspondence from members of the public, MPs and the judiciary regarding the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving as well as the sentences imposed in individual cases. A good proportion of the representations are in favour of an increase in the penalty.

  The offence of causing death by dangerous driving was included within the ongoing review of road traffic penalties. We have received comprehensive and detailed responses to the proposals in the review's consultation paper, including comments on the proposals for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving, from many representative groups and organisations. We also received a large number of communications, either by letter or e-mail from members of the public. In addition, Ministers meet with representative groups such as RoadPeace and the Motorists Forum from time to time to discuss road traffic issues.

  We are in the final stages of completing the Government's response to the consultation exercise.

  Youth Justice
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of restorative justice programmes in cutting re-offending by young offenders in each of the police authorities in the UK since 1997. [58889]

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  Recent Home Office research has included "An Exploratory Evaluation of Restorative Justice Schemes" by David Miers et al (2001). More recently (May 2002), the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published "An Evaluation of the Implementation and Effectiveness of an Initiative in Restorative Cautioning" in the Thames Valley Police area. And the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales has funded an evaluation
  1419W
  of 46 restorative justice projects, the results of which are not yet available. We are not aware of any research which is broken down by police authority.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of promoting an increase in the number of solicitors specialising in youth justice cases as a means of decreasing levels of crime and re-offending. [58857]

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  We have considered with the Law Society strategies to promote a high quality service for youth justice cases. We are keen to see extension of the existing specialisation of solicitors in some areas, but this is more difficult to achieve outside large metropolitan areas. For many practices it would be uneconomic and impractical to focus simply on youth work and most undertake a mix of adult and youth work.

  We do consider it important that defence lawyers should be sufficiently well trained and competent to act for all their clients, including youths. Training in youth work is therefore being given greater emphasis. I particularly commend the recent Law Society guide to the youth court, produced with the help of the Youth Justice Board.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Chief of Youth Justice Board to discuss issues relating to youth justice. [58849]

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Blunkett) last met the Chair of the Youth Justice Board to discuss issues related to youth justice on Wednesday 29 May 2002.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes organised by(a) the Youth Justice Board and (b) in conjunction with the Youth Justice Board. [58850]

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  The Home Office sponsored Youth Justice Board is responsible for the development of effective practice and intervention programmes across the youth justice system. Evaluation reports on a range of these programmes are currently being prepared. They will be used to provide effective practice guidance to youth justice practitioners.

  The Home Office is also preparing an assessment of the effectiveness of the youth justice reforms in reducing juvenile offender reconviction rates. Results are due to be published later this year.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what benefit to the residents of Leyton and Wanstead the actions and policies of the Chairman of the Government's Youth Justice Board has been; and if he will make a statement. [60323]

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  Leyton and Wanstead is covered by two Youth Offending Teams (Yots)—Waltham Forest and Redbridge. Both teams have benefited significantly from the Home Office sponsored Youth Justice Board (YJB) in a number of ways.
  1420W
  The two Yots are receiving grant funding in 2002–03 from the YJB for general youth justice services, referral orders and substance misuse work. Waltham Forest is receiving grants totalling £229,048 and Redbridge grants totalling £184,066.

  The funding for substance misuse work will ensure that both Yots have access to a named drugs worker. Every young person who comes into contact with either Yot will be assessed with regard to substance misuse. The named drugs worker will provide intervention and referral to specialist agencies and services.

  The YJB also provided funding of approximately £250,000 between 1999 and 2002 to AMENDS, a restorative justice project covering Redbridge, Waltham Forest, Enfield and Haringey. The project is receiving further funding from the Board of £80,000 between 2001 and 2004.

  Redbridge Yot is receiving funding totalling £74,000 to operate a bail supervision and support scheme funded up to March 2004. The Yot is also receiving approximately £278,000 between 2001 and 2004 to operate a minority ethnic mentoring project.

  Neither area currently is covered by the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP). However, the YJB has been provided with additional funding of £4.5 million in response to the Street Crime Initiative to ensure all Yots in the 10 Street Crime Areas are covered. All the Outer London Yots, including Waltham Forest and Redbridge will be covered by these additional schemes. It is expected that they will have access to an ISSP scheme by Autumn 2002.

  Both Waltham Forest and Redbridge Yots are operating Splash Activity Schemes in Loxford and Chingford Hall during 2002. The schemes are aimed at providing young people in disadvantaged neighbourhoods across England and Wales with positive leisure activities during the 2000 February and Whitsun half terms and Easter and Summer school holidays. Each scheme has received a grant of £18,000 from the YJB to operate throughout these holiday periods.

  Waltham Forest Yot has also been approached to run five Splash Extra Schemes during Summer 2002. Splash Extra is being funded by the New Opportunities Fund and managed by the YJB. The initiative differs from regular Splash as it targets 9 to 17 year olds. Schemes are based in street crime hot spots identified by the Street Crime Action Team. Each scheme will receive funding of £25,000. Waltham Forest Yot is due to submit their application to the YJB shortly.

  There is also a Positive Futures project operating on the Beaumont and Oliver Close estates in Leyton which commenced in January 2002. Positive Futures is managed by YJB and aims to use sport to reduce antisocial behaviour, offending and drug misuse amongst 10 to 16 year olds from disadvantaged estates and neighbourhoods. The project is receiving funding of £117,000 per annum for two years.

  Corporate Manslaughter
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to bring forward legislation on corporate manslaughter. [60799]

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  The Government are committed to introducing legislation to increase corporate liability for manslaughter, and will do so when Parliamentary time allows.

  Passports
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are in place to replace a lost or stolen passport in the event of an emergency; what circumstances would be considered an emergency; and what discretion can be applied by the Passport Office. [59706]

  Beverley Hughes
  On personal application being made at one of its seven passport offices, in an emergency the United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) can replace a lost or stolen passport on the same day, or early the following day. The circumstances considered by the UKPS to be an emergency are:

  —Compassionate grounds—where the applicant is travelling abroad because of the death or serious illness of a family member or friend; or for hospital treatment; and where travel has been arranged for the seriously ill, and their carers by charitable organisations.

  —Urgent business travel which can be confirmed by a supporting company letter.

  —Where the passport has been stolen within the last week and travel has already been booked and paid for. In such cases evidence such as a crime reference report or reference number is sought.

  In all these circumstances the United Kingdom Passport Service will require time to complete the necessary identity and eligibility checks to confirm the issue of a replacement passport. If it is not possible in such circumstances to complete all these checks, a passport restricted to 12 months validity may be granted.

  The same day (premium) service now available from UKPS public counters is not normally available for applications to replace lost, stolen, damaged or unavailable passports, as access to the original issue file and possible further identity checks may be required. The emergency exceptions to the normal policy are

  Number of asylum seekers (including dependants) in each region as at the end of each quarter since December 20001,2

  Region

  End of December 2000

  End of March 2001

  End of June 2001

  End of September 2001

  End of December 2001

  England

  East Midlands

  900

  1,390

  1,800

  2,630

  3,720

  East of England

  470

  1,030

  1,370

  1,580

  2,010

  Greater London

  6,460

  9,830

  12,980

  15,000

  19,380

  North East

  2,440

  3,240

  4,100

  4,380

  4,840

  North West

  3,560

  4,840

  6,180

  7,200

  8,600

  South Central

  1,530

  2,020

  2,570

  3,150

  3,950

  South West

  530

  630

  740

  880

  1,010

  West Midlands

  1,490

  2,360

  3,900

  5,640

  7,450

  1422W
  therefore tightly drawn to ensure consistency of practice, and to maintain the integrity of the British Passport.

  Anti-terrorism Measures
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary for the Home Department what reforms of the organisations dealing with anti-terrorist intelligence and investigation he plans in order to deal with the terrorist threat. [58357]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I keep the threat from terrorism under constant review, through my chairmanship of the Ministerial committee on terrorism, and receive regular briefings from the Security Service and the police. If organisational changes are required I will make them. Following the budget statement on 17 April 2002, I announced additional resources for countering terrorism which will allow the enhancement of existing preventative work.

  Charity Registration
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals his Department plans to bring forward exemptions to compulsory registration of charities following the expiry of the Charity Act Regulations on voluntary registration in September. [60624]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]The position of charities excepted from registration with the Charity Commission is currently under consideration with a view to an announcement on future arrangements being made before the Summer Recess.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been settled in(a) each region of England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) Greater London by the National Asylum Support Service in each quarter since it came into operation. [57849]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information is not available in the form requested. Only those asylum seekers requesting that accommodation be provided as part of an application for support are liable to be dispersed. Other supported asylum seekers receiving subsistence only may choose to live in a particular area whilst their application for asylum is considered.

  The table shows the number of asylum seekers including dependants, supported in National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation or receiving subsistence only support in each region as at the end of each quarter since December 2000.
  1423W

  Number of asylum seekers (including dependants) in each region as at the end of each quarter since December 20001,2

  Region

  End of December 2000

  End of March 2001

  End of June 2001

  End of September 2001

  End of December 2001

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,640

  4,960

  6,070

  7,330

  8,760

  Total England

  21,000

  30,310

  39,700

  47,780

  59,720

  Scotland

  1,320

  2,570

  3,720

  4,380

  4,990

  Wales

  80

  90

  390

  560

  840

  Northern Ireland

  *

  40

  60

  70

  80

  Total United Kingdom

  22,400

  33,010

  43,870

  52,790

  65,630

  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10, * indicates a number between one and four. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

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

  Information on the number of asylum seekers supported in each region by NASS is published quarterly. The next publication will cover the period up to March 2002, and will be available from 31 May 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Child Abuse
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government have taken to review the procedures followed and personnel employed in complex child abuse investigations, and in particular to issue guidance to agencies on record-keeping and information-sharing in such cases. [62521]

  Mr. John Denham
  Inter-agency guidance on the strategic management of complex child abuse investigations is published today in response to Recommendation 22 of "Lost in Care", the Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974.

  This new guidance builds on the key principles for investigating organised or multiple abuse set out in the Government's child protection guidance "Working Together to Safeguard Children", published in 1999. It has been developed by an inter-agency working group, chaired by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which drew together the experience of a number of police forces, local authorities and voluntary organisations which have been closely involved in undertaking complex child abuse investigations.

  The guidance is aimed primarily at the police and social services. It focuses on the specific issues highlighted in Recommendation 22 of access to records and information-sharing, and it also provides practical advice on key inter-agency issues such as setting up and closing an investigation, victim and witness support and media handling. The guidance also addresses concerns raised by those who have questioned the investigative methods used in inquiries, including the methods used to contact potential witnesses and the treatment of alleged offenders.

  Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Library.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are in receipt of(a) disability living allowance, (b) council tax benefit, (c) housing benefit, (d) incapacity benefit, (e) income support and (f) invalid care allowance in (i) the Edinburgh West constituency, (ii) Scotland and (iii) the UK; and what percentage these figures represent of the estimated numbers of the people who are eligible for the benefit in these respective areas. [60266]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information on the numbers of benefit recipients is in the tables.

  Numbers of Benefit Recipients—Disability Living Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Income Support and Invalid Care Allowance

  Benefit

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  Edinburgh West Parliamentary Constituency

  Disability Living Allowance

  2,298,000

  256,500

  2,400

  Incapacity Benefit

  1,503,800

  189,900

  1,700

  Income Support

  3,940,700

  418,000

  3,000

  Invalid Care Allowance

  376,215

  37,095

  415

  Notes:

  1. Disability Living Allowance, Incapacity Benefit and Income Support figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and are subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  2. Invalid Care Allowance figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  3. Social security matters in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Source:

  Disability Living Allowance 5 per cent. sample—30 November 2001.

  Incapacity Benefit 5 per cent. sample—30 November 2001.

  Income Support Quarterly 5 per cent. Statistical Enquiry—February 2002.

  Invalid Care Allowance 100 per cent. count—31 December 2001.

  Child Support Agency
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will provide a substantive reply from the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 23 April concerning a constituent Ref. PCU113052. [61111]

  Malcom Wicks
  The Chief Executive, Mr Doug Smith, has now written to my hon. Friend.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Combat Effectiveness and Gender Study
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Minister what discussions she has had with the Ministry of Defence on the combat effectiveness and gender study. [58256]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have not had specific discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence about his study of combat effectiveness and gender. I understand, however, that the Equal Opportunities Commission has been involved with the Ministry of Defence in analysing the role of women in the forces leading up to the study which was published on 22 May.

  Employment and Race Directive
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Minister if she will make a statement on the recent conclusion of the consultation on the article 13 employment and race directive. [58259]

  Ms Hewitt
  We have had an excellent response Towards Equality and Diversity consultation: over 850 submissions from individuals, businesses—including smaller enterprises; the voluntary sector; public employers; and a wide range of representative bodies.

  We are analysing the responses and will begin further consultation on may detailed issues in the autumn. We will put a summary of the results of the consultation in the Libraries of the House at the same time.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judiciary
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the(a) qualifications criteria, (b) age criteria and (c) method of appointment to the judiciary; and if he will make a statement. [57697]

  Department

  Participants

  The Rt. Hon. Baroness Blackstone

  Minister of State (Arts)

  Department for Culture Media and Sport

  Ann Campbell MP

  Parliamentary Private Secretary to Secretary of State

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Mr. Ian Cawsey MP

  Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Williams

  House of Lords

  Mr. George Foulkes MP

  Minister of State

  Scotland Office

  Mr. Mike Gapes MP

  Parliamentary Private Secretary to Secretary of State

  Home Office

  The Rt. Hon. Harriet Harman QC

  Solicitor General

  Law Officers' Department

  Mr. Denis Haughey MLA

  Junior Minister

  Northern Ireland Executive

  Ms Ruth Kelly MP

  Economic Secretary

  HM Treasury

  Mr. James Leslie MLA

  Junior Minister

  Northern Ireland Executive

  Mr. Christopher Leslie MP

  Parliamentary Secretary

  Cabinet Office

  The Lord McIntosh of Haringey

  Gentleman at Arms Captain of the Yeoman (Deputy Chief Whip)

  House of Lords

  1426W
  Ms. Yvette Cooper
  (a) Eligibility for appointment to professional judicial office is determined by statute. There are no plans at present to review these requirements.

  (b) The Lord Chancellor has recently reviewed age criteria and on 30 April this year he removed most of the age limits previously in place for judicial appointments for which he is responsible.

  (c) The Lord Chancellor asked Sir Leonard Peach to review judicial appointment procedures in 1999, and following the recommendations in that report, an assessment centre approach is being piloted for the current Deputy District Judge (Civil), Deputy District Judge (Magistrates) and Deputy Queen's Bench Masters competitions. The pilots will run during October and November this year. Assessment activities, lasting one full day, will include role-plays, written exercises, a written test, and an interview. The pilot will be evaluated in early 2003.

  The Lord Chancellor is committed to ensuring that there is an open effective and accessible system where everyone who is eligible for, and who wants, an appointment has a fair chance to secure it.

  Crown Court (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if it is his policy to move towards a single location for a Crown Court within Buckinghamshire. [61561]

  Ms. Yvette Cooper
  There is currently only one Crown Court location within Buckinghamshire, namely Aylesbury. This has been the case since the introduction of the Crown Court in 1972.

  Freedom of Information
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those attending the March seminar held in connection with implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, indicating which Departments had a ministerial presence. [61412]

  Ms Yvette Cooper
  Attendance at the seminar held on 13 March, by the Centre for Management and Policy Studies was as follows:
  1427W

  Department

  Mr. Colin Pickthall MP

  Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC

  Parliamentary Secretary

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Mr Neil Turner MP

  Parliamentary Private Secretary

  Department for Work and Pensions

  Dr. Alan Whitehead MP

  Parliamentary Secretary

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  Chairs and Speakers

  Mr. Michael Wills MP

  Parliamentary Secretary

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Mr. Alan Cogbill

  Director, Civil Justice and Legal Services

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Mr. Lee Hughes

  Head of Freedom of Information and Data Protection Division

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Other Attendees

  Ms Alice French

  Private Officer

  Law Officers' Department

  Miss Ruth Gardiner

  Assistant Private Secretary

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Mr. Stephen Cowan

  Private Secretary

  Northern Ireland Executive

  Mr John Hughes

  Senior Civil Service

  Home Office

  Mr. David Lamby

  Special Adviser to the Secretary of State

  Department for Education and Skills

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General how many cases have been brought against her Department under the Human Rights Act 1998; and what has been the cost in(a) legal fees to defend cases and (b) compensation payments. [45098]

  Advocate General
  No cases have been brought against either me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of state for Scotland under the Human Rights Act 1998. Human rights are now integrated in the general law and are rarely the sole basis for a challenge.

  In Scotland human rights points may arise as "devolution issues" as defined in paragraph 1, Part I of schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 and since May 1999 over 1,400 devolution issues have been intimated to me.

  We do not collect information centrally about the costs to public funds, legal fees or compensation payments in cases which include a human rights issue. In most cases it would be difficult to single out associated costs relating to the human rights element.

SCOTLAND

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases have been brought against her Department under the Human Rights Act 1998; and what has been the cost to public funds to date in(a) legal fees to defence cases and (b) compensation payments. [45056]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. and learned Friend the Advocate-General.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the President of the Council what information is held by his Department on each hon. Member in relation to(a) personal relationships, both current and past, (b) financial status and dealings, (c) connections with companies and interest groups, (d) connections with Governments and (e) published works; and what was held in January 2002. [61820]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My department does not hold such information.

  It does however, maintain a database which contains the names and contact details of each right hon. Member who is a Privy Counsellor.

HEALTH

  Prescribing Policies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers doctors possess to prescribe drugs in contravention of local authority policy; what drugs have been prescribed by doctors against local authority policy; how many people have received drugs against local policy in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [56708]

  Mr. Lammy
  The prescribing duties of general practitioners are set out in the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992. Schedule 10 and Schedule 11 of these regulations list the drugs which may not be prescribed by GPs. Local NHS bodies have no power to introduce additional statutory restrictions.

  Hospital specialists are expected to prescribe within the terms of local service agreements.

  We do not collect detailed information about local prescribing policies.

  Radiologists and Chiropodists
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) radiologists and (b) chiropodists there are per head of population in each of the National Health Service trust areas in England. [57210]

  Hospital medical staff within the clinical radiology speciality by Region and Health Authority

  At 30 September 2001

  All Staff

  per 100,0001

  per head1

  no

  wte

  no

  wte

  no

  wte

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire HA

  20

  10

  2.6

  2.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Cambridge HA

  60

  60

  8.3

  7.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Hertfordshire HA

  30

  20

  2.5

  2.4

  0.0

  0.0

  Norfolk HA

  30

  30

  4.2

  4.0

  0.0

  0.0

  North Essex HA

  20

  20

  2.2

  2.0

  0.0

  0.0

  South Essex HA

  10

  10

  1.5

  1.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Suffolk HA

  20

  10

  2.5

  2.1

  0.0

  0.0

  London

  Barking & Havering HA

  10

  10

  3.7

  3.6

  0.0

  0.0

  Barnet, Enfield & Haringey HA

  20

  20

  2.3

  2.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich HA

  20

  20

  3.4

  3.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Brent & Harrow HA

  40

  30

  7.9

  7.2

  0.0

  0.0

  Camden & Islington HA

  100

  80

  27.4

  22.3

  0.0

  0.0

  Croydon HA

  10

  10

  2.6

  2.6

  0.0

  0.0

  Ealing, Hammersmith & Hounslow HA

  80

  70

  10.7

  9.6

  0.0

  0.0

  East London & The City HA

  50

  50

  8.3

  7.9

  0.0

  0.0

  Hillingdon HA

  10

  10

  3.5

  3.3

  0.0

  0.0

  Kensington, Chelsea & Westminster HA

  70

  70

  17.8

  16.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Kingston & Richmond HA

  10

  10

  4.0

  3.8

  0.0

  0.0

  Lambeth, Southwark & Lewisham HA

  100

  90

  12.7

  11.4

  0.0

  0.0

  Merton, Sutton & Wandsworth HA

  60

  50

  9.5

  8.3

  0.0

  0.0

  Redbridge & Waltham Forest HA

  10

  10

  1.3

  1.3

  0.0

  0.0

  North West

  Bury & Rochdale HA

  10

  10

  2.0

  1.9

  0.0

  0.0

  East Lancashire HA

  20

  20

  3.5

  3.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Liverpool HA

  40

  40

  8.8

  8.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Manchester HA

  80

  70

  17.8

  17.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Morecambe Bay HA

  10

  10

  3.5

  3.5

  0.0

  0.0

  North Cheshire HA

  10

  10

  4.5

  4.4

  0.0

  0.0

  North West Lancashire HA

  30

  30

  5.7

  5.4

  0.0

  0.0

  Salford & Trafford HA

  30

  30

  7.0

  6.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Sefton HA

  30

  30

  11.3

  10.9

  0.0

  0.0

  South Cheshire HA

  20

  20

  3.5

  3.4

  0.0

  0.0

  South Lancashire HA

  10

  10

  3.8

  3.8

  0.0

  0.0

  St Helens & Knowsley HA

  10

  10

  3.0

  3.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Stockport HA

  10

  10

  3.7

  3.5

  0.0

  0.0

  West Pennine HA

  10

  10

  3.0

  3.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Wigan & Bolton HA

  30

  20

  4.5

  4.3

  0.0

  0.0

  Wirral HA

  20

  20

  5.6

  5.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Northern & Yorkshire

  Bradford HA

  20

  20

  3.5

  3.3

  0.0

  0.0

  Calderdale & Kirklees HA

  20

  10

  2.6

  2.3

  0.0

  0.0

  County Durham HA

  20

  10

  2.5

  2.4

  0.0

  0.0

  East Riding HA

  40

  30

  6.0

  5.8

  0.0

  0.0

  Gateshead & South Tyneside HA

  20

  20

  5.7

  5.2

  0.0

  0.0

  Leeds HA

  70

  70

  9.8

  9.3

  0.0

  0.0

  Newcastle & North Tyneside HA

  60

  50

  11.7

  10.6

  0.0

  0.0

  North Cumbria HA

  10

  10

  3.4

  3.3

  0.0

  0.0

  North Yorkshire HA

  30

  20

  3.4

  2.9

  0.0

  0.0

  Northumberland HA

  10

  10

  3.9

  3.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Sunderland HA

  10

  10

  4.5

  4.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Tees HA

  30

  30

  4.7

  4.7

  0.0

  0.0

  Wakefield HA

  10

  10

  2.8

  2.6

  0.0

  0.0

  South East

  Berkshire HA

  20

  10

  2.8

  1.4

  0.0

  0.0

  Buckinghamshire HA

  20

  20

  2.7

  2.5

  0.0

  0.0

  East Kent HA

  20

  20

  3.3

  3.1

  0.0

  0.0

  1430W
  Mr. Hutton
  Population data are not available by trust but has been given by health authority.

  (a) [Between 1997 and 2001 the number of Radiologists has increased by 203 or 14 per cent.]

  (b) [Between 1997 and 2001 the number of Chiropodists has increased by 270 or 8 per cent.]
  1431W

  Hospital medical staff within the clinical radiology speciality by Region and Health Authority

  At 30 September 2001

  All Staff

  per 100,0001

  per head1

  no

  wte

  no

  wte

  no

  wte

  East Surrey HA

  10

  10

  2.3

  2.2

  0.0

  0.0

  East Sussex HA

  20

  20

  2.9

  2.8

  0.0

  0.0

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  20

  20

  3.5

  3.1

  0.0

  0.0

  North & Mid Hampshire HA

  20

  10

  3.0

  2.6

  0.0

  0.0

  Northamptonshire HA

  20

  10

  2.5

  2.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Oxfordshire HA

  60

  50

  9.2

  8.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  60

  40

  10.3

  6.4

  0.0

  0.0

  West Kent HA

  30

  30

  2.9

  2.5

  0.0

  0.0

  West Surrey HA

  30

  30

  4.9

  4.5

  0.0

  0.0

  West Sussex HA

  20

  20

  2.2

  2.0

  0.0

  0.0

  South Western

  Avon HA

  80

  70

  8.4

  6.8

  0.0

  0.0

  Cornwall & Isles of Scilly HA

  20

  10

  3.0

  2.8

  0.0

  0.0

  Dorset HA

  30

  30

  4.1

  3.9

  0.0

  0.0

  Gloucestershire HA

  20

  20

  3.0

  2.9

  0.0

  0.0

  North & East Devon HA

  10

  10

  2.7

  2.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Somerset HA

  20

  10

  3.2

  2.7

  0.0

  0.0

  South & West Devon HA

  50

  50

  8.4

  7.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Wiltshire HA

  20

  20

  2.6

  2.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Trent

  Barnsley HA

  10

  10

  2.6

  2.2

  0.0

  0.0

  Doncaster HA

  10

  10

  3.8

  3.7

  0.0

  0.0

  Leicestershire HA

  50

  50

  5.7

  5.4

  0.0

  0.0

  Lincolnshire HA

  20

  20

  2.7

  2.5

  0.0

  0.0

  North Derbyshire HA

  10

  10

  1.9

  1.7

  0.0

  0.0

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  10

  10

  2.6

  2.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Nottingham HA

  40

  40

  6.5

  6.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Rotherham HA

  0

  0

  0.8

  0.8

  0.0

  0.0

  Sheffield HA

  50

  40

  9.1

  8.3

  0.0

  0.0

  South Derbyshire HA

  20

  20

  3.0

  2.8

  0.0

  0.0

  South Humber HA

  10

  0

  2.0

  1.4

  0.0

  0.0

  West Midlands

  Birmingham HA

  90

  90

  9.3

  8.6

  0.0

  0.0

  Coventry HA

  20

  20

  6.6

  5.9

  0.0

  0.0

  Dudley HA

  10

  10

  2.2

  2.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Herefordshire HA

  0

  0

  2.3

  2.3

  0.0

  0.0

  North Staffordshire HA

  30

  20

  6.5

  4.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Sandwell HA

  10

  10

  3.8

  3.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Shropshire HA

  20

  20

  4.3

  4.0

  0.0

  0.0

  South Staffordshire HA

  10

  10

  2.2

  2.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Walsall HA

  0

  0

  1.9

  1.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Warwickshire HA

  10

  10

  2.3

  2.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Wolverhampton HA

  20

  20

  7.1

  6.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Worcester HA

  10

  10

  2.4

  2.2

  0.0

  0.0

  Note:

  1 Calculated using unrounded figures.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  "0" denotes five or less.

  Source:

  Department of Health 2001 medical and dental workforce census.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff employed in the Chiropody area of Work and per 100,000 population in England as at 30 September 2001

  Whole-time equivalents

  Per 100,000 population

  Per head of population

  Headcount

  England

  2,890

  6

  0.00006

  3,560

  YO1 Northern & Yorkshire

  440

  7

  0.00007

  530

  QDD Bradford HA

  40

  8

  0.00008

  40

  QDE County Durham & Darlington HA

  40

  6

  0.00006

  40

  QDF East Riding & Hull HA

  20

  4

  0.00004

  30

  QDG Gateshead & South Tyneside HA

  30

  7

  0.00007

  30

  QDH Leeds HA

  40

  6

  0.00006

  50

  QDJ Newcastle & North Tyneside HA

  30

  6

  0.00006

  30

  QDK North Cumbria HA

  30

  9

  0.00009

  30

  QDM Northumberland HA

  40

  13

  0.00013

  50

  QDN Sunderland HA

  20

  7

  0.00007

  20

  1432W 1433W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff employed in the Chiropody area of Work and per 100,000 population in England as at 30 September 2001

  Whole-time equivalents

  Per 100,000 population

  Per head of population

  Headcount

  QDP Tees HA

  40

  7

  0.00007

  40

  QDQ Wakefield HA

  20

  7

  0.00007

  30

  QDR North Yorkshire HA

  50

  6

  0.00006

  60

  QDT Calderdale & Kirklees HA

  60

  9

  0.00009

  60

  YO2 Trent

  270

  5

  0.00005

  340

  QCG Barnsley HA

  20

  8

  0.00008

  20

  QCH North Derbyshire HA

  30

  8

  0.00008

  40

  QCJ Southern Derbyshire HA

  30

  6

  0.00006

  40

  QCK Doncaster HA

  10

  4

  0.00004

  20

  QCL Leicestershire HA

  40

  4

  0.00004

  50

  QCM Lincolnshire HA

  30

  5

  0.00005

  40

  QCN North Nottinghamshire HA

  20

  5

  0.00005

  20

  QCP Nottingham HA

  30

  5

  0.00005

  40

  QCQ Rotherham HA

  10

  5

  0.00005

  10

  QCR Sheffield HA

  30

  6

  0.00006

  40

  QDL South Humber HA

  10

  5

  0.00005

  20

  YO7 West Midlands

  330

  6

  0.00006

  430

  QD9 Birmingham HA

  60

  6

  0.00006

  70

  QEA Coventry HA

  10

  4

  0.00004

  20

  QEC Dudley HA

  30

  8

  0.00008

  40

  QED Herefordshire HA

  *

  2

  0.00002

  10

  QEE Sandwell HA

  30

  10

  0.00010

  30

  QEF Shropshire HA

  20

  5

  0.00005

  30

  QEG Solihull HA

  10

  3

  0.00003

  10

  QEH North Staffordshire HA

  50

  11

  0.00011

  60

  QEJ South Staffordshire HA

  30

  5

  0.00005

  40

  QEK Walsall HA

  20

  7

  0.00007

  20

  QEL Warwickshire HA

  30

  6

  0.00006

  40

  QEM Wolverhampton HA

  10

  6

  0.00006

  20

  QEN Worcestershire HA

  30

  5

  0.00005

  40

  YO8 North West

  570

  9

  0.00009

  690

  QC1 South Lancashire HA

  10

  4

  0.00004

  20

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  30

  7

  0.00007

  40

  QC3 Manchester HA

  50

  12

  0.00012

  60

  QC4 Morecambe Bay HA

  20

  6

  0.00006

  20

  QC5 St Helen's & Knowsley HA

  30

  9

  0.00009

  30

  QC6 Salford & Trafford HA

  50

  11

  0.00011

  60

  QC7 Sefton HA

  20

  8

  0.00008

  30

  QC8 Stockport HA

  20

  8

  0.00008

  30

  QC9 West Pennine HA

  50

  10

  0.00010

  50

  QCT Bury & Rochdale HA

  40

  9

  0.00009

  40

  QCV North Cheshire HA

  40

  11

  0.00011

  40

  QCW South Cheshire HA

  20

  4

  0.00004

  30

  QCX East Lancashire HA

  40

  8

  0.00008

  50

  QCY North West Lancashire HA

  40

  10

  0.00010

  50

  QDA Wigan and Bolton HA

  80

  13

  0.00013

  90

  QDC Wirral HA

  20

  6

  0.00006

  30

  YO9 Eastern

  230

  4

  0.00004

  280

  QA6 Bedfordshire HA

  20

  4

  0.00004

  30

  QAX North Essex HA

  30

  4

  0.00004

  40

  QAY South Essex HA

  30

  4

  0.00004

  30

  QCF Suffolk HA

  30

  5

  0.00005

  40

  QER Cambridgeshire HA

  20

  3

  0.00003

  30

  QET Norfolk HA

  50

  6

  0.00006

  60

  QEX Hertfordshire HA

  40

  3

  0.00003

  50

  Y10 London

  440

  6

  0.00006

  530

  QA2 Hillingdon HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  QA3 Kensington, Chelsea & Westminster HA

  60

  14

  0.00014

  70

  QA5 Redbridge & Waltham Forest HA

  30

  7

  0.00007

  40

  QAD Croydon HA

  20

  4

  0.00004

  20

  QAG Kingston & Richmond HA

  10

  3

  0.00003

  10

  QAH Lambeth, Southwark & Lewisham HA

  70

  9

  0.00009

  80

  QAJ Merton, Sutton & Wandsworth HA

  50

  8

  0.00008

  60

  QAP Barking & Havering HA

  20

  4

  0.00004

  20

  QAR Brent & Harrow HA

  30

  6

  0.00006

  30

  QAT Camden & Islington HA

  40

  10

  0.00010

  40

  QAV Ealing, Hammersmith & Hounslow HA

  10

  2

  0.00002

  20

  QAW East London & the City HA

  40

  6

  0.00006

  50

  QEW Barnet, Enfield & Haringey HA

  40

  4

  0.00004

  40

  QEY Bexley, Bromley & Greenwich HA

  40

  5

  0.00005

  40

  1434W 1435W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff employed in the Chiropody area of Work and per 100,000 population in England as at 30 September 2001

  Whole-time equivalents

  Per 100,000 population

  Per head of population

  Headcount

  Y11 South East

  390

  4

  0.00004

  480

  QA7 Berkshire HA

  30

  4

  0.00004

  40

  QA8 Buckinghamshire HA

  40

  6

  0.00006

  40

  QAE East Kent HA

  40

  7

  0.00007

  50

  QAF West Kent HA

  30

  3

  0.00003

  40

  QAK East Surrey HA

  10

  2

  0.00002

  20

  QAL West Surrey HA

  20

  4

  0.00004

  30

  QAM East Sussex, Brighton & Hove HA

  40

  5

  0.00005

  50

  QAN West Sussex HA

  40

  5

  0.00005

  50

  QCC Northamptonshire HA

  30

  5

  0.00005

  40

  QCE Oxfordshire HA

  30

  4

  0.00004

  40

  QD1 North & Mid Hampshire HA

  10

  3

  0.00003

  20

  QD3 Southampton & South West Hampshire HA

  20

  4

  0.00004

  20

  QEV Isle of Wight, Portsmouth & South East Hampshire

  HA

  40

  6

  0.00006

  50

  Y12 South West

  220

  4

  0.00004

  280

  QD5 Somerset HA

  *

  1

  0.00001

  *

  QD6 South & West Devon HA

  40

  6

  0.00006

  50

  QD7 Wiltshire HA

  30

  4

  0.00004

  30

  QD8 Avon HA

  50

  5

  0.00005

  70

  QDV Cornwall & Isles of Scilly HA

  30

  5

  0.00005

  30

  QDW Dorset HA

  20

  3

  0.00003

  30

  QDX North & East Devon HA

  20

  4

  0.00004

  30

  QDY Gloucestershire HA

  30

  5

  0.00005

  40

  Notes:

  1. Staff in post figures are rounded to the nearest ten. Population rates are rounded to the nearest whole number and five decimal place. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  2. Ratios, per head of 100,000 population for chiropodists, range from one to 14, the lowest being Somerset Health Authority that is responsible for one trust only, which does not employ any chiropodists. Neighbouring health authorities provide services for Hillingdon which is also responsible for one trust and does not employ any NHS chiropodists. Herefordshire Health authority provides chiropody services but for statistical purposes are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  * five or less and greater than zero.

  — zero

  Source;

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  NHS Name and Logo
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he takes to protect the NHS name and logo from use by companies for commercial gain. [57892]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have a clear strategy for branding the National Health Service and we adopt a strong position in protecting the brand against inappropriate use.

  In every case where we are aware of misuse by third parties, we contact the organisation concerned and request that the logo is removed. Where necessary, we take the advice of our solicitors.

  The NHS logo is a registered trademark.

  Medical Emergencies
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is made for ensuring that patients are not at risk in emergency situations when members of a full emergency medical team are on call rather than on duty on site; and if he will make a statement. [58397]

  Mr. Lammy
  The responsibility for ensuring that emergency services, including a full emergency medical team, are staffed according to the demand for emergency care, lies with individual National Health Service trusts.
  1436W
  Individual trusts have policies and procedures in place to provide an appropriate emergency response for the wide spectrum of emergency care that they may need to provide from individual cases to major incidents.

  Mr Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regulations are in place to ensure that hospitals that have the facility for full emergency theatre teams have such teams on duty on site during the night; and if he will make a statement. [58396]

  Mr. Lammy
  The responsibility for ensuring that emergency services, including the provision of emergency theatres, are staffed according to the demand for emergency care, lies with individual trusts. Normally, trusts who provide a 24 hour emergency service will have a core theatre team to cover emergency surgery and an additional complement of staff "on-call" to supplement the core team if required. This aspect is not "regulated" as such, but will form part of trusts' clinical governance and risk management programmes. The Commission for Health Improvement audit and inspection includes the organisation and standards of emergency care provided by trusts.

  Funding (Luton, South)
  Margaret Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what moneys have been provided(a) directly

  1437W
  and (b) via agencies for which the Department has responsibility to the Luton, South constituency since 1997. [58588]

  Mr. Lammy
  Monies have been provided to the former Bedfordshire Health Authority and to the Luton Health Action Zone. The funds are not specifically identified to the Luton, South constituency because deployment is a matter for local determination.

  The overall settlement for Bedfordshire in 2002–03, £419.9 million, was a £39.1 million or 10.5 per cent. increase, the fourth largest of any health authority in England.

  The constituency does, however, have some of the highest deprivation in Luton and health action zone funding is targeted at areas of deprivation.

  Air Ambulance Service
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Air Ambulance Service is funded in each region in which it operates. [59691]

  Mr. Lammy
  Funding for ambulance services in England is provided by independent air ambulance charities.

  In recognition of the time it takes local air ambulance charities to build their fundraising base, short-term government funding of £2.2 million has been made available across 2001–02 and 2002–03 to help the five air ambulance charities in England who have asked for temporary assistance in meeting their operational costs. The money will be shared between Yorkshire, Dorset and Somerset, North West, East Anglia and Thames Valley and Chiltern air ambulance.

  In addition, in January 2002, guidance was issued to National Health Service ambulance trusts and their commissioners stating that the salary costs of the NHS clinical staff who crew that aircraft should be met from NHS funds. This equivalent to around £150,000 per aircraft each year or a total of around £2.1 million across England.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when decisions on the "Options for Change" consultation on the future of NHS dentistry will be made; and if he will make a statement. [59319]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government plan to publish the final Options for Change report shortly.

  Dentistry
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to provide incentives for dentists to stay in the NHS. [55328]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]Over the last 18 months we have spent £100 million on modernising National Health Service dentistry. £10 million of this was for the dental care development fund and the dentistry action plan fund to support local plans to improve access. This money enables health authorities to assist dentists seeking to set up new practices and to expand and modernise existing ones. Furthermore, the £35 million Modernisation Fund provided grants for dentists to improve facilities.
  1438W
  Additionally, the commitment payment scheme, introduced from April 1999, provides incentive payments to dentists, depending on how much NHS work they undertake. From April 2002, the scheme was extended to include dentists who have 5 years or more service in the NHS. Officials continue to work with the profession to see how the scheme might be strengthened in the future.

  The Department is also undertaking work with the profession and other stakeholders through the modernising project Options for Change, to test out new methods of providing NHS dentistry.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many courses of treatment were delivered through personal dental access services in each year since 1998. [60869]

  Mr. Lammy
  The total number of courses of treatment carried out in the personal dental service (PDS) is shown in the table for each of the years 1998–99 to 2001–02.

  The table includes courses of treatment carried out in dental access centres as well as other PDS pilots.

  Personal Dental Service: Number of courses of treatment

  thousands

  Year

  Number

  1998–99

  73

  1999–2000

  217

  2000–01

  312

  2001–02

  480

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many courses of treatment were delivered through dental access centres in each year since 1998. [60871]

  Mr. Lammy
  The total number of courses of treatment carried out in dental access centres is shown in the table for each of the years 1998–99 to 2001–02.

  Personal Dental Service: Number of courses of treatment in Dental Access Centres

  thousands

  Year

  Number

  1998–99

  5

  1999–2000

  23

  2000–01

  70

  2001–02

  197

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many personal dental services posts were(a) established and (b) filled, broken down by health authority, in each year since 1998. [60866]

  Mr. Lammy
  The available information is for the number of dentists working in the personal dental service (PDS). This is shown in the table by health authority at 31 March for each year from 1999 to 2002.

  The figures are on a headcount basis rather than whole time equivalent and take no account of part-time working.
  1439W
  Some of the PDS dentists also work in other National Health Service dental services such as the General Dental Service and the Community Dental Service.

  Personal Dental Service (PDS): Total number of dentists by Health Authority at 31 March 1999 to 2002 England

  Health Authority

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  England

  140

  252

  472

  891

  Avon

  0

  0

  1

  11

  Barnet, Enfield & Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Bedfordshire

  5

  8

  9

  36

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Bexley, Bromley & Greenwich

  0

  3

  7

  7

  Birmingham

  0

  0

  33

  43

  Bradford

  0

  0

  0

  17

  Buckinghamshire

  16

  13

  24

  29

  Bury & Rochdale

  0

  0

  2

  5

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  6

  7

  Camden & Islington

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Cornwall & Isles of Scilly

  19

  23

  30

  42

  County Durham & Darlington

  0

  4

  5

  7

  Ealing, Hammersmith & Hounslow

  17

  16

  13

  13

  East Kent

  0

  0

  3

  7

  East Lancashire

  0

  0

  2

  8

  East London & The City

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Riding & Hull

  0

  0

  3

  10

  East Sussex, Brighton & Hove

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Gloucestershire

  0

  18

  21

  26

  Herefordshire

  0

  0

  13

  19

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth & SE Hampshire

  0

  5

  8

  12

  Lambeth, Southwark & Lewisham

  28

  35

  35

  26

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  6

  9

  Liverpool

  3

  4

  15

  29

  Manchester

  0

  2

  2

  3

  Morecambe Bay

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Newcastle & North Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  7

  10

  North & East Devon

  0

  0

  0

  11

  North Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  19

  North Cumbria

  0

  0

  1

  1

  North Derbyshire

  0

  5

  5

  6

  North Essex

  3

  3

  3

  4

  North Staffordshire

  0

  0

  18

  21

  North West Lancashire

  0

  0

  1

  1

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  8

  Northamptonshire

  0

  3

  3

  4

  Northumberland

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Nottingham

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  16

  21

  Salford & Trafford

  0

  1

  1

  5

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Sefton

  0

  4

  4

  7

  Shropshire

  1

  5

  7

  7

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  62

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  9

  South & West Devon

  0

  0

  0

  19

  South Cheshire

  24

  20

  24

  32

  South Lancashire

  4

  3

  3

  5

  South Staffordshire

  0

  0

  13

  14

  Southampton & South West Hampshire

  0

  18

  21

  21

  Southern Derbyshire

  2

  4

  9

  12

  St Helens & Knowsley

  0

  7

  13

  27

  Suffolk

  0

  2

  2

  5

  Tees

  5

  5

  8

  11

  Walsall

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Warwickshire

  11

  12

  14

  20

  West Pennine

  0

  0

  1

  1

  West Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  49

  1440W

  Personal Dental Service (PDS): Total number of dentists by Health Authority at 31 March 1999 to 2002 England

  Health Authority

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  West Sussex

  0

  11

  15

  18

  Wiltshire

  0

  3

  5

  10

  Wirral

  0

  10

  12

  14

  Wolverhampton

  0

  3

  6

  6

  Worcestershire

  0

  0

  20

  26

  1. Number at 31 March each year.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) What the total gross fees authorised for payment for personal dental services were for England and Wales in each year since 1998: [60868]

  (2) What the total gross fees authorised for payment for dental access centres were for England and Wales in each year since 1998. [60870]

  Mr. Lammy
  The figure for this is not available. Dentists working in dental access centres and other personal dental services pilots are salaried employees of primary care trusts and National Health Service trusts. Their income is not drawn from fees.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mean number of decayed, missing and filled primary teeth was for children aged five, broken down by health authority, in every year since 1996; and what percentage of children aged five had no experience of tooth decay, broken down by health authority, in each year since 1996. [60796]

  Mr. Lammy
  The British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry (BASCD) carries out a survey every second year to monitor the dental caries experience of five year-old children. The latest results are for 1999–00.

  Information on the mean number of decayed, missing or filled teeth for five year-old children by health authority trust for the years 1995–96, 1997–98 and 1999–00 has been placed in the Library.

  Information on the percentage of five year-old children with no decayed, missing or filled teeth for 1995–96, 1997–98 and 1999–00 has been placed in the Library.

  Figures for National Health Service trusts have been provided where the health authority figures are not available.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chiropodists were working in the NHS in 2000; and how many are working in the NHS on the most recent date for which figures are available. [61842]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 2000 there were 3,470 chiropodists working in the National Health Service. As at 30 September 2001, the most recent information, the total chiropodist workforce had increased by 90 (3 per cent.), to 3560.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to use the services of independent state regulated chiropodists and podiatrists in meeting local service needs. [60682]
  1441W
  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan document "Delivering the NHS Plan" states that primary care trusts will be free to purchase care from public, private or voluntary providers as appropriate. Decisions can be taken locally on how best to meet local service needs.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he plans to give to strategic health authorities and primary care trusts on the minimum levels of chiropody and podiatry services that should be provided in each area. [60681]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans to issue any guidance to strategic health authorities or primary care trusts on minimum levels of chiropody and podiatry services. However, chiropody/podiatry services are essential parts of the national service frameworks for older people and diabetes. The department has also launched aNational Primary and Care Trust programme (NatPaCT) designed to support PCTs in delivering their key functions which will be:

  Improving the health of the community;

  Securing the provision of high quality services;

  Integrating health and social care locally.

  As local organisations, PCTs are best placed to understand the needs of their patient populations. This will ensure that the right services are delivered to the right people in the right location at the right time.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting for in-patient treatment for more than 15 months at the Portsmouth Hospital Trust, at the latest date for which figures are available. [61125]

  Ms. Blears
  The Department's Directorate of Health and Social Care for the south of England makes an analysis of fifteen month waits at the end of each month. The analysis for the end of April 2002, the most recent month for which information is currently available, indicted that no patients were waiting over fifteen months for inpatient treatment at the trust.

  Clinical Records
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances information on(a) medical and (b) other clinical records may be released without the knowledge and consent of the patient concerned; and if he will make a statement. [60387]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information in medical or other clinical records may be released without the knowledge and consent of the patient concerned where the information concerned does not identify him or her. Where the information might identify the patient any release must satisfy the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 and if the information is also held under obligations of confidentiality any release must comply with common law requirements. Additionally, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be satisfied, there must not be a statutory prohibition against the release of information and, in the case of a public sector body, the body must have the vires to release information for the purpose in question.

  NHS Staff
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the results of the 2000–01 survey of violent incidents, accidents involving staff and sickness absence in NHS trusts and health authorities in England. [60667]

  Mr. Hutton
  The results of the Department of Health's survey of reported violent or abusive incidents, accidents involving staff and sickness absence in National Health Service trusts and health authorities in England in 2000–01 will be placed in the Library.

  The survey found that there were 84,273 reported violent or abusive incidents against staff in 2000–01. Details of the number of reported violent or abusive incidents, accidents involving staff, and sickness absence by type of NHS trust are shown in the following tables. There were 108,743 reported accidents involving staff during the same period. The sickness absence rate, measured during calendar year 2000, was 4.68 per cent.

  Number of reported violent or abusive incidents in 2000–01, by type of NHS Trust

  Type of NHS Trust

  Total number of reported1 incidents in the year

  Estimated number of incidents per 1,000 staff per month1

  Acute

  22,338

  5

  Multi-service

  12,019

  8

  Ambulance

  3,882

  13

  Community/mental health2

  37,053

  23

  Mental health/learning disability

  7,766

  27

  All NHS Trusts3

  84,214

  10

  Notes:

  1 Some NHS Trusts were unable to supply data. In particular, some community Trusts were undergoing re-configuration. Figures in this table are for those NHS Trusts which provided figures.

  2 Some "community" NHS Trusts also provide mental health and/ or learning disability services.

  3 Includes figures for the small number of Primary Care Trusts which were able to supply data.

  Number of reported accidents involving staff in 2000–01, by type of NHS Trust

  Type of NHS Trust

  Total number reported1 accidents in the year

  Estimated number of accidents per 1,000 staff per month1

  Acute

  51,889

  12

  Multi-service

  21,032

  14

  Ambulance

  5,746

  21

  Community2

  22,757

  15

  Mental health/learning disability

  2,996

  11

  All NHS Trusts3

  106,348

  13

  Notes:

  1 Some NHS Trusts were unable to supply data. In particular, some community Trusts were undergoing re-configuration. Figures in this table are for those NHS Trusts which provided figures.

  2 Some "community" NHS Trusts also provide mental health and/ or learning disability services.

  3 Includes figures for the small number of Primary Care Trusts which were able to supply data.

  1443W

  A verage sickness absence rate it in 2000, by type of NHS Trust

  Type of NHS Trust

  Estimated average sickness absence rate (%)

  Acute

  4.46

  Multi-service

  4.67

  Ambulance

  6.80

  Community

  5.09

  Mental health/learning disability

  5.23

  All NHS Trusts3

  4.73

  Notes:

  1 Some NHS Trusts were unable to supply data. In particular, some community Trusts were undergoing re-configuration. Figures in this table are for those NHS Trusts which provided figures.

  2 Some "community" NHS Trusts also provide mental health and/or learning disability services.

  3 Includes figures for the small number of Primary Care Trusts which were able to supply data.

  Resourcing Terminology
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the difference is between(a) earmarked, (b) hypothecated and (c) ring-fenced in health service resourcing terminology. [60848]

  Mr. Hutton
  Resource allocation to the National Health Service in recent years has used the term "earmarked" to refer to funds identified at health authority level with an intention that they be spent on the purpose for which they are allocated; the term "hypothecated" to refer to funds identified at national level with an intention that they be spent on the purpose for which they are allocated; and the term "ring fenced" to refer to funds identified by direction under section 97(6) of the National Health Service Act 1977 and which can only be used for the purpose for which they are issued.

  NHS Consultants
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS consultants were formally appraised in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02. [61445]

  Mr. Hutton
  A number of local schemes for the appraisal of National Health Service consultants were in place prior to the introduction of a national system of formal appraisal for NHS consultants in April 2001.

  Precise information about the number of consultants appraised in the introductory year of the national scheme, or under the local schemes which preceded it, is not collected by the Department. Chief executives of NHS trusts are accountable for ensuring that all consultants are appraised.

  We plan to undertake a scoping exercise later this year to ascertain how the NHS has implemented the arrangements.

  Pathology Tests
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many instances unregistered staff have performed tasks usually associated with state-registered pathologists in(a) March 1999 to March 2000, (b) March 2000 to March 2001 and (c) March 2001 to March 2002; and at which hospitals. [61453]
  1444W
  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected by the Department. Clinical Pathology Accreditation (UK) Ltd (CPA), which is the largest accrediting body for UK pathology laboratories providing diagnostic testing for patients, does ask individual services for this information as part of its methodology.

  In carrying out their inspections, CPA have encountered a very small number of cases of unregistered staff performing tasks usually associated with state-registered pathology staff. It has checked each circumstance individually before confirming the staff member's suitability to carry out their work. CPA has taken all necessary steps to ensure that patient safety is not compromised and that quality standards are maintained.

  The Department is committed to ensuring that patients are properly protected and receive high quality diagnostic services, founded upon a strengthened system of state-registration in the form of the Health Professions Council (HPC), which ensures staff are suitably fit to practise.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the funding for NICE-recommended drugs, treatments and technologies has been allocated to audiology services in each NHS trust. [59561]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]Directions have been issued obliging health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for treatments recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. A weighted capitation formula is used to determine each health authority and primary care trust's fair share of available resources, to enable them to commission similar levels of services for populations in equal need. The funding was not allocated by speciality.

  The National Health Service will receive an annual average increase of 7.5 per cent. above inflation over the five years 2003–04 to 2007–08. This is now the largest ever sustained increase in NHS funding.

  Medical Devices Agency
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to restructure the Medical Devices Agency. [59234]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health gave my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Miss Atkins) today.

  Cosmetic Treatment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's policy is on the marketing of the cosmetic treatment Dysport by the Centre for Advanced Microbiology and Research; and what will happen to any profits made by its sale. [59415]
  1445W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]The Centre for Applied Microbiology & Research (CAM R) manufactures Dysport which is then marketed by Ispen Limited both for use in certain medical treatments, and for ancillary non medical use.

  Any income derived by CAM R from any of its activities goes towards the cost of running and maintaining the centre.

  Cancer
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the role and responsibilities are of the National Cancer Institute; [55868]

  (2) what progress has been made in meeting staffing goals for cancer specialists; and how future progress will be assessed; [55865]

  (3) what steps he takes to monitor the way in which NHS trusts deploy funds allocated to deliver on Cancer Plan targets; and how trusts are made answerable for cancer funding spent on other services or financial requirements; [55863]

  (4) what plans he has to publish annual figures for national expenditure on cancer research, indicating where money is spent; [55862]

  (5) what steps are being taken to raise the profile of the National Cancer Institute amongst those not directly involved in its work; [55864]

  (6) what plans he has to develop more extensive and accessible clinical trials databases for cancer research to inform researchers and patients; [55866]

  (7) if he plans to publish a map of the regional cancer networks; [55869]

  (8) what plans he has to review his policy on a national cancer act, with specific reference to (a) cancer registration, (b) funding for the cancer research infrastructure and (c) a cancer research strategy; [55867]

  (9) how the core funding of the national translational cancer research networks is determined; and how frequently it is to be reviewed. [55870]

  Ms. Blears
  The Government's response to the First Report of the Science and Technology Committee on Cancer Research—A Follow Up has been published today, and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Medical Agencies
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the management of the Medicines Control Agency and the Medical Devices Agency; and if he will make a statement. [62520]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided to merge the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the Medical Devices Agency (MDA), to take effect from 1 April 2003. The regulation of medicines and of medical devices are separate fields, working to different legislation, but as technology develops, there are likely to be growing numbers of products that cross the borderline between medicines and devices. Most other European countries have gone down the path of managing these responsibilities in a1446W
  single organisation, as has the United States. We want to build on the excellence of both organisations in the protection of public health, and ensure that the new agency is well placed to respond to change and retain the UK's leading position.

  The post of Chief Executive will be filled through open competition. The new organisation will also have improved governance arrangements, with non-executive members on the board and a new post of Chairman, who we expect to be an authoritative figure able not only to Chair the board and oversee its work but also to represent the organisation and its decisions in public.

  Organ Donor Register
  Mr. Tom Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people are on the NHS organ donor register; and what percentage of the population this represents, broken down by local authority area; [43307]

  (2) how many people have been on the organ donor register for the last five years for which figures are available. [43308]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]The number of patients on the NHS Organ Donor Register at the end of the last five years are as follows:

  End of year

  Number registered (million)

  1997

  4.67

  1998

  5.54

  1999

  8.48

  2000

  8.03

  2001

  9.02

  There are currently 9.2 million people registered on the NHS Organ Donor Register. This represents 15.3 per cent. of the population.

  The figures are not available broken down by local authority. A table of the figures broken down by region is attached.

  Region

  Number

  Percentage of population

  Northern & Yorkshire

  835,870

  13.4

  Trent

  637,321

  12.4

  Eastern

  806,534

  15.3

  London

  910,432

  12.9

  South East

  1,401,383

  16.4

  South West

  916,436

  18.7

  West Midlands

  641,611

  12.1

  North West

  920,939

  13.9

  Channel Isles & Isle of Man

  5,225

  2.5

  England

  7,088,436

  14.3

  Wales

  474,722

  16.3

  Scotland

  908,269

  17.8

  Northern Ireland

  151,793

  9.1

  Not available

  394,004

  Total

  9,022,479

  15.3

  Child Protection Register
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what percentage of children were re-registered on the Child Protection Register in the year ending March 1999. [45723]

  Jacqui Smith
  The proportion of children who were re-registered on the child protection register during the year ending 31 March 1999 was 15 per cent.

  Tamoxifen
  Mr. Simon Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the criteria for the use of Tamoxifen; [46720]
  (2) what plans he has for the use of Tamoxifen for women who do not have breast cancer but are considered to be at high risk. [46721]

  Yvette Cooper
  Tamoxifen is licensed for the treatment of breast cancer and the treatment of anovulatory infertility.
  1448W
  Tamoxifen is not licensed for the prevention of breast cancer in women who do not have breast cancer. A large international research trial is currently investigating whether Tamoxifen can prevent cancer in healthy women who are considered to be at high risk. When the full trial results are published we will consider what action may be appropriate and estimate the cost implications.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what new initiatives his Department has taken in 2001–02 to assist in achieving its Public Service Agreement targets. [47180]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department's Annual Report for 2001, and the NHS Modernisation Board's Annual Report 2000–01 ("The NHS Plan-A Progress Report") both set out the many steps we are taking to achieve our objectives. The next Departmental report, to be published shortly, will set out the latest progress.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Parish Councils: Code of Conduct
Baroness Byfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
What effects the introduction of the model code of conduct is having on parish councils.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the whole of our modernisation agenda is focused on improving the vitality and effectiveness of local government at every level. That includes the introduction of a new ethical framework, which will help to strengthen confidence in local government conduct. The parish code, which has been welcomed by the National Association of Local Councils, has now been adopted by thousands of parish councils up and down the country, thereby strengthening local government at the grass-roots level.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. However, he will be aware that many councillors have resigned as a result of the code. What will happen to an elected parish council member who has not yet finished his period of office and who refuses to sign the register of interests or to resign? How, and under what law, will he or she be removed?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, because they do not have to report to central government, I do not know how many parish councillors have resigned. Indeed, not even the new standards body would necessarily have the figures. However, by 10th June more than 4,000 parish councils—that is, about half the total—had informed the Standards Board that they had adopted the code.
Having read the code, I do not see any justification whatever for anyone to feel that they must resign because of the code. I do not have a great deal of experience in this matter, but the code does not differ greatly from those relating to other parts of local government. It affects people only in their official capacity. The nonsense that I heard in this House earlier in the year about people having to resign because of gifts from their families was absolute rubbish. The code makes it explicitly clear that people have to register only in their official capacity.
Councillors' families and spouses are affected only if they benefit to a greater extent than other council tax payers. I cannot see what is wrong with that. There is no justification for the concerns raised about the code.
368
I understand that if councillors do not register within two months after 5th May, they cease to become parish councillors. That is the effect of the code.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, whatever his view of the code, will the Minister at least recognise that it has been appallingly received in the country and, at the very least, that it has been a lousy presentation exercise? I declare my interest as the chairman of a very small parish council of seven members. All of them, except for me, wanted to resign. I have lost one of the best of the seven councillors. Even the gift of a dozen of my wife's bantam eggs did not keep him. Will the Minister at least take steps to ascertain how many people have resigned and report that figure to the House?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall certainly make it my business to obtain the figure if it is possible to do so. However, let me make it clear that the 70.000 parish councillors in this country—that is, seven times the number of local government councillors—are the bedrock of our democracy. Nothing in the code in any way undermines their ability to operate in an official capacity. The concerns raised are totally unjustified. Perhaps the councillors in question misunderstood the code or received bad advice. I invite noble Lords to obtain a copy of the code from the Printed Paper Office; it is Statutory Instrument 3576. They will see that it is absolutely clear that there is no justification for the concerns. We would not seek to place an onerous burden on parish councillors or force them to resign in the way that is claimed. I do not believe that what has been said is in any way justified. However, I shall make it my business to try to obtain the figures.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, does the Minister agree that parish councillors should understand the code? Does he further agree that we should take seriously the matter of presentation and help to put across the message? I understand that the issue of declarations of interest and so on are aimed at achieving good, open, transparent and accountable government. Can the Minister assure the House that the intention of the code is not to punish or in any way constrain parish councillors but to achieve that end?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness. Of course, the code is not new. It is mandatory. This is not a question of inventing the wheel; the code puts parish councillors on all fours with other parts of local government. As I said, numerically they comprise the biggest part of local government. In terms of local authorities, their number is far in excess of that of local government, councillors. There may be a presentational point to put across, but this is a small code. It is explicit that the code affects councillors only in their official capacity. That is quite right.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer my noble friend's question. What will happen to a councillor who refuses to sign the code and refuses to resign?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is not a question of that. I cannot quote the exact chapter and verse of the legislation, but I shall make it my business to check that point. Authorities had until 5th May this year to adopt their own codes of conduct, consistent with the national models. Within two months of the adoption of a code of conduct by an authority, its members must make a written declaration to observe it. Failure to do so will mean that they cease to be councillors. That must be implied in the main legislation.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to accept from me that this model code is new? It came about very recently, and its mandatory nature is new. I want to ask the Minister to pursue the matter of parish councillors. Does he consider that one reason that parish councillors are so upset is the fact that the new Standards Board to which parish councils will be responsible is the Standards Board of England: it is not a Standards Board of their local authority? Does the Minister consider that that is a sledgehammer trying to crack a nut, even if there are 70,000 nuts?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the answer is no, but I am new to this, and I shall check. I do not have any evidence, and have not seen any in the past 16 days, which leads me to believe that we are flooded—Eland House was flooded out this morning—with letters and representations from parish councillors about the onerous responsibility of reporting to the Standards Board. I shall check on that, but I have not seen evidence to that effect.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the questions from the Benches opposite bear a remarkable similarity to the debates on declarations of interest in your Lordships' House? What do all these parish councillors have to hide?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not think that parish councillors have anything to hide. A spurious argument has been put forward about aspects of the code. I repeat—because of what has been written and said and said in this House as well—that the code affects parish councillors only in relation to their official capacity; not their private capacity, their friendship capacity or their capacity as neighbours. It affects only their official capacity as elected parish councillors. Frankly, if parish councillors cannot tell the difference between the two, they have a problem being parish councillors.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am not a parish councillor but a local councillor. Is not the Minister aware that, although the code does not affect one's private life, the declaration of those interests is in the public arena?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are an open, transparent democracy, and that is the way it should be.

Rural Communities: Housing and Services
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domerasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will be taking following the publication of the Countryside Agency's State of the Countryside Report 2002.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the report of the Countryside Agency is an important compilation of data on the current state of the countryside. The report records an improvement over the past year in the availability of some services, but there are also some less encouraging trends, which our policies now need to address.
The new department, DEFRA, is actively pursuing the rural policy agenda set out in the rural White Paper to develop stronger rural communities, stronger rural economies and a better environment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree with the chairman of the Countryside Agency in his introduction to the report that parts of the report make pretty grim reading? Does he also accept that the part which makes the grimmest reading concerns the provision of social affordable housing? That is very much a government responsibility. The Government should have taken a lead years ago and failed to do so. How does the Minister expect there ever to be a thriving rural economy if, more and more, the countryside is becoming the preserve of the rich and the retired?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness in part. The reference to a grim picture is, in part, what has happened in the countryside. Certainly, many parts of the countryside give cause for optimism. Some of the services and employment possibilities have significantly improved. However, with some services there has been a serious problem.
The issue of affordable housing affects urban, inner city and rural areas, and is a big problem. Having taken on this responsibility in recent days, my noble friend Lord Rooker is now very much "on the case" with regard to both rural and urban housing. The Government have supported the efforts of the Housing Corporation and housing associations to try to increase the amount of affordable housing in many rural areas.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords—
Earl Peel: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, shall we start with the Cross Benches and then go to the noble Earl, Lord Peel?
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can the Minister give an

371
indication as to when broadband communication on the Internet will be available to the local post office, the rural school and to the farmer who wants to diversify in the countryside? Does he agree that without that service it is impossible to see a great future in the countryside?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree that the provision of broadband is an important part of the strategy of engaging and connecting particularly the more remote rural areas with the rest of the economy. My colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry are on that case.
Earl Peel: My Lords, the report on access to rural services, which, as the Minister will be aware, is a very real problem in the countryside, states that greater access to cashpoints is the only significant change from last year. Can the Minister tell the House whether he is proud of the progress of his new department in that respect?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am proud of some of the developments in services, particularly in relation to transport. Rural bus services have improved significantly over the past five years in terms of availability. The number of people who live within easy distance of a bus route has increased from one-third to nearly one-half. That results from significant resources being allocated by the Government and my previous department to the bus subsidy and to the rural bus challenge. While some services have improved, I accept the implication that in others there has been a deterioration, which we need to address.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the great problems with rural housing has been the sale of publicly-financed houses which were built to let? Would not it be better to build more houses for letting and to stop such sales?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord gets into very dangerous water by suggesting that the Government should intervene to stop people selling their houses to those who are prepared to pay the going price. However, I recognise—this was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—that one of the difficulties is that if the only people who can afford the going price are incomers and retired people, the availability of housing for the economically active and particularly the younger element in many rural areas is seriously distorted. That is why we need to address the issue of affordable housing.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I welcome the comment from my noble friend that rural transport has been improved. Does the use of postal buses figure in the improvement, or is that being considered for the future?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there has been some development on the postal bus side in a few areas. That is also part of the more flexible approach for which my
372
department and the Department for Transport see a need so that there are forms of transport available which are somewhere between taxis and buses. Some fixed bus routes are not necessarily appropriate for rural needs and taxis are too expensive. There are experiments, including the use of other forms of transport such as postal vehicles, which could benefit rural communities.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that public authorities are building virtually no affordable houses? That is despite the Government making a good profit out of housing. They get —3·1 billion in stamp duty; they no longer give mortgage relief to house buyers; and subsidies have been cut. We need to take a good hard look at public and affordable housing and start building many more thousands of houses than the housing associations are currently providing.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is not the case that there is no building of social housing. As I indicated, the Housing Corporation has engaged, along with the housing associations, in some significant builds. Indeed, it has exceeded its targets for the provision of rural housing in recent years. Nevertheless, there is a quantum problem which will no doubt be addressed in the current spending round in order to ensure that there are adequate resources for social and affordable housing.

Product Labelling
3.21 p.m.
Lord Dubsasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage manufacturers of medicinal, pharmaceutical, food and other products whose use has safety implications to print instructions and lists of ingredients in type large enough to be read by most people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government will continue to encourage manufacturers to provide clear and accessible information about their products and to promote good practice through specific guidelines on information for medicines, foods and consumer products. All these guidelines already do, or will when published, include recommendations on the minimum size of text.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer. Is he aware that, according to a survey by the RNIB, some 11 million people in this country find it difficult to read medicine labels or information provided by doctors or hospitals; that 3 million people find it impossible to read the labelling on food products and that another 10 million find that difficult; that the problem is exacerbated by small print on coloured backgrounds; and that this has serious safety implications for people who are diabetic, allergy

373
sufferers or for the safe use of products? Will he therefore encourage good practice—as is being put forward by the RNIB and, for example, Lilly UK, a pharmaceutical company—in order to ensure that information is easily accessible to people who would otherwise not be able to read it properly?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the short answer to that is, "Yes". My noble friend is quite right: currently there are some very bad examples, particularly of medicine labelling, which are very difficult for people to understand. Even if they have no visual impairment, the labelling is very difficult to read.
Since the introduction of new guidelines in 1999 the situation has improved. The Medicines Control Agency now has a positive role in vetting the new labels. Many of these new labels are better. If I was allowed to use visual aids in your Lordships' House, I could hold up examples of good practice. Clearly, we need to do better than that. At the moment the Committee on Safety of Medicines is engaged in recommending additional guidance for manufacturers. We hope that those will be introduced later on this year.
Lord Addington: My Lords, can the Minister give us an assurance that the Government are encouraging those involved in labelling to provide back-up in the form of descriptions to those who are selling. If someone simply cannot access the written word, no matter what the type of printing, it will not help.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think that that brings us to the role of the community pharmacist. I very much agree that that facility ought to be used to give advice to those members of the public who need it. We see the community pharmacist playing an increasingly important role in providing such advice.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, while it is encouraging to hope that the manufacturers and the pharmaceutical companies will recognise their responsibilities in producing readable, larger print labels, if the blind or poorly sighted sectors of the community are affected, is the answer that the use of Braille in some form or another ought to be encouraged? In that way, those who have difficulty reading large print, because they are trained Braille readers may keep out of trouble.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is my understanding that at least one company includes Braille labelling on all its own label range of medicines. My noble friend will be pleased to know that the company is the Co-operative Society.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, has the Minister seen the pieces of plastic that are given out in Denmark, in some cases in chemists' shops? They are about two and a half inches by one inch and are, in effect, a magnifying glass but magnifying plastic. They enable people to see exactly what the ingredients are on
374
small packets, particularly in the case of medicines. If at the moment we hand out plastic spoons for cough mixture, would it not be equally feasible to do that in conjunction with labelling? Some of these blister packs are so small that one cannot read them, even with good sight. One needs a magnifying glass for all the information contained on them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not sure that at this moment Denmark is the country to which I particularly would choose to look for good examples! But, that is a very helpful suggestion. I have not seen examples of that, but I should be very happy to look into it.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Lord has concentrated in his answers on medicines. Will he use his best offices to ensure that food is also properly labelled? Many people with poor eyesight have allergies and need to know what food contains.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords, there are food labelling regulations which require food labels to be easily visible, clearly legible and indelible. But I agree that there are many examples of poor food labelling. The Food Standards Agency has produced a taskforce report suggesting how the regulations of 1996 could be made more explicit. That is subject to consultation at the moment. Again, I hope that the agency will publish further advice later in the year which will enable us to get much better labelling on food products.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, as we have been talking about eyesight, would not a minimum font size be quite a good idea?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes. Within medicines there is a minimum font size in relation to the packaging of labels, which is seven point Didot, which I can reassure noble Lords is very small indeed. That is why we are anxious to produce voluntary guidelines in this country which will encourage manufacturers to go much further and better than the legislative guidelines.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, are garden products included in this? A great many garden products are very dangerous. For instance, if chives which have been sprayed against slugs are eaten, they would not do your child a bit of good.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that that comes under the category of consumer product safety legislation. That requires manufacturers to give clear information about safe use. My understanding is that the relevant government department publishes guidance. I shall draw the comments of the noble Baroness to the relevant department.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of Coeliac disease. I was not aware of it until last year. The Coeliac society, as the Minister is aware,

375
does a first-class job. But is he convinced that the labelling of products by shops and supermarkets for those who suffer from this illness-people do not like to call it a disease because it is not transferable—is adequate?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords; practice is variable and the Government will continue to talk to manufacturers to ensure that as much information as possible is given.

People Trafficking
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smithasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take following the evidence presented on Channel 4 on Sunday 9th June concerning people trafficking into the United Kingdom.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the United Kingdom Immigration Service will investigate all substantive evidence of abuse of immigration controls given in the documentary. We have a comprehensive strategy to tackle the organised immigration crime of people trafficking and smuggling. The strategy is set out in the White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Havens, and focuses on strengthening the law; tackling criminals through intelligence and enforcement; achieving international co-operation and prevention in source and transit countries; and dealing appropriately with the victims of trafficking. Together, those strands constitute a co-ordinated response to a global problem.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. It is somewhat reassuring to hear that, despite the delicacy of relationships between those responsible for administering and enforcing the law and those involved in journalism, especially investigative journalism, they are not, shall we say, inhibited by the need to protect sources and so on. However, the programme contained strong evidence in the international field. Can the Minister assure the House that work on the international front and the international aspects of that trade will be positively pursued as rapidly as possible?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance. The United Kingdom is at the forefront of international efforts to combat organised immigration crime through a number of means: negotiations, signing protocols, joint enforcement work and the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime, which covers trafficking and smuggling. So we are on the case and working with our partners across Europe and across the world to tackle what is frankly an appalling crime.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, how many prosecutions have been brought under Section 25 of the
376
Immigration Act 1971, which provides the power to arrest people who traffic in human beings? Can the Minister confirm that countries through which some of those people pass receive financial benefit from people who perpetrate such vile crime in human trafficking?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the section to which the noble Lord refers provides for prosecution of anyone,
"knowingly concerned in or making or carrying out arrangements for securing or facilitating"
illegal entry. I cannot specifically identify whether that provision has been used in the circumstances that the noble Lord described, but the power is there and available for use.
Our enforcement efforts during the past few years are bearing fruit. The Government set up the multi-agency Reflex organisation through the National Crime Squad working with the Immigration Service and certain other key local police forces—the Met and Kent police in particular. It has had great success. Since May 2000, I understand, there have been about 82 investigations into organised immigration crime, about 400 arrests, and 139 convictions, representing a 90 per cent success rate in the courts. So we are acting vigorously; Reflex is working well; we are working internationally; and the powers are there to deal with the matter.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most disturbing aspects of trafficking is the trafficking of children, unaccompanied minors? Does he recall that in a debate in your Lordships' House in March the Government stated that 66 children had disappeared from the care of West Sussex social services alone? How many more children have disappeared since March from West Sussex social services? What does he know about the plight and ultimate fate of those children?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's concern about the smuggling of children, as, I am sure, does every Member of your Lordships' House. It is a grave issue and we must at all times act vigorously on it. The noble Lord asks some specific questions to which I am afraid that I cannot provide the detailed answers from the Dispatch Box. I shall ensure that the information that the noble Lord seeks is provided to him and shared with the whole House.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the work of Reflex. Yesterday, together with other noble Lords, I visited the Reflex organisation as part of our sub-committee work. It is doing a tremendous amount of work, but, as it pointed out to us, the more it does, the more there is for it to do and it needs—that awful word—resources. Can my noble friend assure us that the Government will keep their eye on the resources for that unit, which is doing so much good work?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Reflex received £22·6 million from SR 2000 from the organised crime

377
reserve, which runs until 2004. Yes, we recognise the importance of providing resources equal to the task. That is constantly under review. Obviously, there is a current spending round in train and no doubt that is one of the priority areas on which the relevant Ministers will be focusing. I can give that guarantee.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords—
Lord Waddington: My Lords, with the greatest respect, I would ask the noble and learned Lord to be charitable as the earlier question ran on until 24 minutes into the sitting.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, but we have a 30-minute limit. I think that we must stick to it.

Consignia
3.36 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"This morning, Allan Leighton, the chairman of Consignia, announced the second phase of the company's restructuring plans. He announced that the Royal Mail would save £350 million a year by moving to a single delivery at a consistent time, six days a week, and that those plans will result in a further 17,000 redundancies over the next three years. He said:
'The underlying loss from operations graphically shows why we need to restructure the company and embark on a three-year renewal programme to restore profitability'.
"Thousands of postmen and women now face an anxious and difficult time. Those decisions are very painful for the workforce, who have shown their commitment to serving the public and who have often been frustrated and angered by poor management and failure to invest in better ways of working. Allan Leighton has made it clear that the company aims to achieve the reduction in jobs on the basis of voluntary redundancy and by offering alternative jobs within the company. Early indications from the Parcelforce restructuring, which I reported to the House on 25th March, suggest that that can be achieved. We will of course do everything that we can through Jobcentre Plus and other agencies to help people who leave the Royal Mail to get new jobs as quickly as possible.
"The need for radical action is underlined by the company's financial results for the last financial year, published today, in which it announced a —1.1 billion pre-tax loss. Much of the loss comprises exceptional costs from restructuring but the company made an underlying loss of —318 million on its day-to-day operations.
378
"Central to the programme to restore the mails business to profit and to improving service and efficiency is the re-organisation of mail deliveries that Allan Leighton announced today. The Communication Workers Union has said that it also supports the ending of the second delivery.
"Twenty years ago, 15 per cent of all mail arrived by the second delivery. Today that is just 4 per cent, but that 4 per cent of mail accounts for 20 per cent of delivery costs and 30 per cent of delivery time. Most other European countries, with far higher postal prices, make only a single delivery each day and none of them has a target of delivering before 9.30 a.m.
"In future, customers who regularly receive 20 or more items of mail a day will receive their delivery between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. That will include people working from home as well as businesses. All other customers will receive their mail by lunchtime. Those changes will mean that 1 million more first class letters every week should arrive on time. The changes will also mean that postmen and women can work a five day week, instead of the current six.
"Let me put Consignia's announcement into context. Allan Leighton said this morning:
'These losses did not happen overnight. Unresolved issues and problems stretching back for up to a decade are reflected in these results'.
"When this Government came into office in 1997, we immediately took steps to fulfil our manifesto commitment to give the Post Office what management and unions had long been arguing for—greater commercial freedom. The Postal Services Act 2000 completed that process, creating a plc and giving the company the freedom to borrow for growth investment. We cut back its 'dividend' to normal commercial levels and we announced the appointment of a new finance director in October 2000. In April 2001, Lord Sawyer was appointed to look at deep-rooted industrial relations problems in Royal Mail. This year, we strengthened management further by appointing a new chairman and securing a new chief executive for the Post Office network.
"Greater commercial freedom is the right policy. But in exercising these new freedoms, decisions were made that, with the benefit of hindsight, we can now see were wrong. In his announcement, Allan Leighton said that,
"management mistakes have been made over a number of years".
"The company decided, for instance, to expand internationally—a strategy supported by many distinguished observers, including the Trade and Industry Select Committee. But other European postal operators were already ahead of the game—and in the meantime Consignia lost control of its costs at home. Costs went on rising at a time revenue growth was slowing. In 2001 the growth of mail volume, at 3 per cent, was half that of 1999. The financial results published today show that overall turnover grew by 3·6 per cent, but that this was

379
outstripped by a 4·8 per cent rise in costs. The result is that the company is now running at an underlying loss of £1·2 million a day. These losses cannot continue, and over the next three years, under the renewal plan, the losses will be eliminated and the company returned to profit.
"I can also inform the House that the group chief executive, John Roberts, will be retiring later this year once his successor has been appointed. The search for his successor will begin immediately.
"Let me stress to the House that today's announcement, like the Parcelforce restructuring, is not the result of any decision by the regulator. Both announcements are about stemming the losses and creating an efficient company. Today's announcement would have been made whatever the decision made by Postcomm.
"But I would like to put on record the fact that I welcome the announcement by Postcomm about the adjustments to the timing of its proposals, the change in the definition of bulk mail and the decision to monitor the market closely to ensure that the universal service is not put at risk. In reaching its decision, Postcomm has clearly listened to the many representations made by honourable Members as well as from other stakeholders, including the Communications Workers Union.
"The challenge now is for Consignia to improve the quality and reliability of its services so that it can keep its customers rather than lose market share.
"Let me deal next with the financial issues associated with today's announcement. I have agreed a package of measures to put the company on the right financial footing to enable it to deliver this renewal programme. Consignia plc has reserves on its balance sheet of £1·8 billion, which represents accumulated past dividends and cash generated by the business. These are more commonly referred to as the 'gilts'. The Government now propose that the £1.8 billion of gilts will be held by the group holding company as reserves while the business is being turned around. These reserves will be available to back the investment required in the mails business to implement the renewal programme and to support the nation-wide network of post offices, subject, where necessary, to the relevant state aid clearances.
"As I explained to the House on 25th March, the Government have agreed to forgo the projected dividend for 2001–02, releasing an additional £64 million for the company. I told the House then that,
'a decision on dividends for other years will be taken in the context of the strategic plan'.
I can tell the House today that the company will be allowed to retain the notional dividends for the previous year as well as part of the overall £1.8 billion of reserves. In addition, I can confirm that the Government do not expect to take cash out of the business by way of future dividends during the three years of the renewal plan.
380
"As part of our decision on the gilts, we have agreed to fund the Post Office network's historic losses. David Mills, the new chief executive officer of the Post Office, is working up a strategic plan for the network which will look at new ways of increasing revenues from commercial activities. As we informed the House on 26th April we have committed up to £210 million for compensation for sub-postmasters in the urban networks who are planning to leave the business and for investment in urban offices. The House will have a further opportunity to debate this when state aid clearance is granted.
"I welcome today's announcement by the company that it intends to change its corporate name to Royal Mail Group plc by the end of this year. Her Majesty the Queen has agreed in principle to this name change. Few will mourn the passing of the name Consignia, and I will not be one of them.
"Allan Leighton and his colleagues have shown that they are willing to make the very tough decisions needed to turn the company round. But the company is now set on a course for renewal and recovery. It will not be easy, but, as today's announcement shows, it is essential if we are to have a Royal Mail that the workforce can be proud of and that delivers the service that customers deserve".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.46 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the other place earlier today.
I expect the Minister is probably as sad as we all are to hear of the problems in Consignia and of the company's dreadful results last year, although, following earlier statements, they were expected and did not come as any great surprise.
Less than 10 years ago the Post Office was perceived as the best of its kind in the world. Unlike its European competitors it was profitable, its delivery performance was top of the international league table and its then chief executive boasted of the workforce as his 200,000 in-house consultants and ambassadors to the public. The "postie" was trusted and respected. Then we get today's Statement.
The figures are, by anyone's standards, quite shocking. Only three years ago, when the Post Office was making profits of around half-a-billion pounds annually, the then Secretary of State was pleased to announce that the Postal Services Bill, which was to become the Postal Services Act of 2002, would ensure that the company had a golden future and was set to become a global force. Instead, its performance has deteriorated; morale and performance in the workforce is low; and we learn that last year there was a pre-tax loss of £ 1·1 billion, equivalent to £1·2 million every trading day, with all of its businesses losing money.

381
The Statement repeats what Allan Leighton had said. There had been management mistakes over a number of years. I am sure that that is right. But no mention is made of the disastrous industrial relations of the company during that time. I know that the Government have to be aware of it because they set up the inquiry under the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, to look into the business. Does the Minister agree that that factor has also contributed to the situation? Indeed, does he agree that the Government have also played a large part in the débâcle?
There will be no surprise at the terrible loss of 30,000 jobs. That has been trailed for quite some time. We are pleased and welcome the fact that it is intended to achieve those job losses by voluntary means. However, can the Minister give the House more information on the financial details which will allow the Post Office to use the money that has been invested in gilts over many years? Will this also require clearance from the European Commission under the provisions of state aid? This redundancy money has to come from somewhere, somehow, apart from the costs involved in the restructuring of the company.
It is said in the Statement that the announcement, like the restructuring, was not the result of any decision by the regulator. However, can the Minister state the Government's attitude to the application by the Post Office to increase the price of first and second-class posts? I would be interested to know what the Government think. Is the Minister confident that the Post Office is not simply trying to increase its prices in an area where it does have a monopoly in order to subsidise its heavy loss-making operation in areas where it is subject to competition? It is important, if the company is to get itself right, that we have all this information on the table and know from where we are starting.
We appreciate that the second-class delivery accounts for only 4 per cent of the mail but for 20 per cent of the costs. Are the Government confident that the fears of many people running small firms and working from home about the difficulties entailed if they receive their mail much later than others are unfounded? Will this not also mean a bigger burden for the Post Office if it is delivering first-class post between 7 and 9 a.m. but other businesses or homes in a similar area do not receive their mail until lunchtime?
The Minister has not said too much about the regulator's proposal to open up the market to competition, but we assume that that is still the plan. We welcome that. We believe that not only would competition assist the consumer but that it would assist the Post Office itself if it has to decide to work within certain parameters. Does the Minister agree that, in this area, there are still great opportunities for the Post Office, including potential sources of revenue from allowing other operators access to its delivery network? So far, the Post Office has been unwilling to negotiate realistic terms and prices on access charges. Does the Minister share our disappointment at that
382
attitude? Does he agree that, if there is to be true competition, the issue of VAT will have to be addressed sooner or later?
When the Postal Services Act was introduced, we were told that the Post Office would remain a fully state-owned corporation. The Minister will recall the numerous questions that I asked his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, as to whether or not the Post Office had been in negotiation with TPG, a Dutch company, to sell off the English Post Office. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury—and we certainly accept what he said—said that he was unaware of any of that. However, we later found out that that would most certainly have happened had the negotiations not broken down at the very last stage. So will the Minister now tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government would be willing to see the Post Office sold off to a foreign operator, or is the Post Office to remain—as defined at the time of the Postal Services Act—a fully state-owned corporation? It is important that a reply is placed on the record, considering all the previous confusion.
How will the Post Office network now be sustained, particularly in rural areas? There are only nine months to go before payment of benefits across the counter—which accounts for 40 per cent of the revenue—ceases.
Finally, we welcome—as I believe the whole House does—the dropping of the name "Consignia" and the return to the use of "Royal Mail". It was an absolute mockery of all good marketing techniques to drop a well-trusted, well-respected name, and to waste money in doing so, in return for a name that was never accepted from the word go. However, I should like the Minister to explain—although I have a certain sympathy with him; it would have been easier had the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, still been the responsible Minister—to explain this point to me. When I asked whether the name "Consignia" would be dropped and whether there would be a return to the original name, I was given a terse, curt, short answer. The answer was simply "No", and that was that. If it were not unparliamentary, I should say that it was a rude answer.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I join in the thanks to the Minister for repeating the Statement, However, I know from the remarks of the noble Baroness and from seeing the faces around this Chamber that we all regard this as an extremely sad day for the Post Office.
The opportunity should not be missed for both of the other political parties to accept their share of responsibility for what has happened. Up until 1997 the Conservative Party had every opportunity to give the Post Office the commercial freedom for which it was asking and it did nothing about it. It was during that period that the steps that the Post Office should have been taking in all kinds of areas were not taken because of the inactivity of the Conservative government. The situation today is the result of that inactivity.

383
Some criticism should also be accepted by Her Majesty's Government, first, for the delay that occurred in giving the Post Office what the Government say that it wanted. I noted very carefully the words of the Statement:
"When this Government came to office in 1997, we immediately took steps to fulfil our manifesto commitment to give the Post Office what management and unions had long been arguing for—greater commercial freedom".
A word has crept in; namely, "greater". That was not what the management and unions were asking for; we debated this issue in the House. What the Post Office was actually asking for was "commercial freedom" full-stop. What we now have is the worst of all worlds. The Post Office has not had what it wants, and the Government have been sucked inexorably back into being the lender of last resort to the Post Office and into having to take the actions with taxpayers' money that the Minister has announced today. The House should recognise that both political parties during their period of office, for whatever well-meaning reasons, have been at fault.
I follow the noble Baroness in asking one or two key questions. She touched on the plight of urban post offices. When the Government brought forward their proposals for rural post offices, a number of us in this House made the point that the elderly and the frail have just as great a problem if they are living in an urban area if their post office is closed as they do in a rural area. The Statement says that the Government are bringing forward plans to compensate sub-postmasters in urban areas who will be retiring. Have the Government any plans to assist the elderly and the frail in urban areas who will be deprived of a very necessary service in their community in the same way that plans are being brought forward in regard to rural areas?
Secondly, before the name "Consignia" is consigned to history, will the Minister give some indication as to what the cost of the "Consignia" operation has been? What has it cost the Post Office to conceive, develop, reprint, and rebrand itself as "Consignia", and then to abandon it?
Thirdly, is this an opportunity for the issue of the opening up of competition for the Post Office to be reconsidered? Does the Post Office need a longer breathing space to get its act together and to get into a position to be able adequately to compete with the competition before it is introduced?
Finally—this is a fundamental point and was touched on by the noble Baroness—there seems to be some inconsistency in the Government's position as set out in the Statement. There is a bland comment about the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, being asked to undertake a review of industrial relations in the Post Office. When the noble Lord's report was produced, and when it was debated in this House, a general feeling of optimism emerged that the worst was over and that all would be well if the recommendations were implemented. The Statement is rather silent on that aspect. I suspect that that is so because the remarks being made by Allan Leighton are not consistent with the optimism that was expressed by the noble Lord in
384
his report. The House should be told whether the Government agree with the general optimism about employee relations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, or with the more critical attacks on the Post Office workforce made by Allan Leighton.
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their response to this Statement. I agree with them immediately that this is a very sad day. It is a sad day for the Post Office and a sad day for all of us as Post Office users. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I have to say that the picture painted by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, of a golden age of the Post Office in the good old days under a Conservative government is a little bit far from the truth.
I think that we should be humble enough to remember how, in the good old days, we used to criticise the Post Office. We used to criticise British Rail—did we not?—for multiple shortcomings. We have to recognise, I think, that Allan Leighton was right to say, as he has done today, that the problems of Consignia/Royal Mail Holdings are deep-seated and that the current performance is the result of failure to address these issues over a number of years. That failure refers not only to the Post Office management but to government. We should remember, and the Conservative Party should remember, that it was under a Conservative government that the external financing limit was set and that very considerable sums were drawn off from the Post Office which it was not able to use for investment. For example, automated sorting equipment which should have been in place many years ago was frustrated by the fact that the government were not allowing the Post Office to use its dividends or the cash it generated.
I think that everyone is right to pay tribute to the workforce. Again, however, the criticism that at the moment we have particularly low morale in the workforce does not square very well with the fact that, five years ago, industrial action in the Post Office accounted for almost 1 million days lost per year. It was the greatest single element of days lost through industrial action. Those figures are very much lower—enormously lower—than they were then. That must be some indication of the changes taking place.
I do not know that I am qualified to comment on the difference between what the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, thinks and what Mr Leighton thinks, and I do not think that a third view from the Government is particularly called for. Clearly, however, the workforce who have indeed been threatened by these very significant losses have been behaving with a good deal of responsibility, and they have been supportive of some of the changes that are taking place. In particular, the union is supportive of the suppression of the second delivery.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about the use of the £1·8 billion gilts and whether state aid clearance was available in particular for redundancy money. State aid clearance is required for some of the

385
purposes for which the £1·8 billion will be available. That does not include restructuring costs, which are themselves an investment in a more efficient workforce. Clearly, however, there are state aid elements, particularly in support of the network.
What view do we take on the application for increased prices? We take the view that price rises should not be used to camouflage inefficiency. That is what happened in the past, and it is certainly what happened under Conservative governments. I do not believe that that is the case now, and the Government are convinced that an application for a price rise in the context of the renewal plan is an appropriate one for Postcomm to consider.
I think that there is some confusion about second class mail and second delivery. There is no change in second class mail. What is proposed is the suppression of the second delivery, which could be both second class and first class mail. It is a legitimate point to say that the target of delivery between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. for small businesses and those with more than 20 items is a significant challenge for the Post Office. That is why pilots are under way as to how it can be achieved. If it can be achieved, that will be a significant improvement for many small businesses.
I agree with the welcome that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, extended to the openness to competition. I also agree with her that the opportunities arising from competition are for both Post Office customers and the Post Office itself. As for the issue of charges for access to the network, if there is no agreement about it Postcomm is in place to monitor and take decisions in its regulatory role.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about TPG and the negotiations between the parties. I know that she and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, are in correspondence with my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, and I do not wish to make of that a four-cornered conversation.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the matter has been sorted out. I was referring only to the future.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that; I shall make no further comment.
As for the name, I am told that it cost about £2 million to change to Consignia. It will cost a great deal less to go back to Royal Mail Holdings.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, may I say in particular as a former Post Office worker that this is a very sad day, possibly the saddest day in the history of the Post Office? I welcome the frankness with which Allan Leighton has addressed the issues and acknowledged management faults. However, I should also like to say that John Roberts, who is resigning later this year as managing director, is a man who contributed massively to the profits of those earlier years.
386
I have some questions for the Government. Allan Leighton has confessed management mistakes to which the Secretary of State referred in her Statement to the House, saying that with the freedom that had been given, mistakes had been made by the Post Office management. I refer to the Horizon project, which cost £1 billion. Mr Leighton says of it:
"The incremental costs of running the Horizon system has turned the counter services into a fundamentally unprofitable operation—a position that will be exacerbated by the move of Benefits Agency transactions away from the counters network after April 2003".
Does the Minister acknowledge that the Government had their hand very much in the decisions of the Horizon project and transferred the Horizon project to the Post Office with a write-off of £571 million? Was there no government hand in that decision?
I shall limit myself to one other question. If there are all these commercial freedoms for the Post Office, how many officials are there in the department dealing with the Post OfficeȔ10, 20, 30? How many? And what do they do all day if there is all this commercial freedom?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not dissent from anything that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, says about John Roberts and his responsibility in the early years. However, I think that it is true to say that he is retiring rather than resigning later in the year.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I understand that he was asked to stay on but decided to take retirement.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Statement makes clear that there have been many mistakes by the Post Office, probably before but certainly during the period of greater commercial freedom which has taken place since the Government took office. In so far as that greater commercial freedom is constrained, the Government must bear their share of the responsibility.
I do not know how many officials in the Department of Trade and Industry are dealing with the Post Office. I doubt whether a large number are dealing solely with the Post Office rather than having it as part of their responsibilities. My strong hunch is that the number would be considerably fewer than when the Post Office was itself a government department and there was nothing like the degree of commercial independence for the Post Office. As has been made clear, there is a price to pay for that commercial independence. One of those prices has been the Horizon project to which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, refers with his great knowledge of the subject.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that one of the consequences of this humiliating Statement about the Post Office's business will not be the further dilution of already skeletal services in many rural areas?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have imposed a duty on the Post Office to protect the rural

387
post office network. That has had some results already in the sense that there are unavoidable losses when a sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress retires and no one can he found to replace them. If we talk of avoidable losses, those have been substantially reduced this year compared with last year. The Government, the Post Office and Postcomm have this matter very much in mind.
I can now give an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, about the number of officials. Apparently 30 officials are involved. The costs of the Horizon project will he covered by the use of the gilts.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, the House will welcome the frankness with which the Statement has been made. Will the Minister comment further on the significance of the return to a Royal service? That surely means not only that it is managed and run financially in a first-class way but also that the people of our country have a first-class service. We have heard that we are losing the second delivery—that may be financially justified; that private households may not receive their mail until the middle of the day; and that private enterprises with a mail of fewer than 20 items will not receive it until later in the day. Many people are anxious about the loss of rural and urban post offices. Will the Minister give us more of a steer about how the use of the Royal name will lead to a better service for the people?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Allan Leighton replied rather effectively this morning to that point on the "Today" programme. I think he said that we have terrific brands, an unrivalled network, still a monopoly position for a large part of the service, and a dedicated workforce; and if we cannot make money in due course from that then we should all go home. The right reverend Prelate is right. The Royal name brand is a very valuable brand in marketing terms, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, would agree. It is very good news that we are going back to it with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, my views are well known and clear. It is a Labour Government who have destroyed the British postal service. I shall not repeat what I have been saying over the past couple of years and before the Postal Services Act. Like the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, I view today as a sad day. It is terribly sad for the 17,000 people and those from Parcelforce, and their families, who face redundancy, whether or not it is voluntary. We all know how voluntary redundancies can be achieved. Is the Minister aware that the cream of the postal service workers will probably go? Because they have given longer service, they will take redundancy leaving the service the poorer. I hope that every effort will be made to keep those workers.
I am glad that Allan Leighton has been able to say, as we have heard in the Statement, that £1.8 billion is available to assist at this difficult time. That gives the
388
lie to those ill-informed people who believe that the Post Office has received money from the Government from increased tariffs. That has never been allowed because of political interference. I am glad that that idea has been put to bed. The £1·8 billion is rightly to be used by the Post Office. I hope that the Minister welcomes that demonstration of how profitable and good our postal services were.
Does the Minister agree that the structure announced will assist in bringing about the long-awaited introduction of better working conditions? For the first time it includes a five-day week for people who get up at 4.30 in the morning to walk about in the rain. I should declare an interest. I was a postman. My former boss sits on the Cross Benches. He will understand that those people deserve that consideration. Allan Leighton has referred to low pay. I hope that the restructuring will bring about a better remuneration package for those who have suffered for so long.
At this dreadful time, perhaps we can avoid any suggestion that the chief executive who is to depart is in any way culpable for what has happened. I believe—it is not an ill-informed view—that John Roberts has performed his task admirably, dedicatedly and with great integrity given the political interference to which I have referred on a number of occasions. He has never had the freedom to manage his business that he should have had. We should put on record our gratitude for the job that he has done.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, is too modest to say, as he is entitled to do, that during the passage of the Postal Services Bill he indicated that what has been announced today would occur. He was right: there can be no doubt about it. He is right to say that the loss of a further 17,000 jobs is tragic for those concerned, including their families. Whether that means that the cream of the workforce will leave is an issue of human resource management. I think he would agree that there have been severe deficiencies in human resource management as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer. But it is a challenge now for the management of the Post Office to ensure that that is not the case.
I am grateful for his welcome of the release of the gilts. I confirm what he says about better working conditions: a five-day week is now available although a six-day service is part of the universal service obligation which will be adhered to.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said about the early stage of Mr Roberts' career as chief executive and the fact that he ran a profitable Post Office at that time.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am glad that I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, because in essence he has made a point that I wanted to make. Occasionally, I meet a former chairman of the Post Office, who is not a Member of this House, at the bridge table. The other day he made a passing remark

389
to me: "There is no such thing as a bad workforce, only bad management". Like other noble Lords, I welcome the frankness of the Statement in that respect.
However, I am confused by the Minister's partial explanation of the paragraph that refers to customers who regularly receive 20 or more items of mail a day and that they will receive their delivery between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. I believe that I understood the Minister to say that that had no bearing on first and second-class posts, although he is looking at me rather woodenly. Perhaps I can take that as a nod. On this subject I regularly declare an interest as a director of a rural mail order and mail delivery firm. It occurs to me that our address is the only one for about four miles around to receive on average well over 20 items of mail a day, which means that the sorting office will send a special delivery to us between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. However, the next door house, which receives perhaps on average three, four or five items of mail a day, will not have its mail delivered at the same time but, by definition, the mail will be delivered as part of a postal round that will take place later in the day. I cannot see the management logic of that. Can the Minister explain it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, first and second-class mail refers to the targets for next-day or longer delivery with the corresponding price. That is a quite separate issue from whether there is a second delivery in any one year—I should say "day". First-class and second-class mail can be delivered by the first or the second delivery. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about small businesses that receive on average more than 20 items a day. I found the word "regularly" a little confusing—"on average" is clearer. I appreciate that to go down a long lane twice, once to a small business and once to the house next door that receives fewer than 20 items a day, would be madness. Such matters can be sorted out in the pilot projects that are being undertaken.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am delighted that Consignia is no longer to be called "Consignia", but "Royal Mail". Can the Minister tell me whether I am justified in hoping that our postage stamps will continue to bear the Queen's head for many a year to come?
Turning to pricing, the Post Office has two very strong competitors in the area of letters: e-mails and faxes. That will need to be borne in mind when raising the cost of sending letters. It also has a huge delivery of what I believe the Minister calls "bulk mail" and most of us call "junk mail" and which most of us do not want. Is there a chance that losses could be recouped on the delivery of letters by charging a little more for junk mail?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can give the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, the categoric assurance that we will not be taking the Queen's head off the stamps at any time in the foreseeable future. I appreciate her point about competition from e-mails and faxes. Some people are surprised that mail
390
volumes continue to rise when there are such alternatives. She is right to say that a considerable part of the increase is what she calls "junk mail" and we call "bulk mail". There are severe limitations on the degree to which one can discriminate by price. The universal service obligation is that there should be a delivery every day to every part of the country at a fixed and standardised price. That limits the scope for doing what she would like to do.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister agree, as has been hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, that this sad news raises a broader issue for the Government? This week Mr Mandelson proclaimed that we are all Thacherites now. On these Benches we do not happen to be so. Does the Minister agree that that news, following recent bad news about our railways, raises a much broader point about whether there should be public ownership in certain spheres in order to deliver a good, universal public service? Does he agree that the Government should reconsider their proclaimed Thatcherite position and consider the need to revive public ownership of the service?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is not the only one who is not a Thatcherite. I am not a Thatcherite and I do not believe that any noble Lords on these Benches are Thatcherites. Mr Mandelson is not a member of the Government and can speak to himself—for himself. Once you start on malapropisms, you cannot stop! He was talking in a different context. The answer to the noble Lord is that the Royal Mail is publicly owned and it will continue to be publicly owned.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have three questions. First, will the £1·8 billion in gilts be available to the Post Office for all time to use as it wishes, without the Treasury having a lien on it? Secondly, how can we sustain a first-class service and a second-class service for the same amount of payment?
A noble Lord: My Lords, time!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, no other noble Lord will be able to ask a question now so I may as well stay on my feet! I could ask my questions much faster if I was not interrupted. The cost of a stamp will be exactly the same for private and for commercial customers, but one set of customers will be treated differently from another. In other words, one set will be treated worse than the other. I just wonder whether, if there is a challenge in the courts, that will be sustainable.
My final question relates to the Post Office network. In his statement, Mr Leighton referred to the fact that Brussels was holding up the application for a package of £210 million to assist the retention and the development of urban post offices. Can the Minister or the Government do anything to speed up such a decision, which I hope will be in the affirmative?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the convention of the House is that I am supposed to

391
answer no more than two questions from each Member. The Government recognise that it will be necessary for about £800 million of the £1·8 billion to he used for restructuring purposes and the Post Office can use the remainder for investment and for the protection of the network. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is just confused about the issue of first and second-class stamps. That is not at issue in relation to the change from two deliveries to a single delivery.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
4.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Those of your Lordships who watched the Queen's procession to St Paul's will have seen that historic moment when she had to stop at Temple Bar for the ancient ceremony as she entered the City of London. As we consider this Bill to reform the City's electoral system, we would do well to keep that historical perspective in mind.
The City's system of governance goes back to the 14th century and beyond and is unique in the United Kingdom. It will remain unique if the Bill becomes law.
While, happily, it is no longer the policy of any party to abolish the City Corporation, it is widely recognised that the City's franchise has become outdated and in need of reform. If the proposals in the Bill are enacted, and if the other reforms outside its scope are implemented —about which I will comment in a moment—they will provide an electoral system that much better reflects the realities of the City's pre-eminent position as one of the world's leading financial centres.
The Bill comes to us after a long debate in another place. No one knows that better than my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who, as the then right honourable Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, with great skill and much good humour—for which he has already made a reputation in this House—debated the 182 amendments and the 16 new clauses tabled in another place. After he joined us here, that task fell to be completed by my right honourable friend Sir George Young.
We have been accustomed in this House to receive Bills from another place that have had scant, or in some parts, no debate at all. That cannot be said about this Bill. It was deposited as long ago as November 1998, and after nearly 27 hours of debate in the Chamber at the other end and six days in Committee, it finally received its Third Reading in April this year. The Bill's passage in another place took about three and a half years!
392
The present electoral system in the City gives the vote to around 5,700 residents and some 16,000 professional people such as barristers, sole proprietors and traders, and individual partners in professional and trading firms. As everyone knows, the vast majority of the people who work in the City are directors or employees of the thousands of companies based there. The preponderance of the revenues raised by the Corporation comes from the non-domestic rate levied on those companies. Yet only residents, professionals, sole traders and partners may vote in elections to the Common Council.
The main thrust of the Bill is therefore to enable the broadest range of interests represented in the City to participate in the electoral process. That is not to suggest that the City has been remiss in its duties. On the contrary, the Common Council—the body that discharges the local authority functions in the City—is widely credited for its innovative activities, its support for regeneration, particularly in its neighbouring boroughs in east London, and for many other activities. I believe the House would wish to acknowledge the important role of the two people widely credited with introducing and carrying forward those policies: Michael Cassidy, the previous chairman of policy and resources, and Judith Mayhew, the present chairman.
The City is regularly praised for the way in which it runs Epping Forest, part of which lies in my former constituency, and Hampstead Heath. I take some personal pride in the fact that it was when I was Secretary of State for the Environment that we decided that Hampstead Heath should be managed by the City Corporation.
I shall not weary the House with the details of all the reports and inquiries that have led to the present situation and to the decisions that have been made, except to remind the House of the words of the present Government in their 1997 Green Paper, New Leadership for London:
"We have made it clear that we do not propose to abolish the City Corporation. In recent years the Corporation has sought to play a much more positive role in order to promote inward investment and to fund schemes and studies for the benefit of London as a whole. The Corporation has assured the Government that it will continue to develop this work and has accepted that it must respond to the need to improve its electoral arrangements".
That last point is the purpose of the Bill, and it is to the Bill that I now turn.
Clauses 1 and 2 give the Long Title and define the terms used. The new franchise is conferred on "qualifying bodies", which are defined by Clause 2 as including both incorporated and unincorporated bodies, apart from the partnerships already in the franchise. A broad definition has deliberately been taken to embrace the widest range of interests represented in the City community. Thus it includes not only companies and incorporated partnerships, but also charities, the voluntary sector—and, as I am sure the right reverend Prelate will be delighted to hear—the churches.
Clause 3 is the principal provision. It sets out the entitlement of qualifying bodies to appoint individuals for inclusion in the ward lists of electors. Such

393
appointed people will therefore be able to vote in ward elections. The extent of the entitlement to appoint is to be determined by the size of the workforce in the relevant premises, as detailed in subsections (2) and (3).
That is the main change made in another place. When the Bill was originally introduced there, entitlement was linked to rateable values, but after considerable debate, it was agreed that the size of the workforce was a better way of settling voting rights. The basis of entitlement is now to be one person for a workforce of up to five, one further individual for each subsequent five employees up to a workforce of 50, with an additional person for every 50 of any excess.
Clause 4 requires qualifying bodies to reflect, so far as they can, the composition of their workforces in their appointments. Those appointed by qualifying bodies must be able to demonstrate an association with the City. Clause 5 establishes a link with the period of that person's work in the City. There has been a great deal of discussion as to how the process will be achieved. Guidance will be issued in due course to employers as to how they might conduct it. Many employers will of course use their well-established machinery for employee relations.
Clause 6 excludes Crown bodies such as government departments from the extended franchise. That was agreed at an early stage when the draft Bill was discussed with the Government.
Clause 7 requires reports on the new arrangements to be submitted to the Secretary of State, who must lay them before Parliament. The remaining clauses are machinery and mainly technical and transitional.
The question of the Bill's compatibility with human rights legislation was the subject of much debate in another place. We are familiar in dealing with the issue in Public Bills. In this case, the case of a Private Bill, the statement on compatibility was made on behalf of the promoters but I have a copy of a letter signed on behalf of the Government by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in which he endorsed that view and that it is not disputed. For completeness, perhaps I may add that the Bill was considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
I want to comment briefly on the accompanying reforms which do not form part of the Bill. Reference was made in the Green Paper, from which I quoted, to the position of aldermen. As most people know, aldermen in the City of London are quite different from those who existed in local government generally and who were abolished some years ago. In local authorities, they were selected by the other members but City aldermen have always been directly elected. Indeed, they were the first elected representatives of the City.
Formerly, election was for life—or at least until the age of 70—but that is no longer the case. The City has enacted in its legislative instrument—in its own area it is a legislative body—an Act of Common Council, by
394
which the term of office for an alderman is set at six years. If he wants to continue and can persuade his electors, he can stand for re-election.
Another reform has been long overdue. There used to be a procedure for a post-election veto on the appointment of an aldermen because all the aldermen sit in the City as magistrates. That function has been taken over by the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee and approval of such appointment will be made or withheld before someone puts himself forward as alderman.
A reform which was discussed in another place, and in which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may have a particular interest, is the review of ward boundaries. If there are to be more electors, selected in the manner which I have described, is there not a danger that the voice of the 5,700 residents will be substantially reduced? It has been agreed that that should not be the case and that the ratio of residents' representatives on Common Council should remain approximately the same.
They are preponderant in only four of the City's wards and it is therefore possible to deal with the matter by revising ward boundaries. Indeed, that process has already started by revising the boundaries in order to ensure that the predominantly residential wards will be able to elect the number of members of the Common Council so as to preserve that proportion. Those who study the number of electors in each ward will recognise that they remain extremely uneven and the process of reform, which continues, can deal with that.
My Lords, this is an unusual Bill but the City is an unusual place. The proposals have been subject to long and wide discussions both within the City and outside and with the Government and other interested parties. I believe that after long debate in another place the Bill comes to your Lordships' House in a form which represents an honest, workable and fair way of dealing with the widely acknowledged shortcomings of the present electoral arrangements in the City. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
4.43 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, began his speech by reference to the ceremony which attends the presence of Her Majesty the Queen on the boundary of the City, perhaps I may take this opportunity of congratulating the residents of another capital city in our kingdom, Cardiff, on the visit by Her Majesty today and on the honour which Her Majesty has bestowed on the College of Music and Drama in Cardiff: that of Royal status. I am sure that that will give great pleasure to all Welsh expatriates living in the City of London.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for his careful and detailed explanation of the provisions of the Bill. We are not concerned with whether the City should have its own local government, although if we were starting with a blank sheet of paper, we would not

395
make an exception for one particular area simply because of the extensive concentration of business which varies of course within the City. The Isle of Dogs may ultimately have as much office space as the City and I am sure that there would be no demand for it to be run from Tower Hamlets.
The arrangements which have developed in the City over the centuries have made the Corporation not only a successful unitary authority for its own area but also the curator of huge open spaces, the landlord of more than 2,000 houses in the surrounding boroughs and the largest port health authority in the UK. Those arrangements are unique and like many ancient and apparently anomalous English institutions they work amazingly well.
When the Bill was considered in another place, honourable Members agreed on the importance of the Corporation to the well being of the City of London, which is the most important financial centre in the world. They also agreed on the need for reform of the current electoral system, which they felt was flawed to the extent that it could not be addressed within the powers of the Bill as presented.
The promoters suggested that the Bill would form part of a wider set of reforms and the Committee in another place welcomed their assurance that inequalities of distribution would be dealt with by review of the ward boundaries, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. That was said to be within the powers of the Corporation. But there was some uncertainty about the Corporation's powers and this is a good opportunity for setting the record straight, with the benefit of the legal advice which the Committee suggested the Corporation might obtain. Perhaps in winding up the Minister will explain that advice.
According to a letter I have received from the City Remembrancer's Office,
"The basis of the present ward structure appears to have been established by 1127 or thereabouts. On this assumption the power to alter boundaries could be said to be a custom of London exercisable by the Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of the City".
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was therefore being modest when he spoke of the arrangements being established in the 14th century; they appear to go back considerably further in time.
That was late in the reign of Henry I who had the reputation of being less hands on than most medieval monarchs, so the right moment was chosen to assert those powers. But the City has been a great urban centre for more than 1,000 years, as we were reminded by the opening on Tuesday of the great Roman amphitheatre below Guildhall.
But, the Remembrancer continues, the City also relies on a charter granted by Edward III in 1341—and that may be the charter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin—
"which provides a general power for the City to take corrective action".
That charter is cited in Acts of Common Council, though not in the preamble to this Bill. It is said to have been confirmed by Parliament in 1377 and, if that is so, why is the Act of 1377 not cited as the authority, and
396
why has it not been incorporated in a consolidation Bill since then? Or is it argued that the charter of 1341 remains in force as part of the law of the land?
The Committee took the view that both the number of wards and the number of ward representatives should be reduced. There are 25 wards, each represented by one alderman and between four and 12 councillors, There is also an unspecified number of co-opted members, though no doubt the number must have appeared in previous legislation. The Corporation has the power to reduce the number of representatives per ward, but only Parliament can reduce the number of wards. The Corporation indicated its intention to undertake a boundary review and the Committee observed that the opinion of the Boundary Commission for England might be sought on the matter.
The Corporation has reviewed the boundaries of two wards, Aldersgate and Cripplegate, and it was done with the benefit of advice from the Boundary Commission. The number of councillors has been reduced to 112 and there has been an undertaking by the promoters—and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm it—that the number will he brought down to 100 by the time the Bill comes into effect.
The Corporation has also improved the arrangements for consultation with residents and has reserved seats on the main committees for resident members. It is good that so much has been done ex gratia, but it would have been better if these concessions had been embodied in the Bill. As the noble Lord explained, the Bill has taken a long time to get this far, but perhaps that has provided a useful incentive to the Corporation to get on with some of the reforms which were suggested by the committee in another place. Will it go further and is there any intention ultimately to reduce the number of councillors to correspond with the major local authorities, including the London boroughs, which surround the City?
Has the Corportion explicitly rejected the proposal that the number of wards should be reduced, as suggested by the Committee and, if so, can the noble Lord tell us on what grounds? Does it consider that the aldermen should continue indefinitely? They are appointed automatically as JPs and, as explained, they also act as governors and trustees of schools, hospitals and charitable bodies with ancient City connections. I have no doubt that this is valuable work on behalf of the community. But it is not obvious to me that they are functions which require the holding of elected office. At present, the Lord Mayor has to be an alderman, but if aldermen were abolished, then he or she could be elected by the Common Council.
It was suggested by the honourable Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, when asked about aldermen at Second Reading in another place, that there were historic reasons for the retention of the office; that it was a matter of tradition, the Royal Commission of 1960, and the decision by Parliament to exempt the City when aldermen were abolished everywhere else in the 1970s. He did not attempt to

397
demonstrate that none of their functions could be performed by councillors, or by nominees in the case of the other offices mentioned. If in a particular case someone doing those tasks would be a useful member of a committee then, as I have already mentioned, there is a power of co-option, which is already used extensively.
The promoters have not sought to defend the power of veto which was formerly exercisable by the aldermen against elected councillors. I gather, and the noble Lord confirmed it, that there has been an undertaking that the power will not be used again in the future. Again, would it not have been preferable if this concession had been embodied in the present Bill?
The Bill itself deals only with the franchise in elections to the Common Council. It was a pity that these wider issues were not covered. An undertaking was given by the Corporation that it would report on further reforms proposed by the committee within five years, of which three have already elapsed. It would be good if the noble Lord could tell us the time scale of that report.
However, by focusing narrowly on the electoral roll, the promoters in some ways made life more difficult for themselves because the discussion centred entirely on the existence of the business vote and its extension by 39,000 votes under these proposals, apparently swamping the 8,000 residential voters. I say "apparently" because, as explained by the promoters, the residential and business votes are concentrated in separate wards so that the number of councillors elected by the vastly increased business vote would still be the same. It was said that their equity had been watered down, so to speak.
If I may say so, that was being a little economical with the truth. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was not entirely accurate when he said that the ratios between the business and residential vote had been maintained. It would only be fair to acknowledge that the promoters responded to the views expressed in another place and by the London Labour Party in making the business vote dependent on the number of employees rather than the rateable value, as in the original draft of the Bill. They also excluded the government and bodies exercising statutory powers from the businesses which were entitled to vote. Those amendments came at the end of consideration of the Bill in another place, which is another reason for being fairly relaxed about the long, drawn-out proceedings which, as the noble Lord explained, have taken three-and-a-half years so far.
The honourable Member for the Cities of London and Westminster said that the residents were entirely happy with the proposals in the Bill. They are apparently content to see the percentage of their vote considerably reduced, as shown by the Corporation's conclusions on the review of ward boundaries. I shall give the figures for the two wards which have already been reviewed. In Aldersgate, the effect of the boundary changes together with the extension of the business vote as now proposed in the Bill, is to reduce the residents from 91.9 per cent of the total to 72.8 per
398
cent. In Cripplegate the residents are down from 88.1 per cent to 77 per cent. So the ratios are not maintained, as the noble Lord claimed, even though in these two wards the residents still have quite a substantial majority.
In the wards adjacent—Farringdon Within, Farringdon Without, Coleman Street, Bassishaw and Cheap—residents were already greatly outnumbered by the business voters and after this Bill they will be in an even smaller minority. In no case dealt with under the review is the balance of power between the residents and business voters altered by the new franchise. Only seven out of the 25 wards have been effectively reviewed by being next door to the two which have been completed. That leaves another 18 wards which still have to be reviewed. Can the noble Lord say why all the wards were not reviewed at the same time instead of stringing out the process over several years? Has he any timetable for the rest of the process or do we have to rely on the original undertaking given in May 1999 to complete the review in not more than six years? Will the Corporation undertake to follow any advice given by the Boundary Commission in the remainder of the process and, if not, has it any proposals on how any differences of opinion between itself and the Boundary Commission are to be resolved?
The wards reviewed so far contain 4,614 voters out of a total of 5,700 on the list for 2001–02. If one considers the remaining wards, only two have a resident vote of more than 100 and in the other 16 there is a total of 269 residents who are already heavily outnumbered by the business vote in those wards. In Portsoken and Queenhithe, however, if the boundaries remain unchanged the residents will find themselves in a minority. The Corporation gave an undertaking that,
"The boundaries of the four residential wards will be adjusted to preserve the residential character of those wards prior to the introduction of the new arrangements".
I should be grateful if the noble Lord can confirm that in Portsoken and Queenhithe there will be majorities of residential voters after the boundary changes.
The petitioners have a number of other points which they wish to raise going beyond the Long Title of the Bill. One is greater transparency as regards City cash. It will be for the Select Committee to decide whether to give the latitude to do that. There is one matter on which I believe they are entitled to a better answer than they have been given so far and the noble Lord. Lord Jenkin, touched on it. It is the assertion that the Bill contravenes Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that elections must be held,
"under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people".
One of the petitioners wrote to Ms Jean Corston, MP, the chair of the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, asking her to elucidate the opinion of the Committee expressed in its 14th report of March 2002, that the Bill does not raise significant human rights questions. There is no indication in that report that the Committee heard arguments on the point

399
raised by the petitioner. Your Lordships' Standing Order 38·3 requires the promoter to include a statement of compatibility with convention rights and Standing Order 98A requires a Minister to report on the statement by depositing a statement of his own in the Private Bill Office immediately after First Reading. That has been done, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, explained. But the Minister's statement did not endorse the view of the promoters. He said,
"I believe the promoters have undertaken a full assessment of the compatibility of their proposals with the European Convention on Human Rights and I see no need to dispute their conclusions.
The statement does not say that he, the Minister himself, has made any assessment of compatibility. But surely the corollary of these new procedures, which your Lordships agreed last year, and which came into effect in November 2001, is that if challenged with an assertion of incompatibility with particular articles of the Convention or Protocol, the promoter should then have a duty to respond so that the challenge and the response can be considered together by the Select Committee.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that there is enough substance in this Bill to have made it worth a Second Reading debate, which would not have occurred if I had not put my name down to speak on it. Another place, in its wisdom, has approved the doubling of the business vote in the City, albeit on the basis of a more rational franchise based on the number of workers in qualifying bodies, and with undertakings on the balance of voting strength between residential and business voters. It is not for us to embark on a fundamental review of the powers and composition of the City Corporation, although your Lordships may think that in the longer term, if Parliament is being drastically reformed, the City cannot remain immune from scrutiny. What we can do is to provide a further opportunity for considering matters that have admittedly been canvassed at some length in another place, but where they generated rather more heat than light. I hope that we have been able to do that this afternoon.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the careful consideration that he has given to the Bill in which he has raised points, some of which he frankly admitted had been raised in another place. I tried to deal with some of them in my opening speech but some, clearly, I must do my best to answer.
The legislative powers of the City have a longstanding history. They go back to the charter to which the noble Lord referred. As far as I am aware, no one has ever sought to challenge the common council's right to, as it were, make its own laws within the ambit of that charter. Of course, some things require an Act of Parliament. We have an Act of Parliament before us as the voting system could not be changed under the charter powers. However, the ward boundaries can be changed. That has happened on a number of occasions in the past, notably after the bombing of World War
400
II when it became necessary to change the ward boundaries so as to have some reasonable basis for voting.
I find it difficult to agree with the noble Lord's complaint that matters which can be dealt with outside the Bill ought to have been dealt with in the Bill. It seems to me that if any subordinate authority has powers to deal with certain matters, one does not need to put them in a Bill. I sought to explain—I did not leave it out—that the whole question of boundary reviews and other matters are being dealt with in accordance with the procedures. As regards the boundary reviews, there is a committee of review which consists of senior members of the judiciary and the town clerk. They report to the common council. That is what happened as regards the first two reviews to which the noble Lord made reference, although common council made minor changes. Those boundary changes are now settled.
As regards the timetable for the remaining matters, I cannot give an undertaking on that, but no doubt it can be explored if the Bill proceeds to Committee stage. I believe that there was some confusion between the number of voters and the number of common councillors that they represent. I deal, first, with the number of common councillors. Clear undertakings have been given that the number will be reduced. There were 130—more even than the City of Birmingham! It is widely recognised that that is too many. As I say, a clear undertaking has been given that the number will be progressively reduced. However, as your Lordships will know, reducing the size of an elected assembly is not an easy matter, or, if I may say so, reducing the size of an unelected one. The matter will take time but it is clearly on track. The noble Lord mentioned a figure of 100 by the time the Bill becomes law. That is certainly a target that the City Corporation wishes to reach.
As regards the number of electors, there will be a dilution of the number of residential electors. However, as I made clear in my opening remarks, one of the purposes of the realignment of the ward boundaries is to make sure that, despite the dilution of the residential voters by the addition of the large number of what I might call broadly business voters—the people appointed under the procedure that I described—the number of common councillors who will be elected as the result of the residential voters will be approximately the same proportion as they are now. That is the intention. It will have to be approximate because one cannot determine these matters mathematically and precisely and, of course, they change.
As regards aldermen, the noble Lord said that the matter of the abolition of the veto should have been in the Bill. However, that has already been clone. As it has been done under the City Corporation's own powers, there would be no purpose whatever in putting it in the Bill. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord might be prepared to accept that.
On the question of reporting, I draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 7 which requires the Corporation to submit a report to the Secretary of

401
State on the working of the provisions of the Bill and enables the Secretary of State to call for further such reports to be presented to Parliament.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I refer to a report on the set of reforms that were undertaken voluntarily by the Corporation that are outside the scope of the Bill and which are listed in the appendix to the full report on the ward boundaries. That report was supposed to be received within six years of the original undertaking. Can the noble Lord give us some good news about accelerating the report which is to be made under that heading?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, at this stage I must disappoint the noble Lord. I do not think that I can give him that information. However, if your Lordships agree to a Second Reading, the Bill will proceed to Committee stage and it would seem to me an admirable point for the Committee to want to probe.
I drew the noble Lord's attention to what is in the Bill as regards reporting to Parliament. As regards human rights, if I may say so, I think that the noble Lord was straining at a gnat. I said that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, had endorsed the view of the promoters that the Bill complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, the noble and learned Lord said that he saw no need to dispute the conclusions of the promoters. I say with the greatest respect that I think that that is as good an endorsement as one would get. There was a great deal of discussion in the other place on the human rights aspect, as my noble friend Lord Brooke will confirm. The statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was issued after the Bill reached this House, as is required by our Standing Orders.
I hope that I have gone some way to answer the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I sense that the House may be anxious to proceed with the rest of the business on the Order Paper. Therefore, I shall sit down.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
5.8 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENT MOVED IN CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS AND AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 44 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
2 After clause 2, insert the following new clause—
"Duty of Primary Care Trusts, NHS trusts and Strategic Health Authorities regarding education, training and research
Primary Care Trusts, NHS trusts and Strategic Health Authorities shall have a duty to safeguard and promote education, training and research"
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason
2A Because the law already provides adequately for education, training and research.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A.
During the passage of the Bill through this House we had some important debates on the whole issue of education, training and research in the NHS in England and Wales. I want to assure noble Lords that the points raised in those debates have been taken very seriously indeed by the Government and that we are exercised to ensure that the NHS, universities, the DfES and HEFC all play their part in ensuring that those issues are dealt with satisfactorily and that there is a co-ordinated response across all those sectors.
During earlier debate, I informed the House of a number of pieces of work that we have put in train which I believe indicate the importance we attach to these matters. We have reviewed the range of existing national liaison arrangements between the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and a range of organisations in the independent sector. We have done so with a view to recasting them into more effective and efficient strategic partnerships to bring together the multi-professional wider health system and broader education and research agendas. We are therefore providing the practical support the modernisation programme requires.
Officials in both my department and the Department for Education and Skills are now drawing up proposals which would see a new national framework, with senior representations from both departments, to ensure effective joint working to take forward the education, research and service agendas and to take an overview of the interplay between them.
Progress has already been made and I am very pleased that it was possible for the Department of Health to agree "a strategic alliance" with the Higher Education Funding Council for England. This alliance, which covers learning, teaching and research, builds on the early alliance between the department and HEFCE on research. A notable feature is that it will cover both health and social care. The alliance will provide a framework of partnerships with higher

403
education at national level, facilitating the establishment of local health and education sector partnerships. These partnership arrangements will promote delivery of NHS planned commitments on workforce development.
We have already instigated further work to ensure the success of the medical school expansion. The Department of Health and HEFCE have established a joint group to oversee the implementation of that expansion. The group will include the chair of the General Medical Council's education committee within its membership. Part of the group's remit will be to monitor recruitment to posts needed to facilitate the expansion of medical students. It will identify other issues related to the expansion and recommend appropriate action.
While this group will look at medical schools specifically, I want to emphasise to noble Lords that we recognise the shared interest in monitoring the situation for all teaching academics and the adequacy of the supply of all health professionals and we will ensure that this is not overshadowed.
We have also agreed that one of the seven non-executive members for each strategic health authority will be from an institution within the higher education sector responsible for delivery of pre-registration education in medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, nursing or other allied health profession. The NHS Appointments Commission will interview candidates and the candidate who best meets the requirements of the post will be appointed. It is anticipated that these measures will result in a mixture of representation from medical schools and, I stress, other institutions within the relevant university. This will ensure appropriate expertise is available to the strategic health authority sector as a whole.
As far as the legislative framework is concerned, I believe that what we have in place meets the concerns of noble Lords. I do not accept that adding the suggested duty would of itself ensure that education, training and research are taken more seriously than is already the case. Moreover, the duty would be difficult to define and it would be even more difficult to define what a breach of that duty would be. Surely, the creation of a statutory duty must be sufficiently precise for those who must discharge the duty to know exactly what they must do and what action or inaction will amount to a breach of that duty. Without such precision a statutory duty has no teeth. It is for those reasons that I do not believe there is a place for the duty on the face of the legislation.
There is a further important reason why the amendment relating to Welsh NHS organisations is inappropriate. The Bill establishes local health boards in Wales and provides enabling powers for the National Assembly to decide how they should function. It is surely wrong in principle that we should seek to fetter the Assembly's deliberations by being prescriptive in this one area.
Much of our debate, though I accept not exclusively, was about the role of primary care trusts. They will take on all their functions under Shifting the Balance
404
of Power by next April. Additionally, 30 primary care trusts will have been designed as teaching primary care trusts, mainly in deprived and under-staffed areas, to provide teaching, research and clinical opportunities for primary and community care professionals to support and improve the delivery of services to local populations.
This is a very exciting development. Teaching primary care trusts will work alongside local universities to provide a learning environment for their own organisation and staff, as well as a local resource for the wider health community. These and other PCTs will have access to shared resources for research governance and management. A network of PCTs will be designated to maintain this capacity from 2003–4.
The national primary and care trust development programme has been established as part of a set of measures to ensure that these primary care trusts are fully equipped to take on their new functions. It has been recognised that, in addition to developing the general competencies of primary care trusts, more detailed work is required over a longer period on certain matters.
Noble Lords may well be aware that my right honourable friend the Minister for Health announced in another place that one of those subjects will be that of research, education and training issues affecting primary care trusts across the range of those functions. The aim will be to pull together a number of front-line primary care trusts and other key individuals and organisations to take their work forward. That will be a very important way of ensuring that PCTs discharge their functions in this area. There is no doubt that the debate in this House during the passage of the Bill was a very important element in informing the programme that we are now to take forward.
We are not talking just about the role of primary care trusts. Strategic health authorities have an important role to play too—that of creating a coherent strategic framework and of ensuring, through building, capacity and supporting performance improvements, that the primary care trusts are enabled to deliver their full range of responsibilities.
We believe that these changes will bring benefits to education, training and research in and for the NHS as well as to services for patients. We want to hear very much from the service about combining the NHS service commitment with academic duties. My right honourable friend the Minister for Health, with Mrs Margaret Hodge, the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education, will he meeting the chair of the BMA's medical academics staff committee on 26th June to discuss the impact of the research assessment exercise on the medical academic workforce.
I fully accept that we need to monitor the changes closely to ensure that there are no unintended consequences and that the arrangements we have put in place are bedding down well. Once primary care trusts are operating fully in their new, wider role and there is experience of how they work, the time will be right to begin a review of education, training and research in the NHS.

405
I am therefore pleased to announce today that there will be a joint ministerial review of education, training and research in and for the National Health Service across England and Wales. The review will take into account the concerns expressed by noble Lords on these matters. I want to stress that it will cover the full range of health care professions and not just doctors. The review will look at, for example, how the new arrangements set out in Shifting the Balance of Power and those created by this Bill impact on the role of primary care trusts, NHS trusts and strategic health authorities in education, training and research across the whole of the NHS. The review will examine the partnerships between the new and existing NHS bodies and higher and further education to ensure that they continue to work well.
These issues are clearly also important in Wales. The review will come at a helpful time for informing the process of implementing local health boards in Wales. The Welsh Assembly has already shown its commitment to research through its research and development strategy, which is currently out to consultation. It seeks to put research and development on a firm footing and covers wider collaboration with trusts and local health groups. However, the review broadens the focus, and the Assembly will give full consideration to any proposals that go beyond those in the strategy. The review will also helpfully inform the development of the Assembly's strategy on continuing professional development in the NHS, which is due to be produced in 2004, and will take forward many of the issues around education, training, and research in the NHS in Wales.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government have listened most carefully to the arguments put forward by noble Lords throughout the passage of the Bill. I also hope that noble Lords will accept that the review I have announced this afternoon will be an excellent way in which to monitor and take forward further issues of concern over the next year or so. On that basis, I trust that the House will be able to accept the amendment that I have put forward.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Northoverrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A, leave out "not".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as we have heard, this is a key issue for the future of the NHS. I have no hesitation at all in bringing this amendment back for your Lordships to reconsider. At Third Reading your Lordships approved this amendment, but it was then overturned in another place. The amendment would make it a duty for primary care
406
trusts, hospital trusts and strategic health authorities to safeguard and promote education, training, and research.
As we have just heard, it was claimed in the other place that our amendment was unnecessary:
"Because the law already provides adequately for education, training and research".
We cannot agree that the amendment is not necessary. During our debates in this House we heard about the problems that such areas already encounter, many of which were mentioned by the Minister. With the reorganisations proposed in the Bill and the devolution to primary care level, such problems could become more acute. That is why we put forward the amendment in the first place; that is why we are moving it again today.
As we heard at early stages of the Bill's proceedings, PCTs can support education, training and research; but they do not have to, except in a few exceptional circumstances. The view was also expressed by the Minister that dedicated funding streams would be safe. He stated that he did not believe that primary care trusts would be under pressure to spend that money for other purposes. However, during earlier debates, we learnt that that has already happened. Therefore, our task is to ensure that research, education and training are protected and encouraged when PCTs come to set their budgets.
At earlier stages, we and others expressed acute worries about these areas. Since the passage of the original amendment in this House, I am glad to see that the Government have made some welcome moves. The Minister was kind enough to write to me on the subject, and he expanded on that this afternoon. His proposal is that there should be a ministerial review of the arrangements for education, training and research in and for the NHS. In his first letter on the subject, the Minister stated that the review should take place once PCTs have had a chance to take on their full range of functions and the new system had bedded down. If the review highlighted areas of concern, he stated:
"We would consider preparing guidance and, should it prove necessary, issue directions to PCTs and/or other NHS bodies".
I explained to the Minister in my reply to that letter that I remain concerned on a number of points. I expressed surprise that departmental officials and lawyers felt, as he indicated—and, indeed, indicated again today—that they would have difficulty defining the duty to support research, training and education and, consequently, a breach of such a duty. I pointed out that in the secondary sector there is now a research and development structure with monitoring mechanisms, targets and accountability. Therefore, there should be no reason why a similar structure should not exist in primary care. This could be of utmost importance for the furthering of public health, given that the majority of health problems are contained in primary care, although some may progress to secondary care. The Secretary of State also has such a duty. So it is definable, even though it may not be working as effectively as we would all like to see.

407
I also noted that the Minister's proposed review would take place only at some unspecified time in the future. There was no indication of who might be involved in the review, whether it would be independent, whether it would include experts, or whether it would be made public in any way; neither was it spelt out as to how Parliament was to discover the nature of its conclusions. It also seemed as if it would be a one-off process, rather than providing more constant audit.
I was also most concerned that setting new arrangements for PCTs in place under the Bill, without building in the protection that we have been seeking, would mean that patterns would develop, which, as time went on, would become more difficult to change. It clearly needs to be part of the culture of the NHS that support for research, training and education is built in at every level. This was highlighted on Tuesday of this week in relation to the Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones about medical education—the problem of trying to increase the number of doctors when at the same time we are losing clinical academics hand over fist. Now is simply not the time to trust to things working out without strong mechanisms being in place to ensure that they do.
I gather that the Minister proposes that the terms of reference for the review should be set by the end of this year, and that it should begin work early in 2003. I remain concerned about the time-scale. I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say in that respect, given the problems that already exist in these areas. I should also like to be assured that such a review will address some of the key issues involved. Will the review examine whether adequate facilities are available for these areas? Will it examine whether those working in these areas will have protected time and not, for example, be expected to work 80 hours a week in order to be both a clinician and a researcher or teacher? Will it look at whether the money for these areas is adequately ring-fenced, given the fact that we already see devices such as service charges, money being siphoned off, and money from foundations being siphoned oil'? Above all, will the review report to Parliament? Will we be able to see what its conclusions are?
We know that there is a tension between the need to deliver a service both rapidly and effectively and the need to look long term. We know that there is a tension between the need to meet the budget this year and the need to plan for the long term. The latter is already apparent in the NHS. We need to build into the new arrangements protection for the long term, not simply delivery in the short term. That we why we have such concerns.
As Professor Peter Lachmann of the Academy of Medical Sciences puts it:
"At a time when there is an urgent need to secure more service provision there is obviously a temptation to concentrate all resources on that need. While this is entirely understandable, it is an example of 'burning the furniture to heat the house'. If British medicine is, in the longer term, to provide a high-quality service to its patients, then a high level of teaching and research must be preserved".
408
That is surely exactly right and it is what the amendment is about. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A, leave out "not".—(Baroness Northover.)
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords., I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness said. However, I say to her that, when we ask the Government to think again about something, I believe that we have a responsibility to listen carefully to the answer and, if, as individual Members of the House, we consider it to be satisfactory, to decide accordingly.
I believe that this issue requires to be raised and discussed. It was required of us to ask the Commons to think again. They have thought again The Government have said a number of things that they did not say previously. I was very interested to hear that they propose a review. I believe that the House has scored a bull's eye. Personally, I shall not be of a mind to vote against the Government on this occasion.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the other place rejected amendments which sought to insert new clauses after Clauses 4 and 6 because the law already provides adequately for education, training and research. I believe that that is disingenuous. The law does place a duty on the Secretary of State in relation to facilities for clinical teaching and research in connection with clinical medicine and clinical dentistry. That sounds rather good, but it suffers from serious weaknesses. It is phrased only in terms of clinical medicine and dentistry. But, of course, as we discussed earlier in this House, education, training and research goes far wider than that. Indeed, as the Minister agreed, it needs to cover the education, training and research for all other healthcare professional groups and, indeed, one might say, for every other significant group of staff in the NHS.
In another place it was said that that duty will be delegated to PCTs. But, of course, that is only part of the story. Unless the duty to safeguard and promote education, training and research is held at all levels, it will be ineffective. While, as has already been said, PCTs are enormously important for education, training and research in primary and community care and are also important if they commission services in the acute sector where teaching and research needs to be protected, that duty needs to go beyond PCTs.
The duty does not have an impact on strategic health authorities. Some of us are still bewildered as to what strategic health authorities will, in practice, do. Coherent strategic frameworks do not help some of us to understand that. But, in any event, we believe that they should have the same responsibilities as other parts of the NHS concerning a duty in relation to education, training and research. Of course, trusts also need a duty but at present they have only certain powers.

409
Therefore, we have a duty which is imperfect in coverage and imperfect in reach and a patchwork of duties and powers which simply do not cover the whole territory. If we believed that this imperfect legal framework nevertheless caused no problems in practice, we should not be here this afternoon debating this clause. The plain fact is that there are problems in practice. During the passage of the Bill in your Lordships' House we heard from many noble Lords of the type of problem being encountered.
The Minister said that the duty is difficult to define. I find that argument very difficult to follow. The terms "education", "training" and "research" can bear their natural meaning. Of course, the Bill must be interpreted in the context of the NHS because that is what it relates to. The Department of Health will doubtless issue guidance on the practical implications of the existence of a duty. With the department's normal consultative processes, I am sure that ultimately that would not result in any problems so far as concerns a satisfactory understanding throughout the NHS of what such a duty meant and, therefore, what the breach of such a duty meant.
The Minister has sought to seduce us with the prospect of a ministerial review of education, training and research. That is a very interesting idea, although it falls short of the duty which the clauses addressed. We are pleased about the scope of the review in terms of covering all parts of the healthcare professions with regard to education, training and research. That is welcome. But before we on these Benches decide finally what to do about the Commons response to our new clauses, we should like to hear more from the Minister about the review. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, timing is clearly important. A start date of early 2003 does not sound particularly early. But, perhaps more importantly, when will the review be expected to end? Kicking something into the long grass is not an attractive alternative to our clauses.
Another issue concerns who is to be involved. The Minister talked of a ministerial review. It would be interesting to know which Minister will lead the review. Of course, noble Lords have a considerable respect for the Minister, and it would clearly be a bonus if he were to lead it. But, in addition to Ministers, can the noble Lord say who else is likely to be involved in the review and, in particular, which experts would be expected to work alongside Ministers?
Lastly, there is the question of reporting, which the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, also raised. I ask the Minister to give an assurance to the House that the outcome of the review will be published and, indeed, that the Government will be prepared to have the issues debated in your Lordships' House following publication of the review. I shall listen with keen interest to the response of the Minister.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, under Section 51 of the National Health Service Act 1977, the
410
Secretary of State does, indeed, have a duty to provide facilities for teaching and research. In his reply to the debate on the Bill on 16th May, the Minister reassured the House that powers exist to safeguard education, training and research. Today, the Minister has given most welcome reassurances and words of comfort. Those intentions are fully accepted and appreciated.
I am particularly heartened to have confirmation of the representation on the strategic health authority of someone from an undergraduate education institution concerned with healthcare professionals. I am heartened that the rolling-out of the medical student expansion programme will be monitored, and I am sure that the meeting with the BMA will be important. I have had a very warm meeting with Jane Hutt in Wales and was most reassured by that. She is certainly well appraised of the challenges that exist in education and research. With the reassurances following that meeting, I accept that it would be inappropriate to press for an amendment to appear on the face of the Bill in relation to Wales. However, it does not remove the need to ensure that a duty on those who provide and commission services is clearly spelled out.
The situation on the ground shows worrying trends. The chairman of the Council of Heads of Medical Schools, with whom I spoke today, remains concerned that primary care trusts will not appreciate the relevance of the wider education and research issues in relation to their functions, including primary care placements for medical and other healthcare professionals, the impact of their commissioning decisions on teaching and research in NHS trusts and primary care, and the growing importance of research in primary care for the future quality of healthcare overall.
On 16th May, the Minister reported his discussions with the Council of Heads of Medical Schools and explored ways of implementing and ensuring some of the changes that had been called for in this House. Some of those reassurances have been given in his reply today. However, the need still remains to ensure what safeguards are in place and how they will be audited. Questions have been asked by the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Noakes, which I shall not reiterate. That must be attached to the concept of a ministerial review, which is welcome.
Many PCT public consultation documents contain nothing about education or research, suggesting that PCTs may not understand the importance of integrating clinical teaching and research activities, although such documents discussed in full clinical governance issues and therefore training issues. The Minister asked previously about definitions of "education" and "research". I suggest that in this context education is the process of acquiring the knowledge, skills, competencies and attitudes to enter the healthcare professions and therefore is different from training issues. Training issues are essential for the Government's agenda.
Professor Carol Black, president elect of the Royal College of Physicians, has a particular concern that the short-term service pressures and financial constraints

411
risk decreasing the quality of care across the board as central forces to meet targets take priority over the research inquiry into and management of less common conditions. The pressures on trusts to deliver against targets are enormous.
Professor Thompson, Dean of Southampton Medical School, has become aware that in his area the trust does not even want the development of new clinical chairs using Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) funding because it might divert from the model of a district general hospital that the PCTs seem to want in bringing in complex, rare cases. It is possible that that attitude could completely stifle clinical academic development.
There is an underfunding of services by primary care trusts. That has been offset by the service increment for teaching (SIFT) and R&D inflation, which has been used to fund the clinical expansion. The Council of Heads of Medical Schools has been concerned that new and untried systems could refocus the primary care trusts towards a strategy of viewing teaching hospitals as district general hospitals rather than as centres of excellence, although I fully accept the reassurances given today by the Minister about teaching primary care trusts and how those will differ from other primary care trusts.
Research has been shown to have a direct and immediate benefit on the NHS. Current examples include the M RC acute back pain study, which showed that exercise is more effective than rest. The cost savings can be measured in man hours at work, decreased direct and indirect or secondary complication costs, and savings for society overall. Some research findings, such as day case surgery, have been widely implemented.
However, to reach undergraduates it is essential that facilities are available. The erosion is subtle. Education facilities in many district general hospital wards have now been taken for clinical usage needs, such as offices. The new Wythenshawe Hospital provides excellent facilities in its PFI building but is, by common consent, already too small and the academic block is certainly smaller than was wanted. There are similar problems in Manchester in securing a research place in psychiatry. Although there is a good intention, that has never been confirmed in writing because of the pressures which the mental health trust is under.
Professor Anne Louise Kinmonth, professor of general practice in Cambridge, stated that the systems are untried. The educational budgets to which the Minister referred are being brought together under the workforce confederation, which will hold the margin between education, staff development, service and the systems to research developments. The previous service increment for teaching money will be incorporated in a consolidated budget. I ask the Minister how the accountability will be monitored to ensure that the duty of the Secretary of State under the 1977 Act is fulfilled.
The research and education outcomes provide perverse incentives for clinical academia. The need to have high ratings of 5 or 5⋆ to maintain income have
412
meant that research pressures take priority over teaching, yet if the ratings are down and academics are lost, the very people who are required to do the teaching are lost to the system.
Thus, the duty on the face of the Bill will ensure that the current duty of the Secretary of State is devolved out to the primary care trusts, NHS trusts and strategic health authorities, where the commissioning decisions are taken. Such an amendment is entirely consistent with the tenor of government policy and with the accountability recommendations of Follett and, indeed, is completely compatible with the reassurances given today by the Minister.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, while I strongly support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—how could I not support it—it is the case that the Secretary of State already has a duty to protect teaching and research in the NHS. It is also the case that teaching and research are not simply the responsibility of PCTs and strategic health authorities. Universities, funding councils, research funding bodies and charities play dominant roles but inevitably so much of teaching and research goes on within the NHS and by NHS staff that they must play a part in protecting those vital roles.
The Government are unwilling to see that responsibility reiterated on the face of the Bill, which I understand. It is good to hear that the Minister is unequivocal in making clear that all parts of the NHS have not only a responsibility to their patients now but also a responsibility to teach and train future staff and to promote research on which so much of the treatment of future patients depends.
I was delighted to hear about the ministerial review. That is a tremendous response. I hope that there is not a hint of procrastination here because there is a degree of urgency. New medical students will appear in October. Medical schools are at present suffering problems concerning redundant staff. That paradox of more students and fewer staff is one which needs urgent attention. Those are not the direct responsibilities of PCTs or strategic health authorities but part of a much wider picture. I hope that the ministerial review will in practice cover rather more than the elements we are discussing in this amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath:: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and for the recognition that the Government have indeed listened to the points raised throughout the passage of the Bill. I want to make clear that we all have a common interest here. Teaching and research is important not just in its own right but is essential if the NHS is to receive the increase in staff it requires in the many professions covered by that heading and is important to the NHS as a whole and to the United Kingdom as a whole.
It is essential that we have a strong science base, a strong teaching base and a strong research base. The Department of Health has much wider responsibilities

413
than simply the well-being of the National Health Service. It is in the interests of my department, just as it is in the interests of the Department for Education and Skills, to ensure that this works effectively and well. There is no argument between myself and other noble Lords on these matters.
I have already stated—my noble friend Lord Turnberg put it very well—why the Government do not consider that the legislative option is the appropriate or workable option. Certainly, that was the view of the other place when it considered the Lords amendments on the Bill. I believe that the key question is whether we have the mechanism in place to ensure that, first, there is a strong partnership between my department, the DfES and HEFCE to ensure that we have a grip on these issues at national level, and secondly, whether we have a performance management system within the NHS to ensure that the duties are carried out effectively at local level. I believe that my earlier points point to the fact that we have the mechanisms available at national level. Secondly, through the performance management regime, we can ensure that the relevant partnership between the NHS and universities is effective at local level. But I do not underestimate the importance of the review that I have announced today. It will be a very important review.
I shall now attempt to answer the specific questions put to me about the review. It will be administered by officials from the departments concerned—the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills, and, most importantly, the Wales Office and the National Assembly for Wales. Ministers from each department will oversee it. I can confirm that all other key stakeholders will be offered the opportunity to contribute. I shall encourage consultation with those whose interests are most closely concerned, including experts in the field of health, education and research, to ensure that the review is properly informed and that it covers the range of healthcare professions and not just doctors.
In response to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, while the review will have a defined end point—it is important that all reviews have a defined end point—it may be a recommendation of the review that further ongoing or periodic reviews should be carried out.
I anticipate that the review will start early next year. I understand the points made about timing. I recognise that there is a need to get on with the matter. Equally, there is an argument for allowing PCTs to bed down for some time. I fully accept that we have said that the issue is not solely confined to PCTs. When we first debated it, we debated long and hard about the role of primary care trusts. I have listened carefully to the points raised this afternoon. I am prepared to say that rather than set the terms of reference by the end of the year, I shall try to ensure that they are agreed in the autumn, and that the review should start as soon as possible after that.
The original intent was for the review's findings to be published by 2004. I am keen not to be pressed to give an exact date and time. But in the light of
414
everything that I have heard today, I shall seek to ensure that the review completes its first period of work some time in 2003.
Copies of the report from the review will be made available in the Libraries of both Houses. As noble Lords will know, it is not in the gift of the Government to decide what we debate in your Lordships' House. That is a matter for the usual channels. However, I would very much welcome a debate and shall try and ensure that one takes place.
If the review finds areas of concern, one option would be for guidance to be given to primary care trusts, strategic health authorities and NHS trusts wherever necessary—I am sure that that applies also for the Welsh Assemblyx2014;and, if necessary, the issuing of directions. Later in the year we shall make a further announcement about the review.
So far as concerns the specific issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, we can pick up the issue of ring-fencing, money for education and Ramp;D, although money for education, training and research in the NHS is already ring-fenced in central budgets and allocated for those purposes. I understand that she will say that there are some other issues here. Of course the review will be able to look at them.
In relation to the issue of protected time, I am well aware of the pressure and tension between clinical academics, whose responsibility on the one hand is to the NHS and on the other within universities, where both are being pressured to do everything they can. In terms of funding—because that is very important to that element—we are developing a funding formula for NHS Ramp;D. That will provide elements of funding in proportion to the time commitment of research-active staff. That will clearly make matters much more transparent and will help to deal with the issue of protected time. I shall go further and say that the review will have the core objective of considering whether the right balance is being struck between care for NHS patients, research and teaching. That surely goes to the core of many of the concerns expressed today.
I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. The Government have moved a long way and I hope that that will be recognised.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I thank noble Lords for their participation in today's debate and in previous debates on the Bill. It has been striking how concern over this issue has crossed party lines and has come from all parts of the House. I am very grateful for the expert reports offered from within the House.
I am glad that the Government have responded as they have. They clearly recognise how important this issue is and that all is not well. Therefore, a review is required and these matters must be closely examined. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, who is not in her place at the moment, thinks that we have scored a bull's-eye. Obviously, if we have—I trust

415
that we have—that owes much to everyone in this House. Of course I shall follow the noble Baroness's advice.
We welcome the Government's moves, but we are very much going on trust. We trust that the review will be rapid. I am happy to see that there are moves to try to speed that up. It must be thorough, probing and long-sighted in its deliberations. I was glad to hear that some of my concerns have been explicitly addressed. The point about ring-fencing is something that we have addressed. I know that much funding is supposed to go to education and research. We have heard about how it does not always work out that way. I am pleased that the idea of protected time for research and training will be addressed.
I am happy that the review's conclusions will be made public. That is extremely important. Therefore, we can all take forward these issues and make sure that the identified problems will be addressed. We shall continue to watch what is happening. It will be a while before the review starts and there are some pressing problems now. I hope that we can work together to try to take things forward. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
4 After clause 6, insert the following new clause—
"Duty of Local Health and NHS trusts regarding education, training and research in Wales
Local Health Boards and NHS trusts, and those commissioning specialist services on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales, shall have a duty to safeguard and promote education, training and research."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason
4A Beause the law already provides adequately for education, training research.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 4A.
Moved. That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 4A.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heat.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
6 Before Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
"Establishment of Patients' Councils
(1) The Secretary of State shall, subject to subsection (2), establish a body to be known as a Patients' Council ("Council") in England in each area for which an overview and scrutiny committee has been established under section 7 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15) (functions of overview and scrutiny committees).
(2) Each Council shall comprise members of the relevant Primary Care Trust Patients, Forums and NHS trust Patients' Forums operating in that area and representatives from the relevant community interest groups.
(3) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that there is a need to establish a Council for an area other than that represented by a local authority with overview and scrutiny functions, he shall, after local consultation, establish a Council for such other area as appears to him will meet the needs of the local community.
(4) The functions of a Council are to represent the interests in the health service of the public in its district and in particular to—

(a) facilitate the co-ordination of the activities of member Patients' Forums including by the provision of staff and services to Patients, Forums,

(b) provide or make arrangements for the provision of services under section 19A of the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49) (independent advocacy services) at the direction of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health,

(c) represent to persons and bodies which exercise functions in its area (including in particular the overview and scrutiny committees and the joint overview and scrutiny committees referred to in sections 7 (functions of overview and scrutiny committees), 8 (joint overview and scrutiny committees etc) and 10 (application to the City of London) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15)) the views of members of the public in its area about matters affecting their health, and

(d) advise the bodies mentioned in subsection (5) on involvement of the public in its area in consultations or processes leading (or potentially leading) to decisions by those bodies or the formulation of policies by them, which would or might affect (whether directly or not) the health of those members of the public, monitor the effectiveness of this involvement and co-operate with the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health in carrying out this function.

(5) The decisions in question at subsection (4)(d) are those made by—

(a) health service bodies,

(b) other public bodies, and

(c) others providing services to the public or a section of the public.

(6) The Secretary of State shall, following consultation with the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, Community Health Councils, patients' and carers' organisations and the wider community, by regulation make provision in relation to Councils and in particular provide as to—

(a) the Patients' Forums and other community interest groups from which members of the Council are to be appointed,

(b) any qualification or disqualification from membership,

(c) terms of appointment,

(d) the proceedings of a Council,

(e) the discharge of any functions of a Council by a committee of the Council or by a joint committee appointed with another Council,

(f) the circumstances m which Councils will co-operate with each other in the exercise of their functions and exercise functions jointly with one or more other Councils,

(g) funding of Councils and the provision of staff, premises and other facilities,

(h) the preparation and publication by a Council of annual accounts,

(i) the provision of information (including descriptions of information which are or are not to be provided) to a Council by an NHS trust, a Primary Care Trust, a Strategic Health Authority, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, the relevant local authorities or a person providing independent advocacy services (within the meaning given by section I 9A of the National Health Service Act 1977),

(j) the provision of information by a Council to another person,

417

(k) the preparation and publication of reports by Councils,

(l) the furnishing and publication by NHS trusts, Primary Care Trusts, Strategic Health Authorities and overview and scrutiny committees of comments on reports or recommendations of Councils, and

(m) the referral of matters of a prescribed description to any overview and scrutiny committee, the relevant Strategic Health Authority, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health or the Secretary of State for Health.

(7) The regulations shall include provision applying or corresponding to any provision of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) (access to meetings and documents).
(8) In section 21(10) of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (overview and scrutiny committees) after "members of the authority" there shall be inserted "and shall include a person appointed by the relevant Patients' Council".
(9) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49), as amended by the Health Authorities Act 1995 (c. 17), after sub-paragraph (c) there is inserted—
(d) persons appointed by the relevant Patients' Councils."."
7 Clause 18, page 23, line 16, after "premises" insert "and"
8 Page 23, line 17, leave out "and staff'
9 Page 23, line 26, after "by" insert "a Patients 'Council"
10 Page 23, line 38, after "by" insert "Patients' Councils,"
11 Page 24, line II, after "Forum" insert ", a Patients' Council"
12 Page 24, line 15, after "15" insert "and a Patients' Council established under section(Establishment of Patients' Councils)"
13 Clause 19, page 24 line 34, after "Forums" insert "and Patients' Councils"
14 Page 24, line 43, leave out paragraph (g) and insert—
"(g) co-ordinating and supporting the activities of Patients, Councils in respect of their activities as provided for in section (Establishment of Patients' Councils),"
15 Page 25, line 6, at end insert "and to co-ordinate and support the activities of Patients' Councils in respect of activities provided for in subsection (4)(d) of subsection (Establishment of Patients' Councils)"
16 Page 25, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) The Commission will provide to Patients' Councils services, including staff and other facilities, to support those bodies in the exercise of their functions,"
The Commons disagreed to the Lords amendments but propose the following amendments in lieu:
16A Page 20, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) The members of each Patients' Forum are to be appointed by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health."
16B Page 20, line 40, after "the" insert "range and"
16C Page 20, line 42 leave out "services" and insert "matters"
16D Page 20, line 45 after first "to" insert "the range and operation or'
16E Page 21. line 10, after "view" insert "(a)"
16F Page 21. line 11, at end insertx2014;
"(b) should be brought to the attention of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health it may refer that matter to the Commission."
16G Page 21, line II, at end insert—
"( ) Subsection (4) does not prejudice the power of a Patients' Forum to make such other representations or referrals as it thinks fit, to such persons or bodies as it thinks fit. about matters arising in the course of its exercising its functions."
16H Page 21, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
"(5) Patients' Forums must in prescribed circumstances—
161 Page 21, line 44, at end insert the following new clause—
"Additional functions of PCT Patients, Forums
(1) A Patients' Forum established for a Primary Care Trust (a "PCT Patients' Forum") has the following additional functions—

(a) providing independent advocacy services to persons in the Trust's am or persons to whom services have been provided by, or under arrangements with, the Trust,

(b) making available to patients and their carers advice and information about the making of complaints in relation to services provided by or under arrangements with the Trust, and

(c) representing to persons and bodies which exercise functions in relation to the area of the Trust (including, in particular, any relevant overview and scrutiny committee) the views of members of the public in the Trust's area about matters affecting their health.

(2) In subsection (1), references to services have the meaning given by section 15(6).
(3) It is also the function of a PC7 Patients' Forum—

(a) to promote the involvement of members of the public in the area of the Trust in consultations or processes leading (or potentially leading) to decisions by those mentioned in subsection (4), or the formulation of policies by them which would or might affect (whether directly or not) the health of those members of the public,

(b) to make available advice and information to such members of the public about such involvement,

(c) to advise those mentioned in subsection (4) about how to encourage such involvement (including, in the case of bodies mentioned in subsection (4) to which section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15) applies, advising them how to comply with the requirements of that section in relation to the area of the Primary Care Trust), and

(d) to monitor how successful those mentioned in subsection

(4) are at achieving such involvement.
(4) Those referred to in subsection (3) are—

(a) Strategic Health Authorities whose areas include any part of the area of the Primary Care Trust,

(b) the Primary Care Trust itself,

(c) NHS trusts which provide services to patients in the area of the Primary" Care Trust.

(d) other public bodies, and

(e) others providing services to the public or a section of the public.

(5) In section 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15) (which inserts anew section 19A concerning independent advocacy services into the 1977 Act), in that new section 19A, after subsection (6) there is inserted—
"(7) The Secretary of State may direct a Patients' Forum established for a Primary Care Trust to exercise any of his functions under this section so far as they relate to independent advocacy services provided to persons in the area of the Primary Care Trust or persons to whom services have been provided by, or under arrangements with, the Trust; and if he does so—

(a) the functions of that Patients' Forum are to be taken to include those functions, but

(b) the Patients' Forum may not make any arrangements with itself under this section."

(6) In this section—
"carer" and "patient" have the same meaning as in section 15,
"independent advocacy services" means services provided under section 19A of the 1977 Act (independent advocacy services),
"relevant overview and scrutiny committee" has the same meaning as in section 15."
16,1 Page 24, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) The regulations must also secure that the members of a Patients' Forum established for a Primary Care Trust also include—

(a) at least one member of the Patients' Forum established for each NHS trust all or most of whose hospitals, establishments and facilities are situated in the area of the Primary Care Trust and

(b) if it appears to the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health that there is a body which represents members of the public in the Primary Care Trust's area in matters relating to their health, at least one person who is a member or representative of that body (or, if there is more than one such body, of any of those bodies)."

16K Page 24, line 20, at end insert "(in addition to its function of appointing members of Patients' Forums)"
16L Page 24, line 34, after "providing" insert "staff to Patients, Forums established for Primary Care Trusts, and advice and"
16M Page 24, line 42 leave out "and"
16N Page 24, line 42, at end insert ", and making recommendations to them about how to improve their performance against those standards"
160 Page 24, line 43, leave out paragraph (g)
16P Page 25, line 10, at end insert—
"( ) It is also the function of the Commission

(a) to review the annual reports of Patients, Forums made under section 17, and

(b) to make, to the Secretary of State or to such other persons or bodies as the Commission thinks fit such reports or recommendations as the Commission thinks fit concerning any matters arising from those annual reports."

16Q Page 25, line 11, leave out subsection (5)
16R Page 25, line 37, leave out subsection (12)
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 6 to 16 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16A to 16R in lieu thereof.
We are coming to the end of what has been a long and interesting journey to strengthen patient and public involvement in the health service. From the NHS Plan, published in July 2000, through to the Health and Social Care Act 2001 and now to the Bill, we have reached a position that I can truly describe as one that is as good as it gets.
My ministerial colleagues and I—and our officials—have been in discussion with many stakeholders during the past year and a half to ensure that we develop the best possible set of arrangements. At the end of the day, that has been an extremely constructive process. Although we have not agreed with all of the views expressed to us, all have played a part in fine-tuning the system that we now put before your Lordships.
420
Patients councils were, I think, the turning point. The patients council amendments voted into the Bill last month were not welcomed by the Government because of our concern that they would add another tier to the arrangements that we proposed. But the Government always said that much of the purpose of patients councils fits with our view of a strong and comprehensive public and patient involvement system. We have attempted to ensure that the system builds on the strengths of patients councils without weakening the overall structure.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 16A to 16R is to give to primary care trust patients forums the functions that we had previously envisaged for the local offices of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. Essentially, that means that the commission will appoint staff to every primary care trust forum in England. On a day to day basis, the staff of the forum will of course be accountable to the members of the primary care trust forum.
That will ensure that a robust process is in place for the work of the staff to be informed by local people and that there is real accountability to local people. It will then be the job of the primary care trust forum to promote the involvement of the local community— in particular, disadvantaged patients and typically excluded groups—in local decision-making processes, and to promote the views of people in their area to local decision-makers and in particular to their local overview and scrutiny committee.
In addition—and this where the key strengths of patients councils have been picked up—the staff of the PCT forums will be able both to provide and to commission advocacy support. As commissioners, primary care trust forums will also be able to commission additional support as local needs determine—for example, specialist services such as bilingual advocacy. The intention is to enable primary care trust forums to be the core providers of independent advocacy services but to retain the flexibility to ensure a comprehensive service that fits local needs.
It will also be the responsibility of the primary care trust forum to act as a kind of one-stop shop for local people, providing them with advice and information about how they can get involved locally and how to make a complaint. The amendment is drafted in a way that enables the primary care trust forum to provide advice and information about making complaints about the services provided and practices and policies adopted by the NHS. They will also be responsible locally for monitoring the arrangements that local NHS bodies have in place to fulfil their duty to involve and make arrangements to consult the public about changes to services. We intend that duty to come into effect later this year.
We have also amended the composition of primary care trust patients forums. They will now include members of local interest groups that represent the public on issues that affect their health. An example may be a residents group concerned about the erect ion of a local mobile phone mast. They will also include a

421
member of the NHS trust forums in their area so that there is an in-built mechanism for forums to share ideas and agree areas of mutual concern.
It is extremely significant that we are placing all of those responsibilities with the primary care trust patients forum. That means that we have shifted the power base of the new system for patient and public involvement to local communities. We will be removing the middle layer of our original proposals—the local office of the commission. However, we recognise that there needs to be a way for forums to come together across an agreed area. We have therefore strengthened the provisions in the Bill about the circumstances in which forums should work together. Those will be made explicit in secondary legislation.
I know that concern has been expressed about forums duplicating effort and resources. We intend to involve stakeholders fully in the development of the working arrangements for forums. We will encourage partnership arrangements to be developed whereby one primary care trust forum takes a lead on a specific issue; for example, the commissioning of specialist services that covers several primary care trusts, or the provision of independent advocacy services. Another example might be a primary care trust forum taking the lead in collecting and analysing the data relating to a specific cross-boundary scrutiny exercise being undertaken by a social service authority overview and scrutiny committee.
The important issue to stress is that those arrangements will need to be developed through effective communication and will result from the continuous development of partnership working right across the system. At national level, the commission will perform the critical role of developing best practice and providing resource material on how to ensure that effective practices and outcomes are achieved. It is important to remember that patients forums are independent bodies. I stress that to your Lordships. It will be up to forum members to decide the exact nature of their collaboration. The regulations to be prescribed will provide the structure for that collaboration and it will be vital that we test out real-life scenarios in the formulation of those regulations.
We are also amending the provisions that apply to both primary care trust and National Health Service trust patients forums. We are making it explicit in the Bill that patients forums will not only have a role in monitoring and reviewing services that a trust provides but will also be able to identify gaps in service provision and make reports and recommendations to trusts about them. Trusts will have to publish forum recommendations in their annual patients' prospectus, together with the action that they are to take as a result, further ensuring that forums have real influence.
We have also made explicit the width of the powers for forums to be able to refer matters not just to overview and scrutiny committees, as previous amendments provided, but also to the commission and indeed to any other person or body that the forums
422
themselves deem appropriate. So we have taken away some of the functions envisaged for the commission at national level that would have been carried out in its local offices. We have also strengthened the functions that it will carry out at a national level.
On top of its job of setting and monitoring quality standards for all patients forums and providers of independent complaints advocacy, the commission will now also be able to make recommendations to them about how to improve their performance—a point that my noble friend Lord Harris has consistently raised during the passage not only of the Bill but of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. The important thing is that that will ensure that, wherever they are; the public and the NHS can be assured of consistently high standards for patients forums and providers of independent advocacy.
We have listened to parliamentarians and to stakeholders—in particular to the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales and community health councils—in relation to the often-cited need for a "casualty watch" exercise. My view, and that of the Government, is that the key thing about the commission's responsibility is that it should be able to undertake national reviews of patient experience data on issues that appear to it to be of national concern. That may include waiting in accident and emergency departments.
We propose an amendment to the commission's functions to provide for it to carry out a systematic review of the data contained in forums' annual reports and, on the basis of them, to identify what key issues warrant a national review. We wish the commission to facilitate the co-ordination of forum activity on a specific theme and then to make reports to the Secretary of State and any other person or body on the outcomes of such a review.
To summarise, in every NHS trust and primary care trust there will be a patient advice and liaison service ensuring that concerns are dealt with before they become a serious problem. There will also be a patients forum ensuring that locally the public have a vehicle to express their views about matters relating to health and that this will monitor and review local services. In every primary care trust forum there will be staff who will commission or provide independent support to help individuals to make a complaint, work to empower their local population to express their views about health issues that matter to them, and provide a one-stop service by providing advice and information to the public about public involvement and complaints processes.
Nationally, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will set quality standards for the work of patients forums and independent advocacy, and performance manage them in relation to those standards. The commission will submit reports to the Secretary of State on how the whole patient and public involvement system is working. Alongside that we have the vital and important role of local authority overview and scrutiny committees.

423
I have always said that, ultimately, the test of these proposals is whether they will work more effectively; whether they will give individual patients more clout than they have at the moment. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the proposals before your Lordships' House today will do that. They have been enhanced and improved by our debates and I commend them to the House.
Moved, that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 6 to 16 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16A to 16R in lieu thereof.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
6.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this is the end of a long road. The destination we have reached is perhaps not the one that either the Minister or I expected we would arrive at when we started out on the Bill—or, indeed, the one that we anticipated before the last general election when we debated the earlier proposals set out in the Health and Social Care Bill.
We have before us an organisational structure for patient and public involvement that, happily, bears little relation to the one which the Government put before us only a few months ago. Those first proposals were, in my view, so very deficient, so very much weaker than the system that they purported to improve upon, that I had no hesitation in resisting them. We believed—and still do believe—that the Government were wrong to abandon so readily the model of community health councils. I make no apology at all for the position that we on these Benches took in arguing for their retention and reform.
Nevertheless, we are where we are, and I must now acknowledge that the Government have moved a considerable distance. The deficiencies and weaknesses that we identified in their original proposals were ones that we attempted to address in the amendments that were carried in your Lordships' House, creating patients councils.
It is worth reminding ourselves of what the original Bill gave us. It gave us a fragmented structure of patient representation, without a real voice, without proper independence and with a narrow remit and focus. It made no attempt to replicate the one-stop shop; it made no attempt to allow for a lay overview of the NHS in a geographic area; it created a national commission, but one with hardly any responsibility for real patient issues, only for issues relating to processes and structures. For my part, in the absence of CHCs, I should dearly have liked to have seen patients' councils become a reality because they have the potential for rectifying the vast majority of the failings that I have enumerated. I believe that the Government's objections to them are overdone and, in large measure, illusory.
Nevertheless, this House asked the other place to think again, and the other place has done so—not—simply by deleting our amendments but by inserting others in their place. The new amendments to which the Minister has spoken address a great many of the
424
key points of principle that were previously at issue between us. I am delighted by that. I do not believe that having secured those points of principle it would be constructive for the House to cling doggedly to the concept of patients' councils and insist on our previous amendments.
This is not a debate about achieving the best structures; it is a debate about how we can enable patients and the public to have their views listened to and represented within the NHS. Any alternative to patients' councils needs to be judged against four key benchmarks: the level of independence enjoyed by the new bodies; their degree of integration; the extent to which they are community led and accountable; and whether they have a real measure of power.
The Government's new model, which is light years away from their first one, can probably be made to work satisfactorily. It is less elegant than CHCs or patients' councils—it will certainly he more expensive—but, importantly, the key principles for which we have been consistently pressing are there.
Having said that, and having made the boast that I understand these new proposals, there are a number of questions that I should be grateful if the Minister could answer. Some are of considerable importance for the way in which the new structures will work.
The first relates to the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement and its power to appoint members of patients forums. How long does the Minister estimate it will take to appoint the 7,500 or so members of patients forums? It will be a lengthy process. How much will the process of appointment cost? The Secretary of State retains a power of direction over the commission. Can the Minister give an indication of the kind of directions that are likely to be issued by the Secretary of State? I hope that he will not mind ii I say that the ability of the Department of Health to influence the way in which the commission performance manages patient and public involvement at ground level should be controlled—and controlled in a way such as to avoid direct interference or, indeed, gagging.
As to the statutory powers of the commission to initiate legal action where that is appropriate, will the commission definitely have the locus to take legal action, if it needs to, on local issues referred to it by patients forums?
I am delighted that patients forums will now have a power of referral to the commission. Can the Minister comment on the status of the patients forum non-executive director on a trust board where, let us suppose, a legal action is initiated against that trust by the commission? The director would find himself or herself with an immediate conflict of interests. How is that to be dealt with?
Another conflict would arise with confidential business. A patients forum non-executive director would not be able to report back to the patients forum on business that was confidential. CHC members who attend trust boards have the right to disclose confidential information obtained as speaking observers where the public interest favours disclosure.

425
Am I correct in thinking that under these new arrangements this safety valve in terms of accountability will cease? The whole notion of patients forum non-executive directors raises, to my mind, quite serious difficulties relating to corporate responsibility and governance.
The government amendments extend the remit of patients forums to cover the whole range of health services, not only those being delivered by the trust. I welcome that. Can the Minister confirm that patients forums will now be a one-stop shop on all points of concern to the public and not only complaints? Does subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 161 provide a one-stop shop for any general concerns that the public might have—for example, on policy issues or contested reconfigurations, and not simply for complaints about local services?
I welcome the new power of patients forums to make representations and referrals as they think fit to whomsoever they think fit about matters arising in the course of their functions. Will the Minister confirm that patients forums will be able to make referrals on health inequalities as well as on straightforward service issues?
I note in passing that there is no obligation on any body, including the Secretary of State or an overview and scrutiny committee, to respond to a referral made to it. Can the Minister give any reassurance on that lacuna? I am sure that he recognises that accountability is a two-way street and that he wishes to see the process deliver such accountability.
Finally, perhaps I may ask the Minister about foundation trusts within the NHS. We are given to understand that foundation trusts may not be NHS trusts within the terms of the Bill. In view of that, what arrangements will they have for patient and public involvement, and how will this be performance managed to ensure consistency and equity?
The Secretary of State has been quoted as saying that he is looking at the potential for the direct election of patient representatives, implying that the system now under discussion will not necessarily apply to foundation trusts. How will their accountability to patients be guaranteed if they are outside the complex system of patient and public involvement that the Government are now setting up?
None of the changes made to the Bill will mean anything unless it is adequately resourced. Without an indication of the level of staffing and other resources, it is impossible to judge how robust the proposals really are. If the Minister cannot give an indication of that kind today, I hope that he can at least give an assurance that this point will be borne closely in mind during the current funding review.
It is probably right that we do not let this occasion pass without a mention of our old friend Mrs Archibald. In the absence of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who was the creator of this useful and ubiquitous lady, I believe we can say that Mrs Archibald will be better served by the revised
426
arrangements for patient involvement than she would have been under the original Bill. They are clearer, and certainly less confusing, but most importantly they have the potential, if set up correctly, to be joined up. If that is a victory for this House—as I believe it is—it is also right for me to express my thanks to the Minister for his part in bringing these changes about. He has listened to our concerns, and the Bill is much the better for it.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I always like to think of this stage of the Bill as the "penalty shoot-out stage"— that is the analogy which seems appropriate in the current circumstances. I believe, like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that a considerable victory has been achieved by local health campaigners, by ACHCEW and by CHCs in securing from the Government the considerable concessions that the Minister has put forward today.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the status of the proposals at the beginning of this process, some two years ago. The proposals had all the defects outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. There was no national commission or national body at all. There were no proposals for an independent complaints advocacy service. Patients forums were not to be independent, but were to be supported by staff employed by the very trusts that they monitored.
During the passage of the NHS reform Bill, even as it stands, the following improvements have been secured. The independence of patients forums has been protected by channelling their funding through the commission as opposed to the trusts they monitor. Patients forums have been given the power to refer issues of concern to overview and scrutiny committees. They will be able to refer issues of concern to the commission. They will be able to make reports and representations to people and bodies as they see fit rather than being restricted. The range of issues which patients forums will monitor and report upon have been widened. They will also monitor how well NHS bodies involve patients and the public and will make recommendations.
A special role for PCT forums is now being proposed which has the potential to provide the integration for patients forums and the new overview and scrutiny which was previously lacking. Staff will be provided, and will be accountable to PCT forums at the local level rather than there being detached, staff-only groups with no local lines of accountability. I could continue. There have been a significant number of concessions. We have moved some distance since the early days of the first proposals almost two years ago.
There have been almost two years of wrangling, and the fundamentals of what it takes to have an effective patient voice—independent, community-based, with real accountability, integration and real powers—have finally emerged. By taking the approach that the Government tried to take, of imposing a model of patient involvement without involving patient representatives, the Government have, by their own failure to involve, demonstrated how essential proper

427
dialogue is. The Secretary of State delivered his initial off-the-cuff diktat in the NHS Plan in July 2000, announcing the abolition of CHCs and their replacement with a string of fragmented talking-shops, each with its own incomprehensible set of initials—PALS, ILAFs, OSCs, etc. We have come some considerable distance.
Yet,ironically, we now know, despite the length of time that it has taken us to get there, as a result of the Wanless report, that the success and probably the survival of the NHS is dependent on,
"a dramatic improvement in public engagement … leading to a more effective partnership between the public and the healthcare system".
The report states that accountability is key to this:
"in devolving greater responsibility to the local level there must be strong arrangements for delivering high accountability",
making the NHS more responsive and ensuring the right balance between centrally set targets and sensitivity to local services. We now have a real chance of achieving that.
I fully support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in the assurances that he sought. Before giving a final blessing to these proposals, there are further key issues on which the Government need to give assurances. First, as regards independence, given the crucial importance of strong local accountability in terms of the NHS, it is important to evaluate these latest plans for independence, without which there can be no real accountability. If questions are asked by an organisation of the NHS on behalf of patients, the answers will be credible and enhance accountability only if that organisation is, and is seen to be, independent.
There remains a real risk that patients forums will appear to be under the thumb of trust chief executives, who themselves will be under the thumb of the Secretary of State. There is a serious likelihood that patients forums will not be perceived as independent by the public, especially if they have an NHS-type name, an NHS location and a seat on the board of the organisation that they are supposed to be monitoring.
There is a danger in patients forums being based, for instance, in trust premises. Will the Government confirm that they will make use of the existing 184 CHC premises, many of which are in high street locations and have been refurbished in recent years? In London alone, some £2 million has been spent on refurbishing these offices. What will, for instance, the patients forum non-executive director do if his patients forum asks the commission to take legal action against his trust as a last resort when its actions are unlawful? There needs to be some separation.
As regards the name, of course, that is a valuable sign of independence. I know that the Minister is a keen reader of the Health Service Journal. I wonder whether he has seen the suggestion by Dr Richard Taylor in this week's edition. He suggests what I think is a very sensible name for the new forums. After all, let us face it, "PCTPF", if spelt out, would be a very long name. Dr Richard Taylor proposed the term
428
"citizens health councils", which seems an admirable suggestion. It should certainly be considered by the Minister.
I turn to continuity. In bringing into existence the new structures, CHC staff and members can provide continuity. I very much hope that the Minister will give an assurance that there will be a fair and open appointments process for both staff and members and that every effort will be made to make use of existing skills and commitment in the new structures.
As for transitional provisions, what will happen to consultations which are ongoing at the date of abolition and to complaints for which assistance is being provided by a CHC at that date?
On configuration, there is the issue of and concern about the lack of coterminosity between overview and scrutiny and the new PCT patients forums. As well as agreeing to "take a lead" on certain issues on behalf of other PCT forums in an area—the model that the Minister outlined—another option would he for patients forums to exercise their overarching functions jointly in relation to, for example, a base for staff to support all the forums and do outreach work; the provision and commissioning of ICAS; and overseeing commissioning and public health issues. This would allow individual PCT forums to get on with the monitoring of individual PCTs' services in the same way that patients forums do for other trusts, a role which might otherwise be diluted by the other functions of PCT forums. It might also help to avoid some of the conflicts of interest that these arrangements will create.
Mr David Lammy, the new Minister, was kind enough to write to my honourable friend Dr Evan Harris setting out some of the assurances which my honourable friend sought on the new amendments. In his letter, the Minister said that there is a duty on NHS bodies to consult OSCs on substantial variations and developments. As I understand it, however, that is dependent on regulations being made to define what those services are. I certainly have not had any draft regulations. I should therefore be grateful if, in his reply, the Minister will clarify the status and ambit of those regulations.
Ministers have been uncharacteristically coy in discussing what resources will be available for the new patient and public involvement structure. We are continuously told that we must await the outcome of the spending review. However, we have been waiting two years for these sets of proposals. Ministers must have an idea of the resources that will be required. How do we know that the resources allocated will be sufficient to fulfil the many and complex functions of the patients forums and the OSCs and so on? Having agreed these proposals in the other place and in this House, it would be extremely galling to find that the resources were not available to implement the model with which we were prepared to live.
There is a similarly vague approach to the funding of PALS. Some trusts are not establishing them at all this year for lack of funds. We certainly do not wish that to be mirrored in the funding for PCT patients forums.

429
My final point is on the abolition of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales. The Minister has given assurances that CHCs themselves will not be abolished until the new system is up and running, but it would be helpful if he could give an assurance on the future of ACHCEW itself. Will he confirm that ACHCEW will not be abolished ahead of CHC abolition? He might wish to argue that, once the new Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health has been appointed, there is no need for another national body. Clearly, however, ACHCEW needs to exist to represent and provide services to CHCs as long as they are in existence.
In many ways, we would have preferred to retain CHCs and the clarity of the structure of patients councils proposed in the original amendments. However, we believe that we have come as close as we possibly can to the model which we on these Benches proposed originally. Like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, we believe that, with the right assurance, this is a satisfactory and workable model. We will not stand in the way of the amendments proposed by the Government. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's reply, and I thank him in advance for the flexibility displayed in this part of the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, described this as the "penalty shoot-out stage" of legislation, but given that we will probably have no Divisions at all, I suspect that it is more like the golden goal. I think it was Harold Wilson who said that a week in politics is a long time, but it is now 98 weeks, I think, since the Government first said they wished to do away with CHCs. However, the proposals had been made before. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding—who spoke earlier but has left the Chamber—made similar proposals 20 years earlier. They were strongly opposed, however, and ultimately dropped.
What is interesting about the process of the past 98 weeks is the extent to which the Government have shifted their position and listened to concerns about the original, cack-handed set of proposals. I am pleased that the Government have listened to the arguments which I advanced in the House on patients forums attached to PCTs. It is essential that the one-stop shop—which is what I think we are creating—should be seen as locality based rather than institution based. I am also pleased that we have had various assurances on the independence of both the membership and the staffing arrangements of patients forums. The Minister's comments today have reinforced that point.
An added bonus in the later arrangements is the way in which the advocacy arrangements have been much more clearly integrated into the new structure. I believe that the current proposals offer clarity at local level. Previously, there was no clarity over how individual members of the public would relate to the structure. The structure is now undeniably coherent.
430
Given that neither clarity nor coherence was at all visible in earlier representations, that is clearly substantial progress.
It would be helpful, however, if my noble friend the Minister could give more indication of the resource levels that the Government think appropriate to make the new structure effective. It is possible, for example, that one isolated staff member from the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health could wind up in a room dealing with individual patients forums for PCT areas. Such a structure would clearly not work and would represent less investment in the structure than is made now. What resource levels are envisaged? What resources do the Government think necessary to make the structure work? I appreciate that we are still awaiting the outcome of the spending review, but some guidance on the point would be very helpful.
Another matter that should have been dealt with in our many discussions—perhaps it was but I missed it—is a reassurance that patients forums will elect their own officers, such as their chairs and vice-chairs. It would be useful if my noble friend the Minister could confirm that those officials will be elected and not appointed by the commission. It would also be helpful if he could clarify at what stage the commission will be put in place, patients forums properly established and the appointments process started. We should like some idea of the timetable and how it relates to the winding down of CHCs and the association, which are currently withering on the vine, given that both staff and members are looking to the future and moving elsewhere. I hope that my noble friend can give some indication on those points.
I hope that all Members of your Lordships' House will agree that we now have a system which will act robustly in the interests of the public and patients. The Government have demonstrated a clear desire to listen to the arguments put forward on all sides of the House and outside Parliament.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will clarify a point which might have been obvious if I had read every word spoken during the 90 weeks. I am a little uncertain about how the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will be chosen. Clause 19(1) states:
"There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health".
Nothing in the clause states how the commission is to be appointed. Perhaps I should know what a body corporate is and who chooses it but I am ignorant about it. The point applies not only to the main commission but also the subsidiary branches of the commission in local areas. I am concerned that if appointment lies in the hands of the Minister, the independence of the commission will be compromised. For instance, there is a rumour that one of the persons being considered as chairman of the commission is a senior officer in—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the noble Lord might find it useful to look at Schedule 6.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I should probably not have opened my mouth without doing so. I hope that the position is clear and that all other noble Lords are satisfied.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the intention is that the NHS Appointments Commission will undertake the appointments.
I am grateful for the contribution of all noble Lords. I listened with great interest to the interpretation that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, put upon what has occurred between the introduction of the last Act and now. I do not share their view. I maintain that the principles before noble Lords today are wholly consistent with the principles enunciated in the Health and Social Care Act. Some of the practical effects of those principles have been tested and. I believe, improved upon by debates in this House and another place. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their constructive participation in those debates.
It was the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, in debate on Report on the role of primary care trust patient forums which unlocked the door to where we are today. I am grateful to him for that.
A number of questions were asked. I shall attempt to answer them as quickly as possible. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked how wide the remit was on making available advice and information on complaints about policies as well as services. In drafting the amendment we took on board comments from ACHCEW to ensure that those wider issues were encompassed. The critical element of the amendment is the making of complaints relating to services. It is drafted on the basis that that means advice and information on complaints in the wide sense that noble Lords indicated.
On the power of the commission to initiate legal proceedings, the commission will be a corporate body. It will have power to initiate legal proceedings in its own name.
On consultation, regulations will be made later in the year and consulted upon.
There is no question about the independence of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. I made clear in my opening remarks that it will be able to undertake national reviews.
As I have said on a number of occasions, the direction-making powers are only in respect of functions that the commission carries out ancillary to its core functions. It is not a general direction-making power. It is a power to make the carrying out of ancillary actions subject to directions and is, therefore, of a limiting nature only. Concerns have been expressed about the independence of primary care trust patient forums. I have maintained that they will be wholly independent. They will not be under the thumb of the trust chief executives. Anyone who has discussed these matters with trust chief executives
432
knows that they understand that we are putting a robust independent mechanism in the heart of the organisation for which they are responsible.
I did not understand the description of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, of chief executives being under the thumb of Ministers. The noble Lord will know that that is wholly in conflict with shifting the balance of power on the basis of which this Bill was brought before your Lordships' House. In my right honourable friend's subsequent speech, he spoke of the need for the department to withdraw from micro-management of the health service.
My only caveat is this. We have debated this week a number of issues on health and social care. I can think of four or five instances when, far from asking me to withdraw the thumb of control, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has asked me to intervene much more. I am disappointed—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I take the Minister's jests as a total assurance about the independence of trust chief executives.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, trust chief executives are employed by their employing authorities, not the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord made a good remark with regard to accommodation for primary care trust forums. Of course we want them to be accessible. Primary care trusts might be placed in community hospitals or health centres. Using vacated CHC premises is also an excellent idea. I make the point that there are 184 CHCs. There will be many more primary care trust patient forums. That is one of the advantages of the changes we make.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about health inequalities. That is a focal point about the work of primary care trusts in their role of assessing health needs. The patient forums of those primary care trusts will be able to comment and to draw attention to issues of concern about that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that I was uncharacteristically coy about resources. I am always coy on the issue of resources. Although we have the headline figures for the health department on funding—they are for the next five years for the NHS and three years for social services—we are still deciding how that should be "divvied" up. I cannot go further tonight on how we shall fund patient and public involvement. However, I can repeat our stated intention and commitment that we shall ensure that the new arrangements are resourced so that they work successfully in practice.
I was asked about the timetable. The headquarters of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will be established in January 2003. It will then appoint staff to each primary care trust patient forum area. It will then co-ordinate the appointment of patient forum members. I understand what the noble Earl says in relation to numbers. There is a

433
considerable number of people but we shall be assisted by the staff of the primary care trust patient forums at local level to speed that through.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is not in her place, but we debated a conflict of interest at great length. The point is that the patient forum member will be accountable to the whole board, as are other board members. We shall set out guidance that will help some of the issues that the noble Earl raised. At the end of the day, having been a local authority appointee to a health authority in the 1970s, I do not believe that they will be in a different position from those local authority members then, or university members now. I am sure that there will be tensions but we shall issue guidance to help to accommodate that.
On foundation trusts, it is too early to say how the patient public involvement issues will relate to them because we are still working on foundation trusts. The whole point about foundation trusts is to get greater public health involvement.
On the interesting suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, quoted from Dr Taylor—my favourite GP—of a citizens' health council, I have given it the seriousness that it warrants and I have to disappoint him. I believe that we have the correct title already. We have had a good debate and we have come to an acceptable conclusion. I hope that we can agree to the Commons amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tax Credits Bill
6.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 24 [Payments]:
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 88:
Page 18, line 6, at end insert ", provided that nothing in any such regulations shall exclude credit documents cashable at post offices unless the Board is reasonably satisfied that necessary facilities are in place for every claimant to receive payment by other prescribed means"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before speaking to Amendment No. 88, I declare an interest as patron of VERSA which has carried out a lot of work with post offices and particularly with small retail services. I receive no money. It is an educational charity that tries to help and to support small rural shops in rural areas.
In tabling this amendment I am trying to ensure that every claimant receives his or her money. My determination was further strengthened by today's Statement on Consignia. In Committee on 23rd May the Minister referred to the payment methods that the
434
Government expect to be put in place over the next couple of years. The most important aspect of the Bill from a tax credit client's point of view is access to one of the said methods and immediate access in time of need.
In Committee the Minister stressed that the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General are agreed that the requirement to receive payment electronically will cut in only when those facilities are in place. That confirmation was welcome. Additionally, I seek assurance that not only will the facilities be in place, but also that anyone requiring to use them will be able to do so. Also in Committee the Minister assured the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that,
"The point is that this will not come into place until the payment methods are available and appropriate".—[Official Report, 23/5/ 02; col. CWH 178.]
This Bill is concerned with introducing systems; I am concerned with enabling individuals, often at a time of great need, to gain access to their financial entitlement. So I take issue with the words "available" and "appropriate". The individual will need to access available facilities within a reasonable distance of his or her home. That applies particularly to the less well off in areas where public transport is often lacking or expensive. Will the Minister expand on how available the Government envisage those facilities will be? In considering the word "appropriate", I recall my English teacher banning the word from our essays on the ground that it is a catch-all word and effectively meaningless. Can the Minister explain the definition that she has in mind?
The purpose of Amendment No. 88 is to ensure that the board takes responsibility for ascertaining that the facilities necessary for each claimant to receive benefit are in place. It makes the point that every claimant shall be able to receive payment. The board has a duty of care and a responsibility to ensure that each claimant receives his or her money.
I turn to the availability and accessibility of post offices, the main way in which many receive their payments. My concerns grow. I begin to wonder whether anyone truly knows exactly how many post offices there are and where they are. Again on 23rd May the Minister said that,
"85 per cent of people in rural parishes live within two miles of a rural post office; the average distance is 1.23 miles".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. CWH 179.]
I do not doubt that, but I shall return to that point later. First, I ask the Minister to define "rural" in the context of the Bill. I understand that only two years ago the recognised figure was 6,000 inhabitants, but that was altered to 10,000 inhabitants. I believe that that is the current figure.
When assessing how far people live from a post office or a sub-post office, is a circle drawn on a map with a compass to indicate a mile, so that the distance is taken as the crow flies and not as one would walk or cycle, which could be quite different? I decided to pursue the matter further and to find out more.

435
The Countryside Agency in its 2002 report—just published—states that,
"one in every 15 rural households (6.5% of the rural population) are more than two kilometres from their nearest post office".
Some 546 rural post offices closed between 1997 and 2000. That reflected the decline at parish level in the availability of post offices from 57 per cent of parishes with a post office in 1997 to 54 per cent in 2000. A further 5 per cent of rural post offices closed in 2000–01.
I then turned to Consignia's figures from Post Office Limited, which state that the average distance to a post office in rural areas is 0.7 miles, with 84 per cent of the rural population living within one mile of a post office. I turned again. The Performance and Innovation Unit in 2000 gave yet different figures: 85 per cent of rural populations live within one mile of a post office and 99 per cent of rural populations live within three miles. I turned again. Postcomm 2001 statistics say that 93.7 per cent of households live within two kilometres of a post office in England and that 0.23 per cent live more than four kilometres away.
I am sure that noble Lords will be as confused as I am. It did not give me confidence in the current position. Additionally, the Consignia figures for the closures of post offices in rural areas for 2000 and 2001 combined come to some 929. The Postwatch figure is 809 for the same period, of which 80 per cent were in rural areas. At the very least there appears to be major confusion. One organisation states that there were 929 closures and another says 809. In one year, 120 post offices are either unaccounted for or accounted for in differing ways.
That is truly extraordinary, but in addition I was told the following story this afternoon. The village of Trull, pronounced "Trowel", in Somerset, is three and a half miles from Taunton. The national Post Office management, in encouraging urban postmasters to retire, asked Trull's postmaster to retire on the basis that it was one "urban post office too many". Despite protestations that he did not run an urban post office, it was many weeks before the Post Office manager came to visit him. On arrival at Trull's post office, he realised that it was indeed a rural, not urban, sub-post office.
I know that the Minister has not been involved in all the Statements on the Post Office, although she sat in on today's—I was glad she was here for it. However, she must appreciate that there is strong feeling in both this House and another place that it was iniquitous for the Government to put on the Post Office the cost of withdrawing the Horizon project, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—who is not in his place—which meant that expenses of some £571 million were passed to it. The Government, in particular the Department of Social Security—as it was then—should have taken that cost on board.
If I have laboured the point, it is only to make the real point that where people are able to collect their credit from is important to them. The Minister has often implied that the matter is not her department's direct responsibility. I have to disagree with her. It is
436
no use our bringing in new systems if the client cannot reasonably access that to which he is entitled. The Government must take some responsibility for their actions.
We live in an age where there have been many closures of post offices, banks and shops, which is as true of urban areas as it is of rural areas. The Government should understand and accept that many people are having to spend more of their benefits on the cost of travel to collect them. More often than not, those directly affected are the less well-off or the elderly.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on the feeling that I suspect will follow my introduction of Amendment No. 88. It is linked with Amendment No. 90 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on which I hope to comment later when I have heard his contribution. Amendment No. 88 asks that,
"the Board is reasonably satisfied that necessary facilities are in place for every claimant to receive payment by other prescribed means".
I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall say that, should the amendment he accepted, I shall not move Amendment No. 90. Amendment No. 90 goes slightly further than this amendment, but were I able to take one pound of flesh I would not be greedy and ask for two.
The amendment is a matter of belt and braces. Although I cannot use the memorable line of the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, that that is something of which I have some professional knowledge, it is a matter of which I have at least some amateur knowledge. It was painfully clear this afternoon that the decline and collapse of the Post Office is proceeding a great deal faster than some of us expected. In the nature of administrative matters, especially when information technology is involved, it is possible that the growth of the universal bank may correspondingly happen a great deal slower than people expected.
This is not a matter of the Minister's good faith. We totally accept the Minister's good faith, but she is not omnipotent. The world might in some respects be better if she were, and I do not say that often. But she cannot control the working of every information technology contract and the working of the global economy. She can express a firm intention that the universal bank will be in place in time for the Bill, but she cannot be certain that it will happen.
There are some among us who foresaw the comments passed on the Post Office today. The gentleman I used to know as my noble friend Lord Thurso, to whom I must now get used to referring as my honourable friend Mr Thurso, put out a press release on 31st January, which stated that,
"Postcomm's decision to open up the postal market to full competition by 2006 would signal the death knell for the Post Office unless urgent action is taken to safeguard the Universal Service Agreement".

437
On 24th May, he pointed out that 2,000 Scottish households were ceasing to receive regular delivery. What is Scotland's case today may be England's tomorrow. The situation may become urgent at any moment.
However much the Minister says that it will be all right on the night—the motto of the noble Lord, Lord Peston—she cannot be certain that it is true. It is no good her saying that it will not be done until it is appropriate. When Mr Lennox-Boyd was Secretary of State for the Colonies, he once said that Cyprus would not be given independence until the appropriate moment. Aneurin Bevan pressed him hard as to what was the appropriate moment, and received the answer: "The appropriate moment is the appropriate moment".
Try as she would, I do not believe the Minister could say any more than that. This is a matter of people's lifelines. Plenty of people are already spending 10 per cent of their benefit on fares simply to collect it. There may soon be people with no opportunity at all to collect their benefit. I am not entering now into the argument about whether people should be disentitled to benefit, but they should not lose their benefit by accident. Do not die of ignorance; do not lose your benefit by accident. If the amendment is not carried, some people will.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, once again I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Byford for her dogged persistence and sincerity in pursuing this issue. As she and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have told us, today's Statement on Consignia has added to rather than dissipated nervousness. Of course the Minister will give her customary reassurances on that matter. That is all good and well. But it begs the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in Grand Committee, as to why those reassurances cannot be written in the Bill. Their currency and quality are such that surely there is nothing to be lost and potentially much to be gained in doing so. In terms, that is what our amendment seeks to do.
A theme of our debates has been the desire for all sides of the House to persuade the Government to acknowledge that the Inland Revenue, in taking over a benefit function has, as my noble friend Lady Byford said, a duty of care to those entitled to claim tax credits. Part and parcel of that duty of care is to deliver payment of tax credit claims via mechanisms appropriate—I hesitate to use the word for fear of incurring the wrath of my noble friend's erstwhile English teacher—to the needs and circumstances of individual claimants. Contrary to the Minister's suggestion in Grand Committee, this is not about dictating where post offices should be located, but about ensuring that the system offers the right levels of choice to its customers.
Without wishing to labour the point, I repeat that this is wholly consistent with the Performance and Innovation Unit's report, Reforming our public
438
services: Principles into practice. That document, wholeheartedly endorsed by the Prime Minister, states on page 8:
"Public services … have to be refocused round the needs of the patients, the pupils, the passengers and the general public rather than the problems of those who provide the services".
And on page 11 it states:
"The starting point must be that the public has a right to good quality education, to healthcare, to law and order, to local authority services,"—
and, the key point—
"to income support, and that it is the duty of the Government to secure these rights on their behalf".
The logical inference is that, as a necessary requirement of their duty of care to their tax credit customers, the Inland Revenue has a duty to secure the rights of individual claimants in ways that ensure that the level of service is focused on their needs. In other words, the amendment is wholly consistent with the policy initiative outlined by the Performance and Innovation Unit and endorsed so fulsomely by the Prime Minister. In such circumstances, I cannot resist suggesting that it would be somewhat strange were the Government to resist the amendment. For our part, we on these Benches support it wholeheartedly.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that this is not a debate about the location of post offices. The noble Baroness spent part of her speech on that issue but we are not dealing with it today.
The amendment seeks to ensure that payment facilities at post offices, wherever they may be located, are adequate and appropriate for clients. Ultimately, post offices survive because they are used. A statistic I have given the noble Baroness previously indicates that half the Post Offices which were closed last year were used, on average, by fewer than 70 people per week. One cannot expect any government department artificially to keep alive a post office for which there appears to be no local demand.
I am second to none in my respect for the noble Baroness in continuing to draw the matter to our attention. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, said, we are not debating that matter. We are debating the facilities at those post offices.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister tell us why 70 people starving because they cannot obtain benefits is less serious than 70 people dying in a train crash?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no one has said anything about 70 people starving because they cannot obtain benefits. I said that in half of the post offices which were closed last year on average fewer than 70 people used them each week. Perhaps those people could have gone elsewhere and chose not to.
Given the cost of subsidy of rural post offices, the noble Earl will know that it would cost almost as much to send a car to take each individual user of the post office to the nearest town. Ultimately, post offices survive because they meet a demand and a need. If they

439
are not being used and supported by local communities, it is hard to expect government subsidies to keep them afloat at considerable cost.
I had hoped that today we could stay with the substance of the amendment—that is, the payment methods —and we seek to reassure your Lordships that with ACT we are widening the methods of payment. I hope that I shall be able further to reassure your Lordships that as a result of our policies and the commitments already given by the Prime Minister and the Government, claimants will be able to receive direct payments in cash by some means other than ACT if there is a delay before the proposed Post Office card account becomes available to clients who are unable to obtain a normal or new basic bank account with a high street bank.
Amendment No. 88 suggests that until suitable alternative payment mechanisms are available to all claimants the regulations should not prevent payment by some method of credit document cashable at the post office. I do not disagree with that. My question to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is: why do we need to place such a provision on the face of the Bill? It does nothing more than prevent us from ruling out forms of payment cashable at the post office until such time as other payment facilities are available to claimants. I agree with that, so the issue between us is how to give that assurance.
I ask the noble Baroness why she believes that the published draft regulations which she will have and which cover the matter precisely do not meet her concerns. I give way to the noble Baroness. Will she please tell me why the draft regulations do not meet her concerns? As I read them, they do precisely that and the only difference between us is whether the provisions should be contained in regulations or appear on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have tried not to make today's debate a post offices issue but to highlight the difficult issue of where those people will go. The Minister said that half the people—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this is not Committee stage. I asked the noble Baroness a specific question; I did not invite her to repeat her speech about the location of post offices. Why does she believe that the published draft regulations do not meet the proposal made in the amendment and that until adequate alternative facilities are in place people will not be able to obtain money by credit documents? Why does she believe that the regulations do not meet her concerns?
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I tabled the amendment because I would rather see the provisions on the face of the Bill. I know that they are contained in regulations and I do not see
440
why the Government are not willing to accept this sensible amendment and put them on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, am I therefore right to assume that the noble Baroness agrees that the issue is fully covered by the regulations and that we are merely arguing about its location?
Baroness Byford: My Lords, no, I do not believe that I am. Perhaps I may return to my original point, and I realise that we are not in Committee. I give way to the noble Earl.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that regulations, when they prove inconvenient to a government, can be revoked instantly but that repealing an Act takes some time?
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that intervention. I have taken one or two Bills through the House and I reckon that a provision in regulations does not have the same implication as on the face of a Bill. The noble Earl has made my point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I suggest that this is not an issue for the face of the Bill. Regulation 12(iv) relates to methods of payment and when they are to commence. It states:
"This regulation does not have effect in relation to claims for a tax credit made before … 2003".
That is to be filled in when the regulations come before your Lordships' House and the other place in due course, as and when we are confident about the delivery outlets at local post offices. I believe that meets precisely the point which the noble Baroness is pursuing.
I do not want to argue the virtues of ACT over cash books, giros or order books. I suggest that the concerns of the noble Baroness are met in the regulations and the assurances given by the Paymaster General on 7th February 2002 in which he said that if accounts were not in place other methods would have to be found to ensure that the money reached the claimants. We have the power to deal with that.
I believe that the points raised in the amendment are fully addressed by the regulations and the assurance, and that the provisions should appropriately appear in regulations. It is not sensible to put such a level of detail on the face of the Bill. Provisions such as this have never appeared in any of the social security Bills I have handled and I do not believe this is the right time to start to try it.
We have been able to give assurances and there is no difference between us on policy. The only difference is where those assurances should be located—in regulations or on the face of the Bill. I hope that as a result of that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said and I understand where she is coming from. However, as she would not earlier allow me to expand the reason for my concern perhaps this is the moment for me to do so. The payment must be made somewhere. The crux of the matter is whether it is to be made at a post office or whether other arrangements are to be made. The Minister may well scratch her head and be very cross and irritated by me, but I believe that those 70 people need to know that they will be able to obtain their money from somewhere. I do not mind where it is, but nowhere in the Bill is such an assurance given.
Today's Statement on Consignia only goes to show how fragile the position is. We all wish Consignia well and hope that it recovers and strengthens. We hope that more people will use the post offices, but, as the Minister said, half of those which closed had fewer than 70 customers a week. Where are those people expected to go in order to make their claims and obtain their money? I have not received a satisfactory answer. I am happy to give way to the Minister again if she can define the position more clearly. No, I presume that she does not wish to do so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the reason I am not responding is that this is not a general debate on the future, location and services of post offices. I am trying to deal with an amendment at Report stage which relates to methods of payment at existing post offices. I have addressed my remarks to that and to the assurances on which the noble Baroness and the noble Earl have pressed me that we shall not go over to ACT across the board until we are confident that it is available to all who need to use it. What is more, the regulations go further. We say that in exceptional circumstances, even with ACT throughout the system, people will still be able to use other forms of access such as credit documents. That is what I am dealing with, the amendment on the Marshalled List—not with a Second Reading debate about post offices and their location. That is why I have not responded to the noble Baroness's point about distance, location, as the crow flies, rural density, size of catchment area and so on. Those are entirely proper issues for another debate.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister. Sadly, she and I are obviously not going to have a meeting of minds. The issue is important and I care strongly about it. I do not mind if payment is not made at post offices, but I mind that we do not know how people are going to access their entitlement. I am very disappointed with the noble Baroness who is normally so conscientious. I seek to test the opinion of the House.
7.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.88) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 92.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Alderdice, L.

Mancroft, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Barker, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blackwell, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Monson, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Montrose, D.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Moynihan, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Newby, L.

Byford, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Noakes, B.

Crathorne, L.

Northbrook, L.

Denham, L.

Northesk, E.

Dholakia, L.

Northover, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Glentoran, L.

Rawlings, B.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

Greaves, L.

Reay, L.

Hamwee, B.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rennard, L.

Higgins, L.

Rogan, L.

Hogg,B.

Roper, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Kingsland, L.

Saatchi, L.

Laird, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Lyell, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L

Smith of Clifton, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Maddock, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Walmsley, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Alli, L.

Gilbert, L.

Andrews, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Goudie, B.

Bach, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Grabiner, L.

Berkeley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Grenfell, L.

Bhatia, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Bragg, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Brennan, L.

Harrison, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hayman, B.

Brookman, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Carter, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Christopher, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord)

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Chancellor)

Crawley, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

David, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Desai, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Donoughue, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

[Teller]

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Elder, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gale, B.

Morgan, L.

443

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Sewel, L.

Nicol, B.

Simon, V.

Pendry, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Peston, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B

Pitkeathley, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Prys-Davies. L.

Uddin, R

Puttnam, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Rea, L.

Whitty, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Wilkins, B.

Rooker, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Sawyer, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform (Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979) Order 2002
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighamrose to move, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 29th April be approved [21st Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall try to be extremely brief. It gives me great pleasure to move the draft Regulatory Reform (Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979) Order 2002 which was laid before the House on 29th April and to ask your Lordships to approve it.
Approval of this order will mark the final stages of the improvements to the vaccine damage payments scheme announced at the end of the review of the scheme. We have increased the payment for new cases to £100,000 and we have made around 900 top-up payments of between £58,000 to £68,000 to past recipients at a cost of over £60 million.
If the order is approved, it will amend the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 in two ways. It will extend the time limit for claiming a vaccine damage payment and reduce the degree of disability required to qualify for a payment so that more people will be eligible for it. It also makes arrangements for transitional claims.
I could extend my description of what these proposals do if your Lordships wish, but that may he enough. It is an entirely benign matter. As I say, it extends the time limit and it reduces the degree of disability down from 80 per cent to 60 per cent and makes appropriate transitional arrangements. If your Lordships are content with that information, I am happy to ask the House to approve the regulatory reform order.
444
Moved, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 29th April be approved [21st Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, it welcome the order. I wish to make a few points. It is interesting to note that two years have passed since we debated the contents of the order. Indeed, I believe that the Secretary of State made the original announcement on 27th June 2000. That announcement concerned the outcome of the review of the vaccine damage payments scheme which reported three years after the general election which brought in this Government. Therefore, five years after this Government came into power, these changes are finally being made. That does not diminish the importance of these amendments but it shows the time-scale involved which, I believe, is a regrettable one.
However, that said, I very much welcome the content of the order. I should like to ask the Minister about the retrospective nature of the order. Can those who fell outside the previous levels of disability now apply retrospectively? Will she explain the somewhat difficult terms in which the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee of another place talked about applying the measure retrospectively in terms of whether or not people were 21 at the time of the original claim on the basis that that was outside the six-year time limit? I am sure that the Minister will be able to elucidate that point. Obviously, it is of great importance that people are able to claim retrospectively as far as possible. As I say, I welcome the order.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the order before us has been studied by the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee. I understand that that committee recommended various amendments to the drafting. Those amendments have been made. Therefore, from a technical point of view, I understand that the order is in good shape.
The order effectively does two things. It alters the time limit for claiming a vaccine damage payment and it reduces the degree of disability that is required. For those people who are unfortunate enough to be in a situation where they may need to claim, both those relaxations are clearly to be very much welcomed. We certainly welcome them.
I understand that the order allows for transitional claims to be considered from persons who had previously claimed unsuccessfully or who, in various specified circumstances, did not claim. It will put past claimants, or persons who might have claimed but were told that they would not succeed, in the same position as those who claim after the coming into force of the amendments to the Act made by the order. It seems to me that this is an entirely wise and benevolent measure. We on this side of the House certainly support it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for the response of both noble Lords. The

445
noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has, indeed, answered the first of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones; namely, that transitional claims will be entertained from people who have previously claimed unsuccessfully, possibly due to their degree of disability, or who have perhaps received wrongful advice that they should not claim.
As regards dates and ages, the Act will provide that a claim must be made before whichever is the later of, first, the date on which the disabled person attains the age of 21, or, where he or she has died, the date on which he would have attained the age of 21, or, secondly, the end of the period of six years beginning with the date of the vaccination to which the claim relates. That is a more generous provision than the six-year period that currently exists.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is content that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and I have between us answered his questions. I hope that the House is content to approve the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Union Extradition (Amendment) Regulations 2002
7.38 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committed].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the regulations before us today are needed in order to make minor amendments to the European Union Extradition Regulations 2002. Those earlier regulations gave effect to the 1995 Convention on Simplified Extradition procedures between member states of the European Union and the 1996 Convention relating to Extradition between Member States of the European Union. Both conventions were designed to speed up and simplify extradition between EU partners and required amendments to the Extradition Act 1989 for full implementation.
The original regulations received parliamentary approval on 19th December 2001 and came into force on 20th March this year. They were made under the provisions of Section 111 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act and, therefore, these amendment regulations must be made under that same power.
The amendment regulations that I move today make two small changes to the original regulations. They are needed because there were two errors in the earlier regulations. The first of the two errors occurred in Schedule 9, paragraph 5 of the regulations, which introduced a new Section 14A to the 1989 Act. In new Section 14A(5), reference was made to,
"provision for a magistrate to order the committal for return of a person".
446
In fact, the term "district judge" should have been used rather than "magistrate"; hence, we have Regulation 2(2) of these amendment regulations. The second mistake was that paragraph 10(4) from new Schedule 1 A to the Extradition Act 1989 modified the wrong section of the Act. This concerns speciality protection for fiscal offences, which are offences in connection with taxes, duties and Customs and Excise. Article 6 of the 1996 convention required that member states extradite for fiscal offences. Article 6(3) allowed states to say, if they chose, that they would restrict extradition for fiscal offences only to those in connection with excise, value-added tax and Customs. Two member states, Greece and Luxembourg, chose to do so.
Inadvertently the change that was made to a section of the 1989 Act was the one that affected incoming requests. The relevant subsections were both the subject of similar, complex amendments and similar in appearance even to experts, so this slipped by the busy proof-readers. Fortunately, no cases have been affected by this oversight but it is only right that the correction should be made to ensure that the extradition position process is as fast, fair and accurate as we can make it. Regulation 2(3) of this statutory instrument therefore omits the provision which was inserted in error, and Regulation 2(4) adds it to the correct provision, affecting outgoing requests.
I cannot believe that there is any controversy about this matter. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of. Haringey.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, of course I do not intend to object in any way to the correction of mistakes, but I should draw the attention of the House to a concern of mine about what has happened here. These mistakes are in fact mistakes in primary legislation because the regulations that are being amended were regulations that exercised a Henry VIII power to amend primary legislation.
Obviously, everybody must be well aware that the standard of drafting in secondary legislation is not always as high as it is in the case of primary legislation, but it does seem to me that particular care is needed in the case of the exercise of a Henry VIII power. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Minister can tell me whether it is the normal practice, when a Henry VIII power is being exercised, to ask parliamentary counsel, who are after all the guardians of primary legislation, to look at amendments before they go into formal regulations and, if not, whether it would not be a good idea for that to be done in the future.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be relieved to hear that we do not find anything controversial about these regulations in themselves, but I feel it is necessary to echo the words

447
of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, because what is controversial about them is that this is secondary legislation. We are correcting an error in secondary or primary legislation, whichever way you want to look at it, and that indicates that we need to be very much more careful how we set about these things in the first place. One would have to be immensely optimistic to believe that this will not happen again and one has to hope that on this occasion the regulations are correct.
We accept what the noble and learned Lord has said and we are happy to support the changes that he is putting forward.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their support. They are correct when they say that, although amendments were made by secondary legislation, it was primary legislation that was being amended. It is therefore of very considerable importance that errors are not made. I deeply regret that the errors were made.
My understanding is that where primary legislation is involved parliamentary counsel drafts the provisions. Where it is secondary legislation, even though it may be amending primary legislation, it is drafted by the department but sent to parliamentary counsel to look at. But I shall write to both noble Lords in relation to that point. In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, it would have been seen by parliamentary counsel but perhaps on a different footing from the way it would have been dealt with had it been primary legislation. I very much take on board the point made by both noble Lords that one has to take as much care as one possibly can to avoid these sorts of mistakes being made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Defence Service (Representation Order Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2002
7.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th March be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments make two changes. The first is to change the time at which a representation order takes effect when the applicant has appealed against a refusal of funding. The second is a small group of technical amendments which are needed to support the bringing into the Criminal Defence Service of appeals from the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal.
First of all, on the timing point, at present when a defendant is refused a criminal representation order by a court he can appeal by making a fresh application to the same court. Regulation 6 of the CDS (General) (No.2 ) Regulations provides that a representation order takes effect from the date the court receives the fully completed application.
448
Where the defendant has had to apply a second time, this means that his representation order takes effect only at the time he made the renewed application. This was not the position in the previous legal aid system. Regulation 44(7) of the Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (General) Regulations 1989 allowed pre-grant costs to be paid where in the interests of justice work had to be done before representation had been granted.
Regulation 3 of this instrument amends the existing CDS (Representation Order Appeals) Regulations to restore that position. It provides that, where a second application has had to be made, any resulting representation order takes effect from the date the original application was received. This applies to all appeals in any court dealing with criminal matters.
I turn now to the financial services amendments. I would like to give some background on the procedure to which they relate. The Financial Services and Markets Tribunal was established on 30th November 2001 and deals with matters referred following a decision of the Financial Services Authority against an individual for market abuse. Applicants to the tribunal are helped by a legal assistance scheme which provides help for persons unable to afford the cost of legal advice and representation.
Appeals from the tribunal go to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division). However, the nature of the work—and in particular the fact that it can involve heavy fines—means that public funding has to be provided as if this were criminal work. This is to comply with our ECHR obligations.
At the moment, funding from the CDS is available only for cases in the Criminal Division. Parliament has already passed a number of regulations that remove this distinction and allow CDS funding to be used in either division, as appropriate. The amendments in Regulation 4 support this by making similar changes to the way appeals against a refusal of funding are dealt with. Specifically, they allow the necessary renewed application to be made to the head of the Civil Appeals Office, as with the original application.
A person appealing to the Court of Appeal will not be means tested. Funding will be subject to the interests of justice test. Again, as with other criminal representation, the court will be able to order defendants to repay some or all of the cost of their defence. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th March be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches are perfectly happy with these regulations and have no objection.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, for the reasons given by the noble Lord the Minister, we also support these amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedule 5) Order 2002
7.48 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd May be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move this order, I should like, with the leave of the House, to speak also to the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2002.
The orders before us are principally constitutional in nature. The first is made under Section 30(2) of the Scotland Act and concerns an amendment to an area reserved by Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. The result of this is a change in the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The second is made under Section 63 of the Scotland Act and provides for Scottish Executive Ministers to exercise executive powers in areas where primary legislation continues to be a matter for this Parliament. This is commonly known as "executive devolution".
Noble Lords may care to note that Ministers in the lead policy departments have been fully involved in preparing both orders before the House today. In the case of the Section 30 order, the lead policy department is the Department of Transport, and in the case of the Section 63 order it is the Department of Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry.
The first order is made under Section 30(2) of the Scotland Act. Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act forms part of the definition of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and sets out the matters that are reserved for the purposes of the Act.
Section 30 of the Scotland Act provides a mechanism whereby Schedules 4 or 5 to the Scotland Act can be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the approval of both Parliaments. This allows the boundaries of the Scottish Parliament's legislative competence to be adjusted, either by removing existing reservations in whole or in part, or by adding new ones.
Following devolution, railways are a matter reserved to this Parliament. However, commitments were made during the passage of the Scotland Bill in 1998 to devolve a number of measures relating to railways in Scotland. What is known as the McLeish settlement ensures that Scottish Executive Ministers have a significant level of control over Scottish passenger rail services within the overall Great Britain framework. Elements of the package have already been implemented by previous orders under the Scotland Act. Other elements of the McLeish settlement were implemented by the UK Transport Act 2000.
The order amends Section E2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act. It transfers to the Scottish Parliament legislative competence over powers for the promotion and construction of railways in Scotland. Once implemented, project promoters will be able to apply
450
to the Scottish Parliament for all the necessary permissions to initiate projects. They will no longer have to go to Westminster to do so.
The order fulfils the commitment made in the McLeish settlement to ensure that promoters of railways, stations and maintenance depots would be able to seek the powers for proceeding with construction from the Scottish Parliament. Until now, all projects involving the construction of railways in Scotland have been scrutinised at Westminster. This has been done either through the order-making procedures of the light railways Acts or through the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936.
In future, permissions for railway projects that are wholly within Scotland will be granted at Holyrood and only cross-border developments will continue to be dealt with at Westminster. Scottish projects, which I understand will be dealt with by private legislation in the Scottish Parliament, will include both heavy and light railways. Procedures for Private Bills were updated and improved by the Scottish Parliament in November 2000.
Powers for the development of heritage railways have traditionally been granted through light railway orders. These light railway orders will continue to be made, but by Scottish Ministers.
Noble Lords may be aware that a number of new railway projects in Scotland are currently being considered that will require legislation, including the link between Stirling and Alloa. The order is being enacted in advance of any Private Bill associated with these projects being lodged.
The second order, the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2002, is made under Section 63 of the Scotland Act. Section 63 provides a mechanism to allow functions of a Minister of the Crown to be exercisable by Scottish Ministers in or as regards Scotland instead of, or concurrently with, the Minister of the Crown. The order is being brought forward today primarily as a result of joint efforts between the Scotland Office and the Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives to establish ferry services between Ballycastle in Northern Ireland and Campbeltown in Kintyre.
At the end of 1999, Sea Containers, which had run summer-only commercial operations on the route since 1997, was encountering heavy losses and indicated that the service would not return in summer 2000. The service had been established to take advantage of the strong historical and cultural links between Kintyre and Antrim. It was also to build on the potential tourism benefits of linking these two neighbouring regions of outstanding natural beauty. Loss of the service would affect both already fragile local economies. Moreover, both Ballycastle and Campbeltown had newly built and publicly funded port facilities in danger of becoming permanently redundant.
Having identified that a service could operate only with a public subsidy, the first task was to investigate whether a subsidy could legally be paid by declaring a public service obligation. Following discussions with

451
Commission officials, and having seen the evidence provided by consultants, Commission officials agreed informally that a ferry service would not infringe state aids legislation.
Section E3 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act reserves responsibility for financial support for shipping services that do not begin and end in Scotland. The uniquely peripheral nature of the Highlands and Islands is such, however, that the primary purpose of any new ferry service to Northern Ireland would always be to assist economic development rather than merely as a commercial transport link. It was on that basis that both the Northern Ireland and the Scottish Executives have from the start of this process undertaken that any eventual subsidy would be found from within devolved resources.
Scottish Ministers have requested this order to allow them to make payments directly to an operator of ferry services between the Highlands and Islands and Northern Ireland. In future, the Scottish Executive will be able to take action to promote ferry services to Northern Ireland to support its economic development role in the Highlands and Islands. It will be for the devolved administrations to decide how to make use of these powers and to take forward the tendering processes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd May be approved [29th Report from the Joint Comntitiee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for enlarging on what is contained in the order as regards the question of the modification of Schedule 5. As the Minister said, there have been quite a few modifications to the schedule since it started. When we consider that originally,
"the provision and regulation of railways",
was to be totally reserved to the UK Government, we can see that it has been devolved in very many ways.
As far as concerns both my understanding and that of my party, the Scots are, by and large, satisfied with the various modifications that have taken place. During the debate that took place in another place on this modification regarding the promotion and construction of railways beginning and ending in Scotland, it emerged that the Scottish Executive may become the one promoting the new railways, if necessary. That raised immediate concerns about funding and where it would come from. I gather that the Minister in the other place seemed to think that the grant that is given to the Scottish Executive would be quite adequate to cover this project. I presume that the Scottish Executive has discussed the matter and is prepared to play along with this. That is the only comment that one can make.
Under the transfer of functions order, we are dealing with a subject with which the Scottish Executive is no doubt very familiar in general; namely, the subsidising of ferry services. Most of these are devolved. However, it was interesting to note that the Explanatory Notes attached to the legislation spoke of the Scottish
452
Executive carrying out a continuing review of the subsidising of ferry services. I believe that there also remains an obligation on the Government in Westminster to monitor such subsidisation. Does the Minister have that in mind? Further, can he say whether that review will be an ongoing process?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches have no difficulty in approving this transfer of legislative competence. It certainly fulfils part of the McLeish settlement and completes the measures of railways devolution. If we think a little about what this enables the Scottish Parliament to deal with, it is clear that it relates to railways on routes which have never previously been used. We had a fairly recent example of that on the Island of Mull, with a light railway between Craigmuir and Torosay Castle. It also deals with the re-opening of moth-balled railways. The Minister will not be surprised to hear those words, Stirling, Alloa and Kinkardine. But perhaps I may also add Larkhall and the Edinburgh cross-rail, which, I am happy to say, have in fact just opened, thereby extending the railway system down towards Dalkeith; and, more critically, towards the Edinburgh City bypass. There is also the restoration of abandoned routes, which would deal especially with border rail, about which I shall say something later.
On a slightly anecdotal note as regards Stirling, Alloa and Kinkardine, the Scottish Executive had to hold a debate as to whether one could claim to be rebuilding the route because the railway line is still there—or whether it would be better to have new legislation. It was decided that the 1846 Act relating to the Stirling and Dunfermline railway did not hold sufficient powers and was subject to challenge. It was decided that it would be safer to have a new railway order.
The issue of renewing the railway on the abandoned border route poses a small problem. I can see that, to begin with, the railway will he promoted down towards the towns in the borders, but eventually it will extend to Carlisle. The last part will have to he considered by this Parliament, whereas all the extensions down the Waverley route towards the Border can be dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. I look forward to that, although it may not happen, for a long time.
With regard to the implications, having twice been commissioner on the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, I am disappointed to see that it has been abandoned, because I believe that the local public inquiry is a good process. The power to use the Light Railways Act would be helpful, but one wonders about the issues of health and safety. Initially the light railways were designed to be lightly laid and used in very rural areas.
Like the noble Duke, I have been trying to define railway devolution and reservation. The question is: where does the line go? By that, I mean the Schedule 5 line. It is tempting to say that it runs between the rails. But it is also difficult to find out exactly where the reserved devolved line runs. Not only has there been railway devolution in modifications of Schedule 5; it

453
has also taken place through transfer of functions orders and through other Acts. Definitive answers as to exactly what is reserved and what is devolved in Scottish railways are still eluding me. Therefore, I want to ask whether there is a single record of all the transfers of functions. Clearly the modifications of Schedule 5 are much easier to track. That said, we are very happy with the railway order.
I move on to the ferry order. We certainly approve of this transfer of ministerial function. Of course, this is likely to take place in a constituency familiar to these Benches and to my honourable Scottish friends Alan Reid and George Lyon. The transfer obviously provides the opportunity to subsidise the Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry and presumably any other ferry between Northern Ireland and the Highlands and Islands that anyone might like to dream up—in theory, at least.
It is a clearly a transport, tourism and economic development measure. It is certainly part of remote areas policy, and I suspect that the new renewable energy equipment factory in Machrihanish could benefit if it chose to export into the Irish market. That will clearly have an impact on the Scottish Parliament's budget. It also depends on co-operation between the Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives. I suppose that it brings to my attention that there is a very small constitutional problem here. Despite all the architecture of dispute resolution within devolution, it is all aimed at dealing with disputes between the United Kingdom Government and a devolved Parliament or Assembly. At present there is no architecture to deal with disputes between devolved Parliaments or Assemblies. I hope that that will not happen, but it could.
Finally, I want to ask three questions. First, has the power to make.such changes yet been transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly? Secondly, will Caledonian MacBrayne be allowed to tender for the service? I felt that it was somewhat unfairly excluded on the previous occasion, especially as it had to supply the ship. Finally, can we clarify the wording in the schedule to Article 2, which refers to "shipping services carrying passengers"? Presumably the ferries will be allowed to carry cars, lorries and freight as well as passengers. However, I take the point that primarily it must be a passenger-carrying ferry service.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their welcome for these orders. I shall deal with the points that they raised which are properly the concern of this Parliament. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, referred to the implication from a Minister in another place that the block grant was adequate for the purpose. It is not really up to us to say whether the block grant is adequate for the purpose. We need only know that it will be financed entirely from within the block grant. Frankly, anything beyond that has nothing to do with us. It is up to them to decide their own priorities.
454
The noble Duke asked whether, since these are specific circumstances of potential economic gains from a subsidy for ferry services, there were any other circumstances where these might occur and whether we would monitor such cases from Westminster. We are not aware of any other circumstances but, of course, if there were any, the Department of Transport would continue to monitor them.
I believe that most of the issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, were entirely matters for the Scottish Parliament. However, my understanding is that—
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. At this moment, they are the responsibility of this Parliament because we have not yet devolved these issues.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the orders are approved—I have not heard any opposition to them—they will complete the devolution of responsibility for railways within the confines of the orders. Therefore, all the matters which he raises about differences between light railways and other railways, and the difference between abandoned lines and so on, will be entirely matters for the Scottish Parliament, and I would not wish to trespass on them. My understanding is that the Northern Ireland Assembly has the powers to carry out its side of the bargain. The question relating to Caledonian MacBrayne is entirely a matter for the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. As for the definition of "shipping-carrying passengers", of course that does not exclude carrying anything else. Indeed, if it were to work, I believe that it would have to carry coaches and coach parties.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, suggested that there is no architecture for devolved administration disputes, but we can set up joint ministerial committees to resolve such disputes. They would be attended by the United Kingdom Government and by the devolved Parliament and Assemblies. I hope that, on that basis, the order can be approved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2002
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd May be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.

455
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.9 to 8.30 p.m.]

Tax Credits Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 24.
[Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Payments of working tax credit by employers]:
[Amendments Nos. 91 to 98 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Overpayments]:
[Amendments. Nos. 99 to 107 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Underpayments]:
[Amendment No 108 not moved.]
Clause 31 [Incorrect statements etc.]:
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 110:
Page 22, line 29. at end insert—
"( ) No person shall be liable for negligence under this section unless the Board is satisfied that it is just and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to hold such person personally liable.
( ) Amongst the circumstances the Board shall consider in coming to a determination as to whether the Board is so satisfied as set out in the preceding subsection shall be—

(a) the extent and degree of the neglect,

(b) whether the neglect is so gross as to constitute a deliberate act,

(c) the degree of personal gain,

(d) any impairment of the health or other reason whereby the neglect may have been occasioned, and

(e) the resources available to the person concerned to be able to comply properly and duly."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 110 is concerned with the question of negligence by individuals who are administering the tax credit arrangements and suggests that no person shall be liable for negligence under the clause unless the board is satisfied that it is just and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case that it should hold such a person liable.
The amendment specifies a number of circumstances the board should consider in coming to a determination on whether it is so satisfied; namely, the extent and degree of neglect; whether the neglect is so gross as to constitute a deliberate act; the degree of personal gain, if any; impairment of health and so forth, and the resources available to the person concerned to be able to comply properly and duly.
Although it is true that in administering the tax credits the employer faces a considerable burden, obviously he is also preoccupied with running his business. None the less, it is right that if he is negligent, appropriate steps should be taken, and the Bill makes provision for that. Having said that, it seems to us that there is some argument for ensuring flexibility in particular circumstances. I refer, for example, to the proprietor of a small enterprise who suffers from ill
456
health and would not otherwise be able to cope not only with his business which would perhaps fall into disrepair, but also with the administration of the tax credit system as far as his employees are concerned.
The amendment is self-explanatory. It seems to us that there is an argument for giving a degree of flexibility to the board as to whether or not the individual concerned should be subject to the provisions of the Bill, particularly as regards penalties and so forth. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the amendment is before us. It enables us to clarify a matter which we thought we had clarified in Committee. Having read the briefing from the Child Poverty Action Group today, it is clear that that organisation would welcome clarification.
Clause 31 provides for a penalty to be imposed where a person has, fraudulently or negligently, provided false or incorrect information or evidence. The amendment seeks to place limits on the imposition of penalties for negligently providing false information. The "negligence" test for penalties is a matter that has been given careful consideration both here and in another place.
Neglect means that there has been a failure to take reasonable care. When people are applying for significant amounts of public money, it is only proper that they should take reasonable care. The alternative would be to say that people can deal with their tax credits affairs in a totally cavalier fashion. I am sure that noble Lords would not want that to be the case.
If we are serious about ensuring that claimants receive what they are entitled to, about tackling fraud and about targeting resources where they are most needed, the Revenue must have the power to require additional information to be provided. For those powers to be meaningful there must also be fair but effective sanctions to prevent fraudulent claims or the negligent provision of information. To allow claimants to supply incorrect information with impunity would be a fraudster's dream.
I understand the concerns about imposing penalties on those who have made an innocent mistake. However, that is not what the test of fraud or negligence is intended to allow. The test of negligence is applied to those who fail to take care in making their claim or in providing information that any reasonable person would take, and which any reasonable person would expect them to take. In making a claim it is only right to expect people to act responsibly.
There will also be cases where it is difficult to show categorically that someone has acted fraudulently. However, in such cases it may be possible to show that someone's behaviour amounted to negligence. In practice, many of the matters set out in the amendment will be matters which the Revenue or any appeal body will take into account when considering whether there has been negligence. I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to set out those matters on the face of the Bill.

457
The test of fraud or neglect is long established in law. It is not an innovation or something we are introducing on a whim. Tinkering with that test, which would be the effect of the amendment, would generate uncertainty. We do not think that uncertainty is in the best interests of claimants or employers. They would be faced with two different tests of negligence: one for tax and national insurance affairs and another for their tax credit affairs. Again, we do not believe that that would be advisable or helpful.
The test of negligence has been used in the tax system for many years. It also applies to the working families' tax credit and the DPTC system. I have not heard anything from noble Lords opposite to suggest that they think that the Revenue is using that existing power in relation to tax credits in a heavy-handed way; one could argue the reverse. In any case, the test of negligence does not allow the Revenue to penalise people who make innocent mistakes, even if it wanted to. The necessary flexibility for which the noble Lord argues is there in the way in which this test can be operated. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment further.
Earl Russell: My Lords, am I right in recollecting that this clause is aimed at what is known as a phoenix company, because if that is correct, that would materially assist me?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have always had a great desire to materially assist the noble Lord, but I am afraid that on this occasion, much as it might help my own case, I am unable to do so.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I understand the arguments he is putting forward. However, some of the comparisons he draws are not relevant. It is true that the test as regards negligence might well apply to tax affairs. However, the situation here is rather different. It may be that a small businessman, responsible for running his business and so forth, has problems of a short-term nature. It may well be that he is not able, within a matter of two or three weeks, to keep wholly up to date but he might be thought to be negligent if he does not do so.
We suggest that consideration should be given to the various factors which might be the reason for his appearing to be neglectful and for the board taking the view that he was neglectful. It does not compare with the tax situation which, on the whole, is run over a rather longer time period where matters such as illness and so forth would probably not be relevant.
We have also put forward some other suggestions. I do not find the Minister's reply wholly convincing. Unless he can satisfy me further, particularly on the illness point, I am inclined to return to the matter at Third Reading.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I respect the noble Lord's point. I should clarify that negligence
458
already applies to tax credit affairs. It includes employees in the working families' tax credit. So we have some experience of the way the test is applied.
The point that the noble Lord makes about innocent mistakes—that is effectively what he is talking about—is covered. There is a degree of innocence if someone is inadvertently indisposed and cannot put his affairs straight in the limited period of time suggested by the noble Lord. I take his point, but if there is an inadvertent error, as suggested by the noble Lord, those matters can properly be taken account of in the way that the test will always be applied. At some point in the dispute those matters can quite properly be tested in a tribunal forum. That is another opportunity to set matters right and have the record put straight.
The flexibility is there. There is capacity and scope for dealing with innocent mistakes and with inadvertent errors caused by people being unable to keep their affairs perhaps correctly recorded. Therefore, what the noble Lord seeks to achieve with his amendment does not take us any further. We think that the necessary flexibility is already there. Going along the route suggested by the noble Lord would only confuse and make matters more difficult.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I shall consider carefully what the noble Lord said. We are not concerned with errors or with mistakes. They have nothing to do with negligence. We are concerned with whether inadvertently, and for reasons beyond the individual's control, he might be thought to be negligent when there is a good reason why he is unable to fulfil his responsibilities. I shall read and consider what the noble Lord said. I thought he gave an inadequate answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Failure to comply with requirements]:
[Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Penalties: supplementary]:
[Amendments Nos. 113 to 119 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Interest]:
[Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Appeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 122 to 128 not moved.]
Clause 39 [Exercise of right of appeal]:
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Annual review]:
[Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Persons subject to immigration control]:
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
Clause 42 [Polygamous marriages]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 133:
Page 26,1ine 34, at end insert "which are the same as those made under the State Pension Credit Act 2002"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, the noble Earl and I spent many hours debating various aspects of the State Pensions Credit Act. The purpose of Amendment No. 133 is to ensure that the

459
provisions mentioned in that Act are the same as those in the Bill. The amendment seeks merely to ensure conformity between the two pieces of legislation. That seems eminently sensible. We hope that the noble Baroness feels able to accept the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am deeply disappointed. I was hoping to be able to discuss again the differences between polygamy and polyandry and the principal forms of polyandry and the people from the Malabar coast of India. Instead, I have been denied the opportunity of exhibiting the research done by a young man from our department.
I shall do as I have asked other people to do, which is to stay with the words of the amendment. It seeks to align the rules of the new tax credits with the rules for pension credits. I do not think that we can do that. It would not work. The regulations regarding polygamy made under each Bill need to reflect the character of the respective credit introduced by those Bills. If the regulations made under Clause 42 of the Bill were the same as those made under Section 12 of the Pension Credit Act, they would obviously be about the pension credit, which would not be much help to people trying to claim the working tax credit or the child tax credit.
Perhaps I may give an example. The working tax credit will contain an additional element for couples. Regulations made under Clause 42 will need to deal specifically with that issue. By comparison, regulations regarding polygamy made under the State Pension Credit Act need to deal with the question of the availability in such cases of the guaranteed credit or savings credit within the pension credit. Therefore, I am afraid that one cannot cross-write in the way that the noble Lord seeks, mainly because the building blocks of the two systems are very different.
The noble Lord looks baffled. Pension credit, as he will recall—
Lord Higgins: I am surprised.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Never baffled, merely surprised. My Lords, the pension credit, as the noble Lord will recall, is the fact that between the retirement state pension for a single person of £77 (next year) and £100, which is the current MIG figure for 2003, there is no advantage to people in having a small pension. When pension credit comes into effect next year they will be able to keep 60 per cent of the difference between those two sums according to their pensioner status.
There is no read across from that to what is happening here, which is about a building block or a family need. Pension credit is about ensuring that an occupational pension is not tapered out against an entitlement to MIG. The couple or single person element obviously comes into play. But it is not a means test in the form of tax credit or child tax credit which must build in additional elements for each member of the family. That is basically why one cannot leap from one to the other. They are different structurally. But in both cases we treat the position of a second, third or fourth spouse in supportive ways.
460
I should be happy to seek to enlarge on my remarks if the noble Lord wishes. But basically pension credit is saying that one can keep one's occupational pension between those two figures as opposed to working tax credit and child tax credit, which is actually building on the allowances given for the size of the family, which is a very different system.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, it is sometimes said that one should never ask a question unless one knows the answer. Generally speaking on a Bill one can anticipate a number of replies which the Government are likely to make—most of them unfavourable. Having said that, I am surprised by this. It seemed to me that there was an argument for some consistency. I understand the points made by the noble Baroness. I shall read carefully what she has said and read again the previous debates on the Bill. Subject to that, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Crown employment]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 134:
Leave out Clause 43.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 134 seeks to leave out Clause 43. It is an extremely short clause about Crown employment. It states:
"This Part applies in relation to persons employed by or under the Crown (as in relation to other employees)".
As the noble Baroness will understand, this is a probing amendment. I am not clear why those in Crown employment should require that provision to be included in the Bill. I should have thought that Crown employees are employed, so far as concerns the Bill, in exactly the same way as anyone else employs someone or is employed by someone. The wording is rather odd in the parentheses, where it says:
"as in relation to other employees".
I do not understand why a person employed by or under the Crown has any relationship to other employees, but no doubt the noble Baroness can elucidate that and explain why Crown employees require a specific mention in the clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are here dealing with those employed directly by the Crown; in other words, members of Her Majesty's private staff and those who work for the Royal Household, as opposed to the more general application of the term, "Crown servant", which could mean any civil servant or person employed in the public sector. Without such a power, it would not be possible for the employees of Her Majesty to be eligible for tax credit. The Queen has graciously consented that her employees may have their wages topped up by tax credits. Therefore, there is a clause in the Bill to that effect.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, which again I had not anticipated. I thought that lots of people were employed by the Crown in the sense of the Government. I had not realised that the provision referred to the Royal Household. I am not sure what

461
would be the drafting if one wanted to refer to civil servants, rather than members of the Royal Household. But the noble Baronesses has explained that point.
However, I am still not clear why the expression is,
"as in relation to other employees".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it means in a like manner as to other employees of other employers—in other words, the same income in the same circumstances generates the same tax credit.
Lord Higgins: Yes, my Lords, fine. We shall consider that carefully, but the noble Baroness has at least explained what the clause is intended to cover, for which we are grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 135:
Leave out Clause 45.
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns notices issued by the board under Clause 45. Again, it is simply a probing amendment. The clause states:
"The board may give any notice which they are required or permitted to give under this Part in the manner and form which the Board considers appropriate in the circumstances".
I do not understand why the clause is necessary. I should have thought that it was apparent that the board could give notices that it is required to give in whatever form it considered appropriate. It is given total discretion to give notices in whatever form it likes. I do not think that anyone has suggested the contrary and I do not understand why we need the terms of Clause 45. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness is familiar with my concern for the rights of the illiterate. Perhaps I need to start to develop an equivalent concern for the rights of the computer illiterate. Notices can be addressed by e-mail to those who are not equipped for such a thing, as frequently happens to several of us now. I hope that, with the case of Pepper v Hart in mind, the Minister can assure us that that would not be regarded as an appropriate method of communication, because it does not reach its destination.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as does the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I regard the clause as a belt-and-braces provision. It gives the Inland Revenue the flexibility that it needs to issue notices in the most appropriate form and manner. I am self-conscious about using the word "appropriate" after our earlier debate. None the less, every argument that I shall advance will insist that what we are doing is appropriate.
To take the substance of the question of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the most part, notices will be given in writing. That is the most common way of contacting claimants, especially at the end of the year
462
when issuing notices under Clause 17. However, when a claimant wants to be contacted electronically—in the same way as some people now fill in their tax returns and submit them electronically—it is only right that the Bill should provide the flexibility to do so. Obviously, there is no intention to force claimants to deal with the Inland Revenue electronically, but it is right to have the flexibility to encourage electronic communication with those who wish to utilise it.
The clause also relates to notices that may be given to employers under Clause 25. Again, it is important to have the flexibility to send notices in a manner that suits the employer—electronically, by facsimile or by post.
I can only assume that we need the provision in the Bill because there has been some previous challenge as to whether a notice that was sent had due legitimacy given its mode of communication. I am certainly aware of cases in which a fax has been used but has not been held to be a valid form of communication. I am assured that the clause is a belt-and-braces provision that makes clear that notices can be sent in whatever form is convenient to the claimant or the employer, but the presumption will for the most part be that that is in writing. I hope that the noble Lord will be content with that explanation.
Lord Higgins: Yes, my Lords, the clause seems to be a belt-and-braces provision and, I should have thought, otiose, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 136:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—
"Annual report by Board
After section 13 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890 (c. 21) (commissioners to keep accounts) insert—
"13A COMMISSIONERS TO REPORT ANNUALLY
(1) The duties of the Board are to include a duty to set forth in an annual report a full analysis of tax credits, by reference to racial groups as defined by section 3(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74), distinguishing in each case between awards of the child tax credit and shall include—

(a) the number of claims received;

(b) eligibility for the respective claimants of tax credits;

(c) the number of rejected forms;

(d) the number of appeals;

(e) the number of successful appeals; and

(f) a summary of the main reasons for the failure of appeals.

(2) The report referred to in subsection (1) shall be published no later than 31st July following the end of each tax year.""
The noble Lord said: After a series of probing amendments and points of rather nitty-gritty detail—which it is of course right that the House should consider, as we have now done—we come to what is an important amendment of substance. It proposes after Clause 45 to insert a new clause entitled,
"Annual report by Board".
We have already discussed annual reports by the board—indeed, provisions have now been made for such a report regarding certain matters as a result of

463
the Division that took place yesterday. But the annual report with which we are here concerned is of a rather different nature.
We have received representations from several bodies. The originators of the amendment have a good pedigree —we understand that it is proposed not only by the Law Society but by the Disability Alliance, the Low Pay Unit, the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. Many of those will be at the forefront of the Bill's operation. All of them have expressed concern that there should be a mechanism for monitoring the ethnic origin of tax credit applicants to maximise take-up and ensure that every section of the community benefits from it where available.
In discussion of earlier amendments, we have been concerned with the whole issue of take-up. For example, I understand that some offices of the Department for Work and Pensions have to deal with a considerable number of individuals in a wide variety of languages. Given some of the complexities of the Bill, that may make it especially difficult for individuals to succeed in claiming what, with our support, it is the Government's intention that they should receive.
But if the monitoring is to be done effectively, it is appropriate that records of it should be kept and that the House should be made aware of them. That is why we suggest that the board should make an annual report.
I can recall that previously—perhaps 20 or 30 years ago, especially with regard to the form in which a census form should be made out—the sensitivity was that there was something wrong with saying, "What particular ethnic group does this or that individual come from?" That was—and, to some extent, perhaps still is—a sensitive matter.
It is probably true to say—I express a purely personal view—that that sensitivity has tended to be replaced by the view that one ought to make sure that no particular group is being discriminated against. Attitudes change over time. Given the pedigree of the amendment, quite clearly a number of those who are very much concerned with these issues have come to the view that it would be helpful to race relations, and to the administration of the Bill when it becomes an Act, if such a record were kept.
The specific provisions in the amendment are concerned with the number of claims received, the eligibility of the respective claimants, the number of rejected forms, the number of appeals, the number of successful appeals and a summary of the main reasons for the failure of appeals. The report should distinguish between child credit and working tax credit so far as concerns the ethnic origin of the various claimants and the success that they have in order to discover whether any group is not receiving the benefits that this House, another place and the Government have decided are appropriate for them.
That being so, I am hopeful that I may receive a somewhat sympathetic response from the noble Baroness, or at least an indication of what is the
464
Government's thinking on this issue. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, did not move his amendment to Clause 41 but it may be that some of these issues arise also on that clause. We may return to it at Third Reading.
I thought it appropriate at Report stage that I should ask what are the Government's feelings about these issues, which clearly are of considerable concern to the various people who have made representations. I understand that the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit published a report in 2001 entitled Ethnic Minorities in the Labour Market which highlighted the difficulties with existing survey data. It would seem that there is an argument that. rather than carry out surveys which statistically are always open to a variety of views, reference to actual cases rather than sample cases might be a more effective way of dealing with the matter.
There are varying views on this issue. I merely bring it forward because some outside bodies have taken the view that this would be helpful to ethnic minorities rather than otherwise. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Higgins for the following reasons. First, it would be useful statistically; secondly, it would give a good indication of whether any racial group has difficulty tilling in the forms; and, thirdly, it would be helpful for refining the forms to make them easier to understand and to increase the take-up rate. I approve of subsection (2) which states that the report should be published by 31st July following the end of the tax year.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I entirely agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that there has been a historical change on the question of ethnic monitoring. On the whole, I agree with his reasons for why it has changed and I believe that it is a good thing that it has. It is assumed now that the motive for desiring the information is benevolent.
While the noble Lord was speaking, I remembered a conversation that I had back in the 1960s with my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, whose then husband was one of my colleagues. She said then that it was often quite useful to be able to say that one did not have the information. She was assuming that the information was being solicited for the purposes of causing trouble. Now we much more often assume that the information is solicited for the purposes of being helpful. That is a change entirely for the better. I hope that it is permanent.
As always with these changes, there are always some people left behind. When ethnic origin information is requested there are always some people who either express a conscientious objection to filling in the required information, or think it is wanted for malevolent purposes, or occasionally object for the perfectly good reason that the only honest answer they can give is the good old answer "mongrel".

465
If the amendment is accepted, I hope that there will not be a penalty for refusing to fill in one's ethnic origin. That should also be counted as a right. If we do not count it as a right, we shall create only martyrs where we do not want to create them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, like all government departments, the Inland Revenue is fully committed to monitoring the take-up of the new tax credits among ethnic communities. It is important to get that on the record. Inland Revenue officials are continuing to discuss with the relevant community and interest groups the best way to achieve this. When those discussions have been completed, it may be of interest and help to your Lordships if I write and give details of the conclusions of those discussions.
As your Lordships are aware, there is a legislative obligation on the Inland Revenue and other departments to assess their policies and functions and to publish assessments, consultations and monitoring with a view on how these impact on race equality. That obligation arises out of the provisions of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. Under that Act, the Inland Revenue must publish and implement a race equality scheme, the aim of which is to eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good relations between different racial groups. That scheme was published on 31st May of this year and can be found on the Inland Revenue website.
Behind all this is the wider question of outreach and so on as opposed to monitoring. The Inland Revenue is fully committed to ensuring that the take-up of tax credits is increased among ethnic communities. Indeed, the department is already undertaking a number of initiatives to ensure that that happens. The development of the publicity campaign for new tax credits has included work to improve the targeting of messages to ethnic groups. The department has identified and carried out research which supports plans to target those most likely to contain the highest concentration of potential tax credit recipients but with the lowest penetration of messages from mainstream sources. Publicity directed at these groups will be specifically tailored both in terms of language and for a cultural fit.
Alongside this, the mainstream campaign will seek to be as inclusive as possible by representing the diversity of the UK population in its imagery and will include the use of ethnic media where appropriate. The department will also be supporting the role of intermediaries, such as community advice workers and local authorities, through the provision of support materials and background information. Where appropriate, material will be available in foreign languages.
So I hope I can assure noble Lords regarding the efforts being made by the Inland Revenue and by other government departments. In my own department I have been involved in looking at diversity policies and so on. Therefore, I am very aware of the concentrated and consistent efforts now being made by government.
466
The noble Lord is right. There has been a shift in attitude as to the propriety of this approach. Certainly, in my own field I often find that the one area that I do not know about is X and its implication for ethnic minority families—whether they are large families, whether it is a question of payment of child support moneys, or whatever. We have simply not collected that information, perhaps through the wrong approach in terms of sensitivities. As a result, we are now handicapped in our ability to develop policies which specifically respond to their needs.
To give an assurance to the noble Lord, the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 requires us to do exactly that for which the noble Lord is calling. This aspect of the annual report would be published in accordance with the Inland Revenue's obligations under the Race Equality Scheme. I believe that it will provide the noble Lord with the detailed information that he seeks. I am happy to write to him on the details of the Inland Revenue's ethnic minority monitoring plans and to provide him with a copy of the Race Equality Scheme. With that additional information, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment. It is a very useful one. I am glad to have the opportunity to put these points on the record.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. So far as concerns the lack of statistics, her reply suggests that the Inland Revenue—and other departments too—will seek to remedy that deficiency.
What I am not quite clear about is whether a report in the form suggested by the amendment—or, indeed, a report at all, other than in the normal Inland Revenue report—will be available. When we discussed reports earlier, the noble Baroness described what was asked for as a "scissors and paste job". I am not clear whether she is saying that a report of the kind that we seek in the amendment already exists, whether it is possible for people to put it together, or whether one could simply accept the amendment. While I fully accept, as I believe the noble Earl will, that the Minister's reply is forthcoming and welcome, I am still not absolutely sure whether she is saying that she is prepared to accept the amendment or whether she thinks that existing information is in a form that makes it readily available.
I am not suggesting that all members of ethnic minorities will read this legislation when it is eventually passed, but there might be some argument for having such a provision on the face of the Bill, simply to make clear the good intentions of those on all sides of the House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the point I was making was not that I disagree with the amendment, but that, as is occasionally the case, the amendment is redundant. The Inland Revenue is already required to do what the noble Lord has called for under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000; namely, departments are required to produce their race equality scheme, which includes information about take-up, monitoring and so forth. We published the scheme on the website on 31st May 2002. It may be

467
that, between now and Third Reading, the noble Lord—who I am sure is more of a computer expert than I and, I gather, the noble Earl, Lord Russell—will be able to see whether this meets his concerns. Developing that further—that is, ensuring that we get the fullest publicity, outreach and take-up by ethnic minorities—is not just about publishing the information; it is about working with groups and with the media to have that effect.
As I said, I hope that I have allayed the noble Lord's concerns. This matter is of great importance. The amendment as it stands is redundant, because departments are already required under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 to do that for which he is calling. Over and beyond that, there is the equally important task of ensuring that tax credits are brought to the attention of ethnic communities in our society. I believe that the Inland Revenue has well-founded schemes in place.
My own department too has great experience of this and we are used to seeking to build up this information. The pity is that we did not have this information five years ago.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall take up her suggestion that I should consult the website. I am not sure that I am any more computer literate than either the noble Baroness or the noble Earl.
I am inclined to ask: will the information appear in the variety of languages for which those concerned with this issue might wish? But I am rather deterred by that. A few nights ago, I was surfing the Web—I believe that is the expression—and the information came up in French. I was rather worried by this, but then it came up with a nice option saying that it was available in other languages. I selected English, and it said: "This is an English translation which has been done automatically from the French. Lord Higgins is a member of the Preserving Party"$ It is absolutely true. So it can be surprising what people say about one on websites. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Tax credits; consequential amendments]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 137:
Page 46, line 5, leave out paragraphs 4 to 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister will be glad to know that this is the last of a series of amendments which effectively seek to delete from the Bill amendments which the Government wished to insert in Grand Committee. We have debated various issues of this sort. In Grand Committee, we agreed that for convenience we should describe the numerous government amendments under various categories. These ones come under category 5—which I for one am glad to say is the last category we were discussing.
These amendments reflect two points. First, as we well know, the government amendments were tabled very late. Secondly, some of them referred to Part 2 of the Bill, which was not discussed at all in another place. That was a matter of considerable concern and
468
I delivered a rather long and passionate speech about it in Committee. The House will be glad to know that I do not plan to repeat that speech. However, it would be helpful for the Minister and for the other place when it comes to consider these amendments of which it has hitherto been unaware—if the noble Baroness would very rapidly summarise what these various amendments do. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, these amendments reverse a number of minor and technical amendments agreed to in Grand Committee. The amendments fall broadly into two categories. As the noble Lord said, Amendments Nos. 137, 153, 170 and 172 reverse consequential amendments relating to various Northern Ireland legislation. As he also said, in Committee I described those as the fifth category of government amendments. The remaining amendments reverse changes that are consequential on two matters, the abolition of WFTC and DPTC and the replacement of SERPS with the state second pension. I should like to deal with those amendments first.
On SERPS, Section 45A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and its Northern Ireland counterpart provide that WFTC and DPTC may be taken into account when calculating the earnings factor relating to SERPS entitlement. As we are both abolishing WFTC and reforming SERPS, consequential amendments are clearly necessary. I shall be happy to describe those in more detail if the noble Lord so wishes. In summary, however, both WFTC and DPTC are going, as is SERPS. We therefore need to re-label the amendments. Is that sufficient explanation for the noble Lord on that aspect of the amendments?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, that is sufficient.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful. The second matter is the need to reverse consequential amendments to Northern Ireland provision, which is category 5. In the main, these consequential amendments sought simply to remove redundant references to WFTC and DPTC in existing Northern Ireland legislation. Amendment No. 137 reverses consequential amendments to the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order which simply removed references to "Family Credit" in that order. In 1999, "Family Credit" was taken out and replaced with "WFTC". We now need to replace that with the new titles.
Amendments Nos. 153 and 170 reverse consequential changes to Article 18C(7)(b) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. This article allows those who have certain services paid for by a local authority on their behalf—primarily day care services for children in particular need—to receive the services for free as long as they are in receipt of the specified benefits or elements of tax credits set out in the article. We now have to change the title of the specified benefits or tax credits as set out in the article.

469
Amendment No. 172 reverses the repeal of Article 12(3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 2002. Again, there is a reference to WFTC which requires re-labelling.
So that is what is going on. There is an array of Northern Ireland legislation in which some eligibility depends on references to WFTC and DPTC. Those references now need to be replaced with the labels of the new benefits and tax credits.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful for that clarification which I think will be helpful not only to us on this occasion but to another place when it comes to consider the large number of government amendments. One's fear is that the system of programming in another place not only has curtailed debate on these issues until now, but may well curtail further debate on the amendments which your Lordships have made—a very large number of amendments indeed. However, we have to wait and see how that works out and, if need be, comment on it when the matter returns to this House, if the other place is so misguided as not to accept the amendments we have made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 138 to 153 not moved.]
Clause 47 [Interpretation]:
[Amendments Nos. 154 to 156 not moved.]
Clause 48 [Functions transferred to Treasury]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 157:
Page 28, line 11, leave out from "State" to end of line 32.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 157 knocks out a large chunk of Clause 48. Amendment No. 158 would leave out "Treasury" and insert "Chancellor of the Exchequer". There has been a clear trend since 1997 for the functions of various departments to be taken over by the Treasury. The Bill is a massive indication of the extent to which the Treasury's tentacles are extending further into other parts of Whitehall. In Clause 48 a large number of functions are transferred to the Treasury. Although not directly related to the Tax Credits Bill, I give as an example the guardian's allowance, child benefit and so on.
It is an interesting but not necessarily desirable development. In another place, the Bill was dealt with by the Treasury. We have been fortunate in this House that the Department for Work and Pensions has clawed back—I think that that is the right expression—responsibility for the Bill. We have had the expertise of the noble Baroness in dealing with this legislation. We thought that it was worth commenting upon.
I have a specific point. Oddly, it seems to us, the clause begins by stating that the functions of the Secretary of State, under the range of provisions stated, are to be transferred to the Treasury. Amendment No. 158 would leave out "Treasury" and insert "Chancellor of the Exchequer". The Secretary of
470
State is an individual or at least an office. The Treasury is not an individual and not in the same sense of the word an office. We were not clear why the functions of the Secretary of State were transferred to the Treasury rather than the Minister—in this case, since the Inland Revenue is one of the Chancellor's departments, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): My Lords, I have to tell your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 158.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I had thought that the amendment was a tease. As drafted, the noble Lord's proposals would not only transfer social security functions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer but also those relating to health, education, national defence and even overseas development. As drafted, the amendment covers any function carried out by any Secretary of State in any of the departments for which they are responsible. I thought that it was not just a tease but marginally over the top as teases went.
If the noble Lord wants, I shall be happy to engage in a more serious discussion about the need to transfer, as dealt with in Part 2 of the Bill. Child benefit and guardian's allowance will be dealt with by the Treasury. That, was considered by the Social Security Select Committee, a cross-party committee, as early as July 2000. It has been discussed with various pressure and interest groups. In all the discussions to which I have been party or about which I have read reports, there has been widespread agreement that it makes sense for responsibilities for all financial support for families with children to reside in a single department, as this Bill prescribes. Therefore, it covers both the transfer of responsibilities to the Inland Revenue and Treasury and allows changes to child benefit to bring them into line with proposals for the child tax credit. That will allow the Government to produce a more streamlined system of financial support for families with children. It means that only one department will deal with financial support for children, which I believe will be to the benefit of transparent administration and ease of simplicity for those receiving the benefit.
I can go into a longer philosophical argument about the nature of child benefit in relation to child tax credit, or the Chancellor's and the Treasury's relationship to the Department for Work and Pensions, but this amendment will not do. As far as I can see there are only two departments of government, a big one called the Treasury and a little one called the Cabinet Office. I am not sure that that is what the noble Lord intended.
The substantive point goes to the core of the Bill, which is to integrate the different financial flows of support for children so that they are no longer separated between out-of-work benefits, which are the function of the DWP, and in-work benefits, which are the function of the Treasury—tunnel benefits. Instead to have an integrated benefit for children, the child tax credit that goes from out-of-work to into-work is an

471
encouragement into work as well as giving security against poverty for the children who will receive it. That is possible only with an integrated administration and it will make sense to claimants only if they know that they are dealing with one department. That is at the core of the Bill and I cannot believe that at this time the noble Lord seeks seriously to undermine the whole philosophy of the child tax credit.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am still not clear why it is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than the Treasury.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I can get hack to the noble Lord on that.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, it ceases to be a tease and becomes extremely worrying. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been taken over by the Treasury rather than the other way around$
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the reference to the Treasury is merely a drafting convention and refers to the Ministers of the Treasury of which the Chancellor is one. Noble Lords will be aware that the constitutional arrangements for the Treasury mean that the First Lord of the Treasury, the equivalent of the Secretary of State, is the Prime Minister. So this wording makes it clear that it is a Treasury Minister, for example, the Chancellor, who is to have such powers.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. At this time of night the Minister has replied in a jocular manner, but the reality is that this Bill transfers to the Treasury functions that it has never previously exercised. In particular, one suddenly finds the Inland Revenue paying out money rather than collecting it, which is a fairly radical change. Subject to that, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
Clause 49 [Functions transferred to Board]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 159:
Page 29, line 2, after "State" insert "for Northern Ireland"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is even more pedantic and I shall deal with it quickly. As the Minister knows, the convention is that the expression "the Secretary of State" is used indiscriminately. One is supposed to understand to which Secretary of State reference is made. Generally, it is apparent and does not give any cause for problems. But this amendment suggests that on this occasion we should identify the Secretary of State as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland because various Secretaries of State are involved at this stage of the Bill and there could be confusion. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness I kills of Heigham: My Lords, the effect of the noble Lord's amendment is to prevent the Inland
472
Revenue from administering child benefit and guardian's allowance within Great Britain. That may relate to his question about which Secretary of State the Bill refers to. The Secretary for State for Northern Ireland has no responsibility under the provisions set out in subsection (2) in Great Britain or even Northern Ireland, as that sits wholly within the remit of the Northern Ireland department as defined in the Bill, the Department for Social Development.
So the noble Lord's amendment would limit transfer of operational responsibility to the Inland Revenue to Northern Ireland, even if policy responsibility for those benefits sat with the Treasury. Given our earlier arguments, that would be nonsensical. The technical point is that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right honourable friend Dr John Reid, is not the same as the Northern Ireland department—as defined in the Bill—responsible for these measures, the Department for Social Development. The general point is that we are trying to ensure the same consistency and integration of responsibility in Northern Ireland as in England, Scotland and Wales.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is the amendment wrong—that is to say, the Secretary of State referred to in Clause 49 is not the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Is it some other Secretary of State? The amendment sought to clarify the situation by referring to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but in the light of the Minister's remarks the clause appears to refer not to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland but to some other Secretary of State, in which case the case for specifying which Secretary of State is overwhelming. I am not clear where we go from here.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the advice I am given is that "Secretary of State" is not limited, but that the limits are to the Secretary of State's powers under the defined legislation clause. I am not sure that it matters which Secretary of State it is.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, which Secretary of State is meant?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, surely it will be the relevant Secretary of State? I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I understand that the Minister is unclear as to the answer. I am happy for her to write to me. However, it cannot be any Secretary of State, as the clause refers to "the Secretary of State". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 [General functions of Board]:
[Amendment No. 160 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 161 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Continuing entitlement after death of child]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 162:
Page 32, line 20, leave out "before the end of the week in" and insert "within seven days of the day on".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 163 and 164.
Clause 54 seems intended to be very restrictive. It is concerned with an individual's entitlement to child benefit on the death of a child. One would have thought that in circumstances where a family has lost a child the provisions would be reasonably sympathetic and relaxed. On the contrary, subsection (3) states:
"If a child dies before the end of the week in which he is born, subsections (1) and (2) apply".
The purpose of the amendment is to seek to ensure that the amount of the benefit which the parents of the dead child receive does not depend on the day of the week on which the child happened to die. That seems to be the effect of the clause as drafted. It seems that the amount of child credit which the family will receive when the child dies is, first, strictly confined to a matter of days; and, secondly, appears to depend on which day of the week the child dies. That seems to be harsh, to say the least. It is strange that the benefit should depend on the day of the week. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is there in law a day on which the week begins?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, for benefit purposes, benefit weeks begin on different days according to different benefits. That is in order to reduce pressure on payments at the post office. I need some help from the noble Lord because I understood his concern to be related to the entitlement to the extension—the roll-on period after a child has died—of eight weeks of continued benefit. However, the noble Lord did not speak to that; he spoke only about whether a week could be less or more than seven days.
Perhaps I may give an answer based on our understanding of his concern because I may be able to allay his fears. Not only does his amendment do the reverse of what he wants it to do but it would stop the department's generosity, which is decent and of which I am proud. The amendment seeks to provide that where a child is born but does not survive a week, the claimant should still be entitled to the extension of child benefit. That is the eight-week roll-over period which comes into effect once a child has died. That is substantial money—it is not the first week of benefit but the continued payment for eight weeks. However, the amendment as drafted does the complete opposite and instead defeats that precise purpose.
Perhaps I may set the matter in context. A person can be entitled to child benefit for any week only when he or she is the person responsible for a child. Section 147(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act defines a week as a period of seven days beginning with a Monday. Subsection (2) of the
474
section goes on to state that we should treat a person as responsible for a week only if he or she were responsible for the child at the start of that week. It seems rather convoluted, but it makes sense when one looks at child benefit. It is a weekly benefit where the claimant needs to be responsible for a child each week of the claim, so it makes sense to have a relatively simple test to identify when a person becomes responsible or loses responsibility for a child.
That matters because often there is shared care, or part shared care, and some determination is necessary as regards who is the claimant of child benefit, particularly as it cannot be split. In providing an extension of support for families where a child they have been responsible for dies, we would want to provide that support to any family responsible for a child regardless of the length of time the child was with them. That aligns child benefit with the proposals in the child tax credit which has been so warmly welcomed by interest groups. That is what adding the proposed new Clause 145A to the existing legislation would achieve.
However, because of the rule within Section 147 that I have already described, if a person became responsible for a child but that child died before the first Monday after the date he or she had joined the family, that person could not claim child benefit or the extension. He or she would not have cared for the child for the full week. That is not the aim of the extension, which is to recognise the needs of families at the time. The loss of a child is difficult whether the child dies soon after birth or many years into the child's life.
For that reason, Clause 54(3) specifically provides that where a child had been born in one "week"—that is, a seven-day period starting on the Monday—but had not survived to the following Monday, for the purposes of this extension of support we could treat that child as having existed at the start of that week so that the family could become eligible for support for that limited period to help them through the difficult time. So it is essential, unless one redefines what is a "week" for the rest of the child benefit legislation, to use the word "week"; otherwise we cannot achieve the aim that we all seek.
I apologise for such an elaborate explanation, but if we do not legislate in this way, parents who lose a child within the first week of that child's life will not be entitled to or be eligible for the eight-week extension, which I am sure we would regret. I apologise for giving such a complicated and technical answer, but that is the reason for the wording.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, it is best if we read very carefully what the noble Baroness has said. This is far from simple. I fully accept the Government's good intentions. We shall have to study the matter very carefully indeed because the drafting appears to be rather strange. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 not moved.]
Clause 55 [Presence in United Kingdom]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 165:
Page 32, line 39, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with presence in the United Kingdom. Clause 55(1) states:
"No child benefit shall be payable in respect of a child for a week unless he is in Great Britain in that week".
On the face of it, that seems to be a rather strange provision since it may well be that, given we are all members of the European Union and so forth, a particular family may have gone abroad for a fortnight's holiday, whereupon it seems to lose child benefit for the period of their absence. That seems to be a rather strange provision. However, it may be that that is helped by subsection (3) which states that:
"Circumstances may be prescribed in which a child or other person is to be treated for the purposes of this section as being, or as not being, in Great Britain".
I presume that that means one can have a situation where the circumstances prescribed say that if they have gone on a holiday for a fortnight the family still receives child benefit. This is a very strange way of proceeding. In any case, as the noble Baroness will know, we on this side of the House have taken the view that matters should be on the face of the Bill rather than in regulations if they are not going to require a series of subsequent adjustments. If there are circumstances in which the child can be absent for more than a week without losing benefit, it would be more sensible to put that on the face of the Bill rather than in regulations. Perhaps the noble Baroness can explain exactly what the Government have in mind. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that here we have something which requires some thought. The Department for Work and Pensions, and the Department of Social Security before it, have really had a very national-based outlook on the question of entitlement. They always tend to think in terms of "Out of sight, out of mind".
But that is not up to date with the nature of the world economy as it is developing. As we keep saying, but never remembering, we are going constantly more global. I believe that soon it will begin to worry employers that they may find it difficult to recruit people for jobs which involve constantly moving from country to country if the people concerned lose benefit when they do it.
This purely national-based thinking about the economy is almost as out of date as confining poor relief to the parish. At some time there has to be rethinking. Whether this amendment is the vehicle for that, I am not certain, but the point is worth putting on the record.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are here seeking to streamline the tests for eligibility for child support in its various forms. Under the current systems of support, a family trying to claim support for a child has to satisfy different tests in each benefit or
476
tax credit to prove to the relevant department that they are actually a valid resident of the United Kingdom or have been present in the UK long enough to qualify for support.
For child benefit the rules are based on the claimant and the child being required to be physically present in the country for a particular length of time. Obviously, that is when they are coming into the country. For income support and the jobseeker's allowance, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will know, they need to be habitually resident. Under the working families' tax credit, the claimant needs to be present and ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. It is a confusing array of tests and as a result we have found cases in which claimants have been entitled to certain types of support but not to others on the basis of the same facts. This is difficult to explain to a family who have newly arrived into the country, especially those who are, and have always seen themselves as, UK citizens.
If we are to streamline the systems of support for families with children, we need to ensure that the same test applies across those systems. In essence, this does not result in any real change for the vast majority of families who claim child benefit. But for those UK citizens who have recently come back into this country after a long period abroad, or those who are no longer subject to immigration control, having a single test should mean that what is required of them, and the effect of those requirements, should be much clearer and therefore more easily understood.
Clause 55 provides that continuity by allowing us to define in regulations what "in GB and Northern Ireland" means for child benefit purposes. This will enable us to follow the same test as that provided for new tax credits. So where a family with children satisfies a single test, they can become en titled to both systems of support.
Without such a test of presence, some people working in this country were remitting child benefit to children who were never present in this country but lived in, for example, India, Pakistan or South Africa. The measure is designed to ensure that child benefit is paid to those who currently have the care of children in this country.
The noble Lord asked about periods of absence. The existing child benefit has always contained specific provision to permit short periods of absence—an eight-week standard period when the child or adults are abroad for temporary reasons such as holidays and longer periods if the child is absent for education or health reasons. I believe that the House has previously discussed children who go back to the Asian subcontinent for long periods over the summer holidays. That does not in any sense disqualify their families from receiving child benefit.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is it not becoming a characteristic of the global economy that we are all remitting money to children in

477
other countries? We are not merely taking in each others' washing; we are taking in each others' parents. We shall have to get used to thinking of that as normal.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, or rather before she stands up again, I should say that the first part of her reply had very little to do with the points I sought to raise which were essentially ones of temporary absence. The Bill is clear. The proposed new Section 146 states:
"No child benefit shall be payable in respect of a child for a week unless he is in Great Britain in that week".
It does not say that that is all right if they are on a fortnight's holiday or a month's holiday or whatever.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, new Section 146 continues:
"Circumstances may be prescribed in which a child or other person is to be treated for the purposes of this section as being, or as not being, in Great Britain".
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I understand that. That brings me to the point that I made earlier; namely, that one would have thought that those circumstances could be put on the face of the Bill. They are not something which needs to vary over time. We ought not to put in regulations something which is likely to be permanent rather than temporary. If a month's absence is to be permitted, there is a strong case for stating that on the face of the Bill.
The other issue which arises in the light of the noble Earl's intervention is whether these provisions are in conformity with European law. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has a view on that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am assured that they are in conformity with European law. As regards whether the provisions the noble Lord mentioned should be on the face of the Bill, I do not believe that they should. Fairly recently we clarified what had been developed through custom and practice; namely, that although eight weeks might be a standard period of absence—that is more or less the summer holidays for children—that could be extended if, for example, children were being returned to India or Pakistan. I keep mentioning those countries but it is in relation to them that cases have arisen. I do not intend my remarks to be discriminatory. As I say, we have only recently clarified that that eight-week period may be extended in those particular circumstances. We can make such changes through regulations. One cannot do that when one has a rigid time period on the face of the Bill.
I can conceive a situation in which, instead of having one long school summer holiday, we have more terms and shorter holidays in between. One would therefore need a linking rule. I can imagine all kinds of
478
complexities that may arise as a result of changes in the school year with regard to whether children are, or are not, regarded as being present in this country. It seems to me that regulations are exactly the measures that are required for that degree of description and prescription.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says, and I shall consider it. However, I am still not clear as to why one has to start from the basis that someone is not entitled to the benefit if he is absent for a week; indeed, that is a very specific provision. I shall bear in mind what the noble Baroness has said, and give it due consideration before Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
Clause 56 [Abolition of exclusion of tax exempt persons]:
[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
Clause 58 [Use and disclosure of information]:
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Use and disclosure of information]:
[Amendment No. 169 not moved]
Schedule 6 [Repeals and revocations]:
[Amendment No. 170 not moved]
Baroness Hollis of Heighammoved Amendment No. 171:
Page 66, line 23, column 2, at beginning insert—
"In Schedules 3, 4 and 5, the entries relating to Schedule 3 to the Tax Credits Act 1999."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with minor, technical repeals to the Employment Bill, which is currently in its final parliamentary stages. I am sorry that it was not possible to bring such an amendment forward earlier. The changes to the Employment Bill, which made these repeals necessary, were made at such a late stage that this amendment could not be tabled in Grand Committee.
The amendment repeals references in the Employment Bill to Schedule 3 of the Tax Credits Act 1999 which will become redundant once the working families' tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit are abolished in April 2003. No equivalent references are needed to this Bill because Schedule 1 directly amends the Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide better protection to employees along the same lines as achieved by the provisions being repealed. In fact, as we discussed in Grand Committee, this Bill provides

479
better protection for employees. I hope that noble Lords will accept these minor, consequential amendments.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for her explanation of this government amendment. This part of the Bill, together with the whole of Part 2, has not been considered in another place. However, I believe it could reasonably be said that we have given it a degree of scrutiny. No doubt we shall continue to do so at Third Reading.
480
Even at this stage—and, indeed, ahead of the Third Reading stage—I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, as always, on her stamina and lucidity. It is always so much better when she spells it out in her own words rather than reading it. We all look forward to an interesting Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 172 and 173 not moved.]
House adjourned at seven minutes before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
  Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

    The Committee met at four of the clock.
    [The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]
    Clause 10 [Transfer of functions of justices of the peace]:
    The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn)moved Amendment No. 98:
    Page 8, line 34, leave out from "function" to end of line 39 and insert "under section 21(3) of the Treatment of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (c. 29 (N.I.)) (committal where offence committed during suspended sentence etc.),
    (e) the function under Article 5(4) of the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/226 (N.1. 4)) (committal where offence committed after early discharge),
    (ea) the functions under section 51(8) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c. 23) (committal etc. of person in custody in pursuance of Crown Court warrant),"
    The noble and learned Lord said: Grouped with this amendment are Amendments Nos. 99 to 101. The review, as is known, recommended that justices of the peace should no longer have a role in the criminal justice system. It further recommended the creation of the post of lay magistrate. The Bill gives effect to those recommendations and Clause 10 transfers the powers of justices of the peace to lay magistrates, subject to certain exceptions. The amendments make further purely technical changes to the Bill, in order to give full effect to the recommendations. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 99:
    Page 9, line 12, at end insert—
    "(7) In this section references to a function are to a function conferred or imposed by an enactment or instrument passed or made before the time when this section comes into force (including a function conferred or imposed by a provision not in force at that time)."
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedule 4 [Functions of justices of the peace]:
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendments Nos. 100 and 101:
    Page 84, line 15, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
    "(c) Articles 44 and 45 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)) (warrants of further detention)."
    CWH 62
    Page 84, line 20, leave out "(whenever passed or made)" and insert "passed or made before the coming into force of this Schedule"
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 102:
    Page 86, leave out line 2.
    The noble Lord said: With this amendment we seek to limit the powers of binding over. Being bound over to keep the peace is a tangible issue and something that one can put one's finger on. However, being bound over to be of good behaviour is much wider. There may indeed be human rights issues for such a wider power. I will defer to the noble and learned Lord's legal experience on this matter. I beg to move.
    Lord Glentoran: I support the amendment. Not being of a legal background, it seems that in a Bill as prescriptive as this one has to be, to bind somebody over for good behaviour is very difficult to define. Iam not sure that it adds anything to this part of the Bill. I support the amendment.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): Amendment No. 102 seeks to leave out the reference to good behaviour. At present, as many Members of the Committee will know, most of the judiciary of Northern Ireland are ex officio justices of the peace and, accordingly, they may exercise the powers of justices to bind over, pursuant to the Justices of the Peace Act 1361.
    The effect of this amendment, therefore, is to remove a power that has existed for centuries and has been exercised without undue difficulty since that time. I appreciate that this law is a mere 600 years old, but there has been a facility during that time to further identify how it should be used. I reassure Members of the Committee that the practice now in the courts, because of the potential difficulty in relation to lack of precision of good behaviour, is that justices of the peace or judges usually specify the sort of behaviour that the person accused must desist from continuing. Thus, the accused will be bound over to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and it is quite usual for that to be specified in particular. The phraseology is perfectly good and we see no reason to change it, bearing in mind the way in which it has been in good usage all these years.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I heard what the Minister had to say. However, 600 years ago, good behaviour might have been more easily defined. In the environment in which it was meant to be applied, it would have had some relevance. Six hundred years on, we are a very mobile people, nowhere more so than in Northern Ireland, where there are inherent dangers relating to the expectations of the two traditions. Such a vague provision is unhelpful. What may be good behaviour in one part of a town or city may not be deemed necessary in another area.
    Anything that is open to various interpretations, such as this part of the Bill, is, in the context of Northern Ireland, dangerous. It is unnecessary, and I

    CWH 63
    ask the Minister to think again. Rather than protecting the heritage of 600 years, the Minister should consider the necessity for the people of Northern Ireland.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear everything that the noble Lord says. I fully understand the sensitivity of the position and the lack of precision. By way of reassurance, I shall say that, during the most troubled times in Northern Ireland, the facility to bind people over to be of good behaviour was there, and it was certainly exercised by the judiciary throughout that period. It does not appear to have caused difficulty.
    I would also like to reassure the noble Lord about more recent practice. It is the practice now for judges to identify the sort of behaviour to which they refer. That would address the difficulty rightly raised by noble Lords and ensure that someone could not subsequently say, "Well, that was a generic term, and I did not quite understand what I was supposed to desist from doing". That is, in practice, how courts seek to address the ambiguity that noble Lords have identified.
    I hope that that will satisfy noble Lords. There is always an opportunity for us to consider the matter. However, there does not seem to be much need in this instance for change.
    Baroness O'Cathain: I would like some clarification. The Minister said that this has been used in Northern Ireland. I do not necessarily seek examples, but I ask whether it is not really another meal ticket for lawyers, so that they can decide what is good behaviour and what is not.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Most certainly not. I know that there is a taste in the House for suggesting that the appetite of lawyers is endless, but I must disabuse noble Lords of that idea.
    The order is often used in this country by lay magistrates and in Northern Ireland by registered justices of the peace to bind someone over to be of good behaviour and keep the peace, usually for relatively minor issues. It is often useful in neighbour disputes, in which there are two parties who have not got on well—it might be six of one and half a dozen of the other—and the court takes the view that it is not necessary to make a finding of facts to decide guilt or innocence. In such cases, the court may bind the parties over to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. We often find that that works.
    It is not used for complex and difficult criminal offences; it tends to be a useful tool available to a judge dealing with a low order of misbehaviour. Indeed, one can be bound over to keep the peace, even if one has not committed an offence; that is always interesting.
    Lord Rogan: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 11 agreed to.
    CWH 64
    Clause 12 [Role of Lord Chief Justice]:
    Lord Glentoranhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 103:
    Page 10, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
    The noble Lord said: The amendment was originally tabled to ensure that the order referred to in the paragraph was an affirmative order. The Lord Privy Seal has already made that clear, so I shall not move the amendment.
    [Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglassmoved Amendment No. 104:
    Page 10, line 6, after "to" insert "or functions from"
    The noble Lord said: This is a simple and easily understood amendment. Subsection (3) provides the facility to transfer functions to the Lord Chief Justice. I do not wish to suggest for a moment that the Bill is speculative, but I suppose that all new legislation, by nature, must be. If not, there would be a complete transfer of functions at the outset rather than this facility to transfer other functions at a later stage. It appears to me that there should be a reciprocal facility to remove certain functions if necessary. That is the reason for the amendment. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the concern that the noble Lord has identified. The widening of the power in the amendment would allow the Lord Chancellor at any time to move from the Lord Chief Justice functions of any nature that have been transferred. That would give a degree of instability or insecurity in relation to those devolved functions. We do not consider that it would be appropriate to have a power to remove functions that it has been agreed will be exercised by the Lord Chief Justice in the post-devolution scenario. If we are going to devolve authority to the Lord Chief Justice who, after all, will be an extremely senior and competent member of the senior judiciary, he should be entrusted with those devolved functions.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. Yet again, I am not absolutely convinced, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 12 agreed to.
    Schedule 5 [Transfer of functions to Lord Chief Justice]:
    On Question, Whether Schedule 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: The schedule comes to the nub of our concerns about parts of the Bill, in so far as it appears almost to go overboard. We shall see other examples of that this afternoon. Rather than devolving powers to the Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland, the Bill appears to be almost a preparatory stage for divorce. It suggests to me a separation at least, which is not what the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland would wish. During the

    CWH 65
    previous period of devolution until 1972, the powers that are devolved in Schedule 5 to the Lord Chief Justice were not devolved, but were retained by the Lord Chancellor. We believe that that should remain the case. 'There would he considerable offence and huge suspicion of legislation that so effectively and completely enacted what I call a divorce within the legal process in Northern Ireland. Matters can and should be delegated, but they should not be totally devolved at this level, thus leading ultimately to a form of divorce.
    4.15 p.m.
    Lord Smith of Clifton: I should have thought it was not so much a divorce, but literally a legal separation. As I said on Tuesday, devolution implies that we cannot pick and choose on this and it has to be all of a piece. The appointment of county and magistrate's court judges are quite far down the chain. I should have thought that the Lord Chancellor was rather too far removed from Northern Ireland to have to approve such an appointment, so I oppose the noble Lord.
    Lord Glentoran: I have a lot of sympathy with where the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, is coming from, but it would be wrong to remove the whole schedule. I made a point in a previous sitting about where the Government's handling of the process had left the confidence of the Unionist Party in particular. The Government should take that on board.
    Now might be a good time for a little more clarification on Clause 86 and the Government's intentions as to timing. As I understand it, that clause leaves the timing of the implementation of this Act open to the Secretary of State and allows him to do it piecemeal. He can select bits of the Bill to implement and other bits not to implement. It would be good to hear—if not now, perhaps when we return to the issue on Report, as I am sure we will—something of the Government's thinking in this matter. I cannot believe that, having gone through the whole Bill and passed it—as I hope that we shall, because I believe it is a good thing to pass the Bill once we have amended it somewhat—we would not then implement it in the fairly short term. If the noble Baroness is able to tell us more, I would be grateful, but if not I would certainly accept that we return to it on Report, when the Government can come forward with something of their thinking and planning in the timing of the implementation of various parts of the Bill.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As I said on Tuesday, when we met last, the devolving of these responsibilities will occur only when it is felt that the administrative structures and the parties are ready for such devolution. However, we have to prepare and we have to be confident. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, who said last time that we also have to be optimistic. We are seeking to make clear that level of optimism in the drafting of the Bill.
    The Lord Chief Justice will not be appointed as head of the judiciary until devolution of the justice function takes place. Schedule 5 will therefore not come into
    CWH 66
    force until that time. Of course, separation still means that the marriage persists. It is only with divorce That one ends the legal and binding nature of the union. Separation can, on occasion, help married parties in particular to live in harmony more easily in the long term. I would like Members of the Committee to bear that in mind when we consider those provisions.
    Schedule 5 specifies those functions that are currently exercised by the Lord Chancellor, which will be transferred to the Lord Chief Justice following the devolution of responsibility of justice matters to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The functions with which the schedule is concerned are not those involving the appointment of holders of judicial office, about which we had an interesting debate on Tuesday; rather, the functions are largely of an administrative character and are necessary for the efficient running of the courts. They are currently performed by the Lord Chancellor in his capacity as head of the judiciary. Following devolution of responsibility for the courts, the Lord Chief Justice will be the president of the courts of Northern Ireland and head of the judiciary, as is stated in Clause 12. Given that, we think it is right that the function specified in Schedule 5 should be exercised by him.
    Perhaps it is worth stressing that Schedule 5 contains no role for any Northern Ireland Minister and so preserves the independence of the court administration. We are somewhat surprised that that provision is being opposed. We certainly agree that it is right that, post devolution, the Lord Chief Justice, as the statutory head of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, should be responsible for those matters. We do not see why, post devolution, the judicial functions relating to Northern Ireland should remain in Westminster. The Lord Chief Justice is the person most able to discharge them. I ask Members of the Committee to withdraw their objection to the amendment because we think that post devolution it is going to be of critical importance for the Lord Chief Justice to have that responsibility so that he can demonstrate a nexus between himself and the people with whom he will have to deal.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: The noble Baroness makes a powerful argument and I understand what the Government are trying to achieve. None the less, it is my sad experience that what governments set out to achieve and how they ultimately implement certain powers that they are given are entirely different.
    During the talks leading up to the 1998 Belfast agreement, I heard the most wonderful assurances from Government, particularly in respect of disarmament. I do not wish to deviate from the debate but I have to say that the system that is now implemented in secret brings no reassurance to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. Some of us believe that disarmament has taken place but we have no way of reassuring a very disturbed citizenry in Northern Ireland of the Government's integrity in that regard. To return to our debate, I would believe that the assurances that the Minister gave were adequate if I could only believe that, down the road, certain

    CWH 67
    unethical pressures will not be brought to bear on the Government to expedite matters. That would result in a system that was flawed because of that unseemly attempt to expedite matters. However, at this stage, I shall not press the issue, although it is my intention to return to this matter at a later stage.
    Schedule 5 agreed to.
    Clause 13 [Presiding county court judge]:
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglassmoved Amendment No. 105:
    Page 10, line 18, at end insert—
    "(4) No appointment under subsection (1) may be made without the approval of the Lord Chancellor."
    The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 are grouped with the amendment. Again, the proposal is very much in line with what I have said previously. It is our desire to ensure that the link between the judiciary in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom as a whole is retained. The amendments would ensure that no appointment under Clauses 13, 14 and 15 was made without the approval of the Lord Chancellor.
    That approach would not confer on the Lord Chancellor or allow him to retain any powers that the Minister and the Government wish to devolve; rather, it retains the link or association. I believe that it also helps to retain the confidence of the people for whom this legislation has been drafted. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand why the noble Lord is wary about the change. As I said before, the change is an integral part of devolution and it is not going to happen until we are sure that the time is right.
    The other assurance is that we are not giving the powers to the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister; we are giving them to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. There is a unanimous view that each holder of that office in the past has held it with distinction and courage, has been robust and has operated the law without fear or favour to either side of the divide between the communities in Northern Ireland. We are going to entrust these very delicate administration functions to that senior legal officer and to no one else.
    The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland remains a member of the senior judiciary of the United Kingdom; that will not change. The close nexus and co-operation between the senior judiciary of the United Kingdom will remain. It is right to say that we would anticipate that the consultation and free flowing of information between those senior members of the judiciary will also remain. None of that will be expunged.
    When we consider the institutions that have retained the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland throughout their troubled times, one gives us all pride—the judiciary has stood firm. It has stood above the partisan practices of others with courage and bravery, which has cost several judges their life. The judiciary did that without fear or favour. That is why the Government feel that there can be some confidence
    CWH 68
    about entrusting those duties and the discharge nature of those duties to the Lord Chief Justice, if and when—I emphasise when—the powers are transferred.
    Clauses 13 to 15 provide that the Lord Chief Justice must appoint one of the county court judges, resident magistrates and lay magistrates, to be presiding county court judge, the presiding resident magistrate and presiding lay magistrate with responsibility for the other judges or magistrates. Those clauses are not intended to take effect until after the devolution of responsibility.
    The senior judge who knows judicial officers the more nearly will be the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would place huge reliance on the recommendations, the advice and the indications given to him by the Lord Chief Justice, who will have intimate knowledge of the practitioners and the judges in that jurisdiction that the Lord Chancellor cannot properly and fairly be expected to have.
    If I can put it colloquially, after devolution, there will be a transfer of responsibility to the person who knows the most about it, and that is all. We are not seeking to undermine or change in any way the independence, the robustness or the courage of any future Lord Chief Justice. We would not expect a person of a lesser calibre to replace the Lord Chief Justice. Members will also know that the Lord Chief Justice's appointment will not be devolved in the way in which High Court judges' appointments will be devolved to the Lord Chief Justice. There is a second security blanket.
    Amendments Nos. 105 to 107 would impose a requirement on the Lord Chief Justice to obtain the approval of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor before making such appointments. One can just see what would happen. The Lord Chief Justice would make the recommendation and tell the Lord Chancellor who, he thought, was the most able to do the job. The Lord Chancellor would then take that advice and act upon it. Now, what will happen is that the Lord Chief Justice will speak to himself, if you like.
    The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is, of course, able to make a different decision from that suggested by the Lord Chief Justice, but, in reality, the strength of the relationship and the trust between them would make it unusual for him to disagree with the Lord Chief Justice without very good reason. We can therefore be confident that we are not doing anything that will seriously impinge on the administration of justice in a way that would be to the disadvantage of the people of Northern Ireland.
    It is of equal importance for all the people of Northern Ireland that the judges be above the difficulties and can deliver parity of treatment to all citizens. I reassure the noble Lord that that is the intent of Her Majesty's Government. We will be unshakeable on that. The changes involve investing trust that this is possible, but we will transfer the powers only when we are sure that it will work and are confident that it is safe to do so.
    4.30 p.m.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: The Minister has taken considerable pains to reassure me on this point. Once again, I follow her argument, although, if I wanted to split hairs, I could say that it was in some respects contradictory, in so far as she has held up, for example, the process that I wish to retain. It is not a new idea that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland brings forward recommendations to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice in partnership have succeeded over very difficult and dangerous years in maintaining integrity among the judiciary. I wish to acknowledge that. I join the Minister in recognising and paying tribute to the sacrifice that has been made by a number of people—not just judges—at other levels within the legal and judicial stratum of our society.
    The Minister will understand it if I keep coming back to my desires in this regard. I come from Northern Ireland and have worked in another place on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. She is absolutely right, as I have already acknowledged. The Lord Chief Justice makes recommendations with which the Lord Chancellor would seldom disagree, but none the less there is that relationship and linkage. However much reassurance I receive—and I accept the response of the Minister—I shall look to see where the people of Northern Ireland are getting less than they might reasonably expect as a region of the United Kingdom in terms of the linkages that exist. I have made my point and I shall have the opportunity to make similar points as we go through further amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 13 agreed to.
    Clause 14 [Presiding resident magistrate]:
    [Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
    Clause 14 agreed to.
    Clause 15 [Presiding lay magistrate]:
    [Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
    Clause 15 agreed to.
    Clause 16 [Complaints about holders of judicial office]:
    Lord Smith of Cliftonmoved Amendment No. 108:
    Page 11, line 12, at end insert—
    "( ) The Lord Chief Justice shall consult with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission before preparing the code of practice.
    ( ) The Lord Chief Justice shall have regard to the relevant international human rights standards when preparing the code of practice, including the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary."
    The noble Lord said: This amendment is almost identical to Amendment No. 110 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
    The Bill gives the Lord Chief Justice sole responsibility for devising the codes of practice relating to the handling of complaints against the judiciary. We do not believe it is good practice to leave the judiciary unfettered in investigating its own wrong doings in the rare cases that may occur. We believe that
    CWH 70
    the Lord Chief Justice should consult with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission before preparing a code of practice and that he or she shall have regard to the relevant international human rights standards when preparing the code of practice, including the United Nations basic principles on the independence of the judiciary. I beg to move.
    Lord Laird: I have the highest possible regard for the noble Lord, Lord Smith, for his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and for the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who has tabled a similar amendment on human rights, and I am a strong supporter and advocate of human rights. We are talking about the whole concept of the independence of the judiciary. People may argue with the reasoning, but unfortunately it is a fact of life that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is not regarded highly in Northern Ireland and is regarded as one-sided. That is because of its composition and some actions that it has undertaken in recent years.
    The word "consult" is very loose. One could consult on the telephone over a cup of coffee and then simply not take into consideration the advice that has been given. The Government have done that before with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and I approve of that. However, to refer in a document to the impartiality of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is, in the parlance that is current this month, an own goal.
    Lord Desai: As the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, my amendment is identical and for that reason it should really be taken as an amendment to Clause 16, not Clause 17, as printed on the Marshalled List. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, the clause says that the Lord Chief Justice shall consult. He does not have to agree with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission or anyone else. The problem is that a human rights perspective needs to be borne in mind when we are devolving power as well as reforming the criminal justice system. This was what the review said. The Committee on the Administration of Justice, which is a Northern Ireland NGO known for its human rights work, has recommended that some such clause be put in. I find it quite a reasonable request.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I oppose Amendments Nos. 108 and 110. First, I believe they are contradictory. Secondly, from a practical point of view they are mixing reality, perceived reality and everything else that attaches to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Many of us are sad that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is held in such low esteem by a majority of people. There are some very fine individuals in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, but it is far too political for the Lord Chief Justice to be involved in consultations with it on matters legal.
    Amendment No. 109, to which I have added my name, is grouped with Amendment No. 108. I have no doubt the noble Baroness will explain to me fully, as she has done previously this afternoon, why we should

    CWH 71
    not oblige the Lord Chief Justice to consult with the Lord Chancellor on this section. If we are not to consult with the Lord Chancellor, who is a senior judicial figure, I see no justification for the Lord Chief Justice being relegated to dealing with—I shall choose my words tactfully—a group of people who have become so much identified with political and sectional matters in Northern Ireland. As I have said, it would take away from the independence of the Lord Chief Justice to accept Amendments Nos. 108 or 110.
    4.45 p.m.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: We are talking about a code of practice, not a mission statement. The code of practice is something that the Lord Chief Justice would be well placed to think about and would be able to consult a wide range of people. I see no reason why we should have to put on the face of the Bill one organisation which, as the previous discussion demonstrated, is in any case considered to be somewhat biased.
    Furthermore, so far as I know, all judges in the United Kingdom have had to take account of the Human Rights Act and are well aware of its provisions. It is wholly unnecessary to make a point of putting one organisation, which is much more political than professional, into the Bill and thus not trust the Lord Justice to do his job in the proper way.
    Lord Glentoran: I rise to say only that my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth has put the point far better than I could.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: The difficulty is with the Human Rights Commission as it is presently constituted. That is an important point. Therefore it is bound to be devoid of any acceptance or reality in many of its outpourings. I do wish that it would become a little more realistic and less what might be called para-political in its activities.
    With regard to United Nations basic principles, the problem there is that we have almost as many interpretations of those principles as there are members of the United Nations—and that is saying something.
    Lord Hylton: I have always found the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to be a helpful body in such dealings as I have had with it and with its predecessor, the former committee, on that subject. However, these amendments may not be strictly necessary.
    Lord Fitt: The noble Baroness who has replied on behalf of the Government, along with other Members of the Committee who do not reside in Northern Ireland, may find it strange that noble Lords who live and reside in Northern Ireland are insisting that the final authority for any decisions taken should rest with the Lord Chancellor. I supported this on Tuesday about a particular appointment.
    CWH 72
    Running through these amendments one can see the insecurity between the two communities in Northern Ireland. That is always going to be there. When legislation went through both Houses in the recent devolution in Scotland, there was no disagreement between the Scottish Members. They wanted every facet of the devolutionary powers that could be given to Scotland to be given with full support. However, Scotland does not have a divided political and religious society. There is no question of the constitutional position being brought to the forefront in Scotland as it is in Northern Ireland, where the existence of the state is called into every discussion that takes place.
    We have Unionist Members from Northern Ireland. They have not said it overtly; they have not said it in any way. But I, as someone who lives in Northern Ireland, can understand why they say that the final authority for many of the decisions set out in this Bill should be retained by the Lord Chancellor. As they see it—I am not sure that I agree with them on every occasion—there has been an erosion of their way of life and of everything that they hold dear in many facets of the legislation that has gone onto the Northern Ireland statute book, such as the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the change to the name of the police and the setting-up of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
    I have not met any of the members of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, and I am not sure that the commission is as overtly political as some noble Lords said this afternoon. However, I know that, among the Unionist community, it is seen as one-sided. That is why they say that, when any decisions are taken or consultations take place, the final yes or no should be given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. They ask for a guarantee that nothing will happen in human rights legislation or be done by the commission that will, in any way. further erode their position in Northern Ireland.
    We are dealing with a very sensitive subject, totally unlike any of the issues that are raised in the Scottish Parliament or in the Welsh Assembly. Although the Unionists have not said it this afternoon, I know that they want to maintain every vestige of the link that has existed—which they hope will continue to exist—with Britain. They view with concern anything that erodes that link or gives authority in Northern Ireland to someone who may at some time or other disagree with their perception of Northern Ireland and how it exists today. That is the reason for the amendments, and I suggest to the Government that they take those fears into consideration.
    Lord Dubs: I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Laird, is not the greatest fan of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. I regret that. The commission is a brave attempt by the British Government to deal with their obligations under the Belfast agreement and to reassure all sectors of the community there about the commitment to human rights. We could argue about the membership, but this is not the time to do so.

    CWH 73
    I suggest that, if the noble Lord, Lord Laird, happened to he the Lord Chief Justice or if the noble Lord. Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, happened to be the Lord Chief Justice, they would behave as the amendments say and would consult the commission. They would probably also consult the Lord Chancellor and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, said, a range of other bodies. That is what they would do, whether or not they liked the Human Rights Cornmission, because it goes with the responsibility of the post.
    Having said that, I am inclined to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, that it would not be proper to put in the Bill a detailed obligation as to who should he consulted. I have faith that the Lord Chief Justice would consult widely and sensibly.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As so often, I agree with the sagacious remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. It is right that the Lord Chief Justice is able to consult with whomsoever he considers most appropriate. In the ordinary way, one would anticipate that, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, he would consult with all or any of those groups and many more. It would be wrong to specify in the Bill a limit on the number of people that he should consult.
    I listened with great care to everything that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and all other noble Lords about the sensitivity of the issue in Northern Ireland; I understand that. I also understand that the Human Rights Commission, whose members have done sterling work all over the world, appears to have caused a degree of consternation on the part of some in Northern Ireland. This may not be the most appropriate time or place to bandy words about the commission's merits—or demerits, as others would put it.
    It would not be appropriate to put such matters in the Bill. We should leave it to the Lord Chief Justice's good judgment as to whom he may from time to time consult.
    Lord Smith of Clifton: Having heard the Minister's explanation, I shall withdraw the amendment. Before I do so, I must endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. The concerted and concentrated attack by the Ulster Unionists on the Human Rights Commission is out of all proportion. There are some very distinguished people on the commission, including Professor Brice Dickson, who was a colleague of mine at the University of Ulster. I have put it on record before and I do so again now that he is a man of tremendous expertise in the field of civil rights and a man of complete integrity. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
    Clause 16 agreed to.
    Clause 17 [Secretaries to Lord Chief. Justice]:
    [Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
    Clause 17 agreed to.
    Clause 18 agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
    Clause 19 [Judicial oath or affirmation]:
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 112:
    Page 13, leave out lines 11 to 22 and insert "take the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath or make the appropriate affirmation"
    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 112 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 113 to 116, which. I do not believe it should be.
    Noble Lords: No, it is not.
    Lord Glentoran: I apologise to the Committee—my list is out of date. I am delighted that it is not.
    The main thrust of my argument is that oaths, affirmations and all sorts of other things are very emotional, very sensitive, and, when tinkered with in Northern Ireland, almost invariably cause trouble and give reason for trouble.
    The Belfast agreement clearly states that it is not necessary to interfere or change sensitive symbols and that each of the parties is entitled to its own, as is the nation. By devolution, we are not sanitising Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. We are not, as the noble Baroness said earlier, divorcing ourselves completely and utterly from the rest of the United Kingdom. Quite the reverse—we are, and I hope we will remain for many years to come, very much an integral part of the United Kingdom.
    The criminal justice system that we are devolving and setting up for Northern Ireland is very much a part of the Queen's realm and the Queen's justice system. It is unnecessary to change the oath or affirmation in the Bill. I see no reason why it needs to be changed. Given all the sensitivities that are attached to the issue, to mess about is not in any way helpful. I beg to move.
    The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 113 to 116 inclusive.
    5. p.m.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I have one or two reflections to offer, beginning with an apology for coming late to the Committee—which was necessitated by various transport difficulties.
    I support the amendment. There is a great deal of symbolism involved in this issue. If anyone had any doubt about the importance of symbolism and its capacity for being abused in Northern Ireland, they would only have to travel down the Cregagh Road in Belfast, as I did last night, to have those doubts allayed.
    Symbols are important. There is hardly any part of the world where they are more important than in Northern Ireland. Sometimes they are of value and sometimes they can be abused. In this case, I believe

    CWH 75
    there is both valuable symbolism and more than symbolism in the present judicial oath and the arrangements attached to it.
    If one can try to identify some common ground in this difficult and fraught issue, then it might be this: it cannot be right in principle for serving judges in the High Court to have taken different oaths or made different affirmations. Some would have taken the existing one while others—if this proposal is carried—exercising the same jurisdiction, will have taken another. That cannot be desirable.
    Therefore, one looks to see whether principle lies behind the proposal. I do not believe there is principle, but there may well be expedience. I believe that principle points very firmly to staying with what we have. After all, in our system of law it is beyond question that justice flows from the Crown.
    Let us take a parallel illustration using our position as Members of this House, or the position of our colleagues as Members of the other place. We owe our jurisdiction and ability to serve to the command of the Sovereign; to attend and to advise her. In those circumstances it has always been insisted upon that those who wish to become Members of the legislature should swear an oath of allegiance. That seems to be absolutely right in principle, as well as being necessary. Both Houses have always insisted on that and continue to do so.
    Should it be different in the case of judges? I do not see how it can be different. First, the would-be judges are seeking employment under the Crown from the Crown. The employment they seek is the jurisdiction to dispense justice which flows from the Crown. Therefore, principle must point firmly in the direction of retaining the present arrangements.
    What is the argument for change? One finds it in the review report at paragraph 6.142. For a change, a proposal so fraught with emotion and consequences and symbolic significance as this, it seems to have been only faintly argued. The group states that it accepts that it is one of our tasks to identify and, where possible, to deal with any blockages which might inhibit people from applying for judicial appointments.
    It has been represented to us by some that the judicial oath and oath of allegiance, or the equivalent affirmation, required to be taken by judges, magistrates, JPs and lay panellists on appointment could constitute such a blockage.
    At paragraph 6.125 is a recital of the various sides of the argument: on the one hand, on the other and so forth. Then at the end, the group declares that, on balance and in all the circumstances, it comes down in favour of the recommendation which is sought to be implemented in the Bill. Why should that be justified? Of course, it derives from sensitivity towards nationalist candidates or potential candidates who have a political aspiration. There is nothing wrong in that aspiration; it is one which they are perfectly entitled to hold. There may come a day when the
    CWH 76
    majority of people living in Northern Ireland will share that aspiration, in which case democracy will take its effect and that will be that.
    Why should it be seen as in some way dishonouring that aspiration that they should take the oath or make the affirmation—something which must be done at the moment—to uphold the Sovereign from whom their jurisdiction will flow? I do not think it can be argued that in any way would there be a dishonouring of their political aspiration were they should do that. I say that particularly when the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, as part of this kingdom—ruled over in constitutional theory by the sovereign— is guaranteed by statute in the very law that judges will have to administer. I can see nothing there, in a democracy that has declared time and again that the democratic process, now and henceforward, will determine the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.
    There is no principle that can provide a foundation for the undesirable situation of some judges having taken one oath and some another. On the other hand, as we well know, what is suggested, what is envisaged and what will ensue from this proposal being implemented will be the cause of very profound affront to those who hold Unionist principles in Northern Ireland. It is important not to add to the causes of affront, actual or perceived, that abound in Northern Ireland, unless it is absolutely necessary in principle as well as in practice and expediency. I do not believe that either of those tests is fulfilled here.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am reticent to rise to my feet after listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, but I do so in order to agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments that he has expressed and the good common sense that he has enunciated. We have just come through a situation in which we had the challenge of dealing with people who have already taken an oath and then suggesting that that oath is inadequate and they should take a new one. That happened with the police in Northern Ireland. We have the anomaly of a police service in which one group has taken one oath and another group has taken a different oath. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, intimated, that was done to please republicans—not necessarily constitutional republicans, but the less desirable element of that persuasion—who have very clearly responded by saying that it does not matter what oath the police have taken, because they going to treat them exactly as they have always treated them. They are not going to recognise the police. The police are going to be the enemy. These people intend not just to try to dissuade the young members of the nationalist community from joining the police, but actively to persuade them—and I think we understand what that means—not to join. This pandering to that element in our society has not done any good for society as a whole and has been deemed to be a sign of weakness.

    CWH 77
    I therefore support the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and those who have brought forward the amendment. I ask for guidance on Amendments Nos. 113 to 116, which were grouped with Amendment No. 112 on my list.
    Noble Lords: They are not.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful.
    I simply implore noble Lords—because this is an important issue—not to tinker with the obligation of members of the legal profession, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden put it, to the Sovereign from whom they are given their authority. It did not work with the police. In fact it has had to be changed and tinkered with to such an extent that the whole thing, which was meant to have a certain dignity about it, has been brought into disrepute.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Burnham): Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. I shall repeat the remarks made by my predecessor as Deputy Chairman of Committees. If Amendment 112 is agreed to. I shall he unable to call Amendment Nos. 113 to 116.
    Lord Fitt: I believe we may be in danger of trying to bolt the stable door from which the horse has already escaped. In Northern Ireland a few months ago this issue had a great deal of publicity when two senior barristers refused to take the oath on being elevated to Queen's Counsel. They actively refused to do so. The case went to the High Court in Northern Ireland. That court came back with a decision in their favour. It said that they were not going to be compelled to take the oath of loyalty to Her Majesty, which they had refused to take. So those are two people who have already changed the law.
    Oaths have been laden with symbolism in Northern Ireland throughout its long history. They were used by the Northern Ireland Unionist Party to debar people from taking up positions where they would have had to take the oath of allegiance.
    I remember well when I was elected as a councillor to the Belfast Corporation as it then was. You had to sign a declaration of loyalty to Her Majesty—this was three or four years after she had become Her Majesty—before you could become a Belfast City councillor. Furthermore, in those days you were not paid for being a member of the local authority.
    The same was true even for the most menial of jobs, such as a refuse collector. People taking jobs of that kind with the local authority of the City of Belfast had to take the oath of allegiance. That meant that, even though there was severe unemployment and many people wanted to take a job, they certainly were not going to be forced into the position of swearing an oath of allegiance just to get such a menial position. As I say, this issue has been laden with symbolism in Northern Ireland.
    I do not take offence at the oath which is now in the Bill. I do not believe that it would be possible to return to the oath as it was previously because, as I have said,
    CWH 78
    two senior barristers refused to take that oath. The matter went to the High Court in Northern Ireland and the High Court decided on it. We already have a fail accompli and we have to accept it.
    Lord Desai: The Minister may clarify this problem when she comes to reply. It is not possible to pretend that Northern Ireland has not been a divided society and that we have not made a tremendous effort to make it as united as we can by recognising that differences exist. Those differences have to he accommodated. We cannot go on pretending that things are just as they were for a long time arid that all we are doing is making a few minor changes. We are not. In effect, the Belfast agreement is an international treaty. We have taken on board certain obligations to change the culture and nature of that society.
    It is as a part of that effort that the oath has to be rethought. I do not believe we can escape the difficulties by saying that we can do exactly the same in Northern Ireland as was done in Wales and Scotland. If that were the case, then we would riot have been through the past 32 years of history. In that sense, as well as through historical circumstances, we have—apart from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—no representation of the nationalist community in your Lordships' house. Therefore those views are not expressed with anything like the authority that they should be. That is because we are, as it were, pale substitutes for what should be said.
    In the 19th century, a man was thrown out of Parliament several times because he did not want to swear allegiance. He had to run for office again and again. That was silly. It was said that it was riot possible to make an affirmation because that would he a denial of the Sovereign's connection with God. Today we have no problem with affirmation. Things have to change and we have to recognise that if something offends a substantial minority in a society, then it cannot be sustained. We cannot pretend that it is possible simply to go back to square one and pretend that nothing has happened.
    5.15 p.m.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: The noble Lord, Lord Desai, cited the Belfast agreement. After all, that agreement states that,
    "while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland. the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union".
    A little further on in the agreement, on page 20, it states:
    "All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division".
    I would submit that we have become used to the tyranny of the minorities. In this case we are looking at what the majority wants and what that majority has voted for so far. When the day comes that that majority changes, then perhaps it would be

    CWH 79
    appropriate to consider a change of oath; that is, a different appreciation of the position of the Sovereign. However, at the moment the majority wishes to stay in the United Kingdom. Therefore the majority, by inference, wishes to remain the same as other members of the United Kingdom.
    Perhaps I may also point out that the SDLP and the Catholics who form an important part of that minority do not seem to have had any problem about joining the Army and taking the oath or in joining the police, where they would probably have been prepared to take it. Those Catholics who were brave enough to join in the days before the Belfast agreement took the oath. We are in danger of committing ourselves perpetually to pleasing the minority and forgetting the rights of the majority; those are legitimate rights.
    Lord Rogan: I wish to echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, is correct. I agree with him completely when he says that one should not offend, annoy or disenfranchise the minority. However, in setting out to achieve that aim, noble Lords should be careful that we do not offend, annoy or disenfranchise the majority.
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: I too should like to quote the Belfast agreement of 10th April 1998. The first words of the "Declaration of Support" state that:
    "We, the participants in the multi-party negotiations, believe that the agreement we have negotiated offers a truly historic opportunity for a new beginning".
    That means a fresh start in many areas. The work we are doing on the Bill is a part of that fresh start.
    Lord Smith of Clifton: When we talk about minorities and majorities, with reference to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, I believe I am right in saying that among the younger elements in both branches of the legal profession, there is now a majority of Catholics. Thus, ahead of any demographic change that may take place, we shall certainly encounter among the up and coming young barristers and solicitors an increasing number of Catholics. That will highlight the problem referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. Many of them will feel unable to take the existing oath. Hence, the Bill's provisions. I entirely support what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Fitt.
    Baroness O'Cathain: The noble Lord, Lord Smith, said by implication that Roman Catholics would not wish to take the oath, that they would not wish to be members of the judiciary where they have to take the oath, that they may take the oath in any case and that they are not necessarily Unionists. That is not true.
    Lord Hylton: I record my support for the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Smith of Clifton. I venture to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on the grounds that what has been described as the current minority is in fact a local majority in a considerable number of
    CWH 80
    cities, towns and districts. I suggest that those provisions in the Bill that one may think might protect the present minority may become useful safeguards for any future minority.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: If the debate in relation to oaths has demonstrated anything, it has demonstrated the acute sensitivity that surrounds this issue in relation to the divide. The noble Lord was right when he said that we are looking for a new beginning. I listened with great sympathy to what the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said about the right of the majority and what she described as the tyranny of the minority. However, one has to recognise that minorities and majorities have much to give one another if they are to live in harmony.
    What we therefore seek to do in this Bill—indeed, this was attempted in the Good Friday agreement—is to chart a new path along which majority and minority communities can walk in harmony and in unison together. We therefore have to look with a very jealous eye at all those provisions that may cause a stumbling block on the joint journey that both parts of the community must travel along.
    Members of the Committee know that the whole purpose of the review in relation to criminal justice and the system in Northern Ireland was to try to chart a road through such that, at the end—if devolution were possible—there would be a degree of comfort for the majority community and the minority community. We are therefore all obliged to consider the provisions in an holistic way as opposed to a piecemeal way. Once we start to pull at a thread, we may find that much else will be unravelled. There are parts that cause discomfort on one side, and other parts which doubtless cause discomfort on the other side. We are of course aware of that.
    The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, raised the case of QCs. That case is in fact slightly different because it concerns the change in the declaration taken by Queen's Counsel, not an oath, although the similarity should certainly be considered. The Lord Chancellor decided to change the form of the declaration to that recommended by the Northern Ireland Bar Council. However, he made that decision himself and it was not the result of a High Court order. Perhaps it demonstrates, as my noble friend suggested, that there can be a blockage of the sort that I am sure no one in this Room would seek to make. I invite Members of the Committee to look with care at the oath that is proposed. The essential elements of the oath remain the same. If Members of the Committee troubled to look at it with me, they may find in those words some of the reassurance that Members of the Committee seek. The review, which took, if I am not mistaken, about two years, would have looked carefully at the very delicate question of oaths before making its recommendation. The oath that all judges are invited to take is to swear that they,
    "will well and faithfully serve in the office",
    and that they,
    "will do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or according to the laws and usages of this realm".

    CWH 81
    That oath recognises the reality that is Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a realm—it is part of the United Kingdom and Her Majesty the Queen is the Sovereign of that realm. In that oath there is a recognition and acknowledgement of the reality that is Northern Ireland.
    The affirmation, which appears in Clause 19(3), reiterates the same thing in very similar terms. It is important for us to build a future in which both sides of the community feel a degree of comfort and will swear to, and that all judges who undertake to swear the oath and thereafter do so. They will be bound by the laws and usages of this realm known as the United Kingdom, which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—nothing has changed.
    One needs to have a degree of moderation as we are not just dealing with yesterday or today; we are dealing with our tomorrow, and we wish Northern Ireland to have the joy and felicity of having a union of people who have the capacity to live in harmony. It is our job, if I may most humbly and respectfully suggest, to chart a path that will enable each individual citizen in Northern Ireland to walk along the same road in security and to honour the reality that is Northern Ireland.
    Departure from the wording in this regard would have much greater resonance than perhaps in almost any other area, because it is—and I say so plainly—a compromise. Some might feel that the compromise one way or the other has gone too far. I suggest that the balance is about right. It allows the Unionists—be they Catholic or Protestant—the reassurance they need; that is, that the unity of this Kingdom is recognised in the oath. It does not impose on those who are republicans, be they Protestant or Catholic, the imposition of the direct, as opposed to the indirect and implicit reference to Her Majesty. We have a way which allows people a state in comity and that is what we are striving for.
    I would suggest that we seek to do nothing in the clause that would cast the slightest shadow of doubt on Northern Ireland's constitutional status As I have said, the word "realm" reflects the United Kingdom's position as a constitutional monarchy. I hope that that will assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord who moved the amendment and others who have spoken in relation to this matter.
    Amendment No. 112, which seeks to reinstate the judicial oath and the oath of allegiance, would undermine that aim. For the reasons that I hope I have explored fully, I ask Members of the Committee not to go down that path. We have an opportunity to do something quite extraordinary in this Bill and I invite noble Lords to seize the opportunity, to have the courage that many have demonstrated on both sides of the divide—which was needed to make the Good Friday agreement possible, as it was needed to undertake this review—and say that, albeit that this may be a compromise, it is a fair and honourable compromise with which the noble Lord can properly be content.
    5.30 p.m.
    Lord Glentoran: The noble and learned Baroness has been no less eloquent than I would have expected. Her speech was very special. However, I feel that she has not necessarily argued successfully against the eloquence of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. In fact, she has hardly tackled his objective arguments. She has appealed to emotions arid to reason, but not to objectivity. I shall not say what I was about to say because it would be not right.
    The points made by my noble friend Lady Park and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, and those from noble Lords on the Unionist Benches are still very real. I am not convinced that there is a reason to change the oath at all.
    I shall touch on the basic point. The only people in Northern Ireland who will not take the oath or join the judicial system are members of Sinn Fein/IRA. Members of the SDLP sit at the other end; they operate within Her Majesty's realm—as do others—and do not ask for special favours or treatment. As my noble friend Lady Park pointed out, they have bravely joined the police force and our Army bravely for years, and still continue to do so. Only one very small minority group in Northern Ireland wishes on every occasion to attempt to persuade and bully—they do both; they still have their guns in their pockets and their hands out for the ballot box—the Government of this country to give them special favours. Creepingly and slowly they seek to sanitise Northern Ireland of any tinges of royalty, of the United Kingdom and so forth.
    It is neither right nor necessary in this Bill to compromise the judicial system of Northern Ireland in this way for such a small minority of the population. There might be one, two or three people—there might even be 10— but still it will be a small minority. Furthermore, they will certainly belong to only one party, which at the moment is not one of the largest parties in the kingdom. However, today is not the day for divisions and decisiveness. We shall almost certainly return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 113:
    Page 13, line 16, leave out "according to" and insert "upholding"
    The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 115. With these simple amendments I wish to strengthen the oath and the affirmation. Every person appointed to an office specified under Schedule 6 must be seen to be upholding the laws, not simply acting according to the laws and the usages of this realm. I beg to move.
    Lord Desai: Amendments Nos. 114 and 116 stand in my name. As I said before, the Committee on the Administration of Justice proposed them as good..1 do not wish to speak to them at any great length. There was a good debate on the previous amendment. I speak to them to make it clear that there is another view out there. Because of that, we would be failing in our duty

    CWH 83
    as legislators if we did not register that there is another view which says—even with all the good reasons given by my noble friend—the word "realm" is offensive to some people. For that reason, I believe that it could be replaced. I do not intend to press the amendment further but I put on record the fact that such an amendment would be desirable in the eyes of many people.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am almost beguiled by the Minister and the way in which she put her argument. She wishes for peace and harmony no more than I do but as we move further through the Bill, we will see an inconsistency in her argument that the Bill is intended to balance between the two interests. I do not want to go back over what has been debated. In relation to Amendments Nos. 113 and 115, I simply point out that if Government stick with the present drafting of the Bill, the phrase "according to" is weak. Unlike the word "upholding" it does not convey any permanency. To uphold the law is to prevent it from being weakened or taken away; it conveys a rightness about the law that "according to" fails to do. "According to" suggests something passive in terms of the law, not something that is proactive. One thing that has been important to us over the past 30-odd years is that the judiciary has been proactive in upholding the law under the most difficult circumstances. I therefore support my noble friend Lord Rogan in pressing the Minister to look at the amendment and to consider whether we could strengthen the legislation in that way.
    I find myself at variance with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, once more. I suggest that whether or not the noble Lord presses his amendment, the word "realm" is appropriate. It conveys what is meant but "jurisdiction" does not. "Jurisdiction" is a flexible word; it may mean territory, but if it were enshrined in legislation it could be taken to mean to control, influence, sway. Hence, I would be bound to oppose anything which I felt weakened the legislation in this manner.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Much of what I will say about the amendments relates directly to what I have already said. If I may respectfully say so, the proposals involve tinkering in one way or another: "upholding" the laws and usages of the realm rather than acting "according to" them. I understand what the noble Lord says but the way in which the oath is currently phrased is perfectly plainly understood by all those who have to take it. One has to bear in mind the fact that persons who are going to be invited to take the oath will be judicial officers—judges in due course. There is no difficulty in understanding that the exercise of their duty has to be in accordance with and pursuant to the law of the land.
    If one looks at other statutes, the definition of "according to" is clear, and "upholding" does not add anything to that understanding. I quite understand that the noble Lord may prefer it as a word. In fact, there is equality in relation to it.
    CWH 84
    The current oath which we have discussed does not use any other word than that suggested here. Of course, the current oath is,
    "I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors according to law".
    If one looks at what the judges have been doing to date, they have been doing it according to the law. We are simply replicating the wording that has been well understood in relation to that matter in this oath.
    As I said earlier, the essence of that oath is precisely the same as the oath that has been proposed. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that I did not directly deal with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. In relation to the difference of the oath, the wording may be slightly different but the import is exactly the same. I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is nodding in agreement with that sentiment.
    While I do not object to some of the words that have been suggested, there are dozens of potential ways of expressing the same thing. If we were agreed on the underlying aim, which we are, there is not much point in accepting drafting changes for change's sake. Therefore, we would prefer to stick to the wording of the Bill as it stands.
    Amendments Nos. 114 and 116 also seek to amend the judicial oath and the judicial affirmation respectively to substitute for the word "realm" the word "jurisdiction". My noble friend Lord Desai will say that "jurisdiction" accurately describes the situation, that we are a realm and, therefore, "jurisdiction" implicitly includes Northern Ireland. We understand that nuances are important, and it is clear that there is, perhaps, advantage in using "realm" as opposed to "jurisdiction", although I understand that, as the noble Lord put it, that, in fact, accurately describes the situation.
    For the same reason, we suggest that the formulation arrived at by the review balances those nuances carefully and appropriately. For that reason, too, we would say that using it in exactly the form suggested by the review is, perhaps, the better way forward. It reconciles the differing views that have been expressed and explored here. We invite noble Lords to think again about Amendments Nos. 113, 114, 115 and 116 and withdraw them.
    Lord Rogan: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 114 to 116 not moved.]
    Clause 19 agreed to.
    Schedule 6 agreed to.
    Clause 20 [Crown Solicitor]:
    Lord Smith of Cliftonmoved Amendment No. 117:
    Page 13, line 35, leave out "may" and insert "must"
    The noble Lord said: This amendment was tabled by my honourable friends in another place, but the guillotine fell before it was reached. It is just a probing amendment.

    CWH 85
    The Bill states that the Crown Solicitor for Northern Ireland "must" make his services available to any Minister or department of the Government of the United Kingdom but only "may" make his services available to any Northern Ireland Minister or Northern Ireland department or any other public body or holder of public office. I am interested to know why there is a difference in the treatment of United Kingdom Government Ministers and Northern Ireland Ministers, and why the Crown Solicitor is given that discretion. I beg to move.
    5.45 p.m.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The reason for the word "may", which makes it permissive, is that it would not otherwise be compatible with the core function of the Crown Solicitor, which is to provide legal advice and services to the Westminster Government in respect of Northern Ireland. The amendment could put the Crown Solicitor in an awkward position. If there were to be a dispute between the devolved administration and Westminster, he would have a conflict of interest. The current drafting makes it clear where his primary responsibilities lie, while allowing him to make his services available to the devolved administration as appropriate.
    Lord Smith of Clifton: I thank the Minister for that lucid explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
    Clause 22 [Attorney General]:
    [Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 119:
    Page 14, line 15, at end insert—
    "(2A ) The Attorney General for Northern Ireland is to be funded by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly.
    (2B) The Attorney General for Northern Ireland may appoint staff, but subject to the approval of the First Minister and deputy First Minister as to—

    (a) numbers,

    (b) salary, and

    (c) other conditions of service."

    The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 119 clarifies two matters. It is important that, in establishing the new Attorney-General, we avoid as far as possible any potential ambiguities. First, the amendment clarifies that funding for the new Attorney-General is to be provided by the First and Deputy First Ministers, who would fund the Attorney-General from money appropriated by Act of the Assembly. Secondly, the amendment clarifies that the Attorney may appoint staff, subject to appropriate approval, as to numbers. salary and other terms. Such staff would become civil servants on appointment. The amendment is in response to the Executive's view that
    CWH 86
    the new Attorney will need such provision to carry out his duties. This amendment is therefore intended solely to clarify the position. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
    Clause 24 [Removal of.Attorney General]:
    [Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 not moved.]
    Clause 24 agreed to.
    Schedule 7 [Functions of Advocate General]:
    Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 121A:
    Page 94, line 26, leave out "Public" and insert "Crown"
    The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 122A, 161A, 175A, 178A and 178B. It is accepted that the purpose of this part of the Bill is to draw a clear distinction between the functions of prosecution and the functions of investigation in order to enhance public confidence and support in the criminal justice system. It is a distinction in proposals with which I agree.
    I assume that the Government are being careful not to annoy republicans, by having given us the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, or PPSNI, which is a body to prosecute, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or PSNI, which is the body to investigate. When republicans back home in Northern Ireland begin to talk about the PPSNI or the PSNI, how muddled, in terms of titles, will these two bodies be?
    The Government may feel unable to accept this amendment, although some thought must be given to the problem of possible muddle. If the Government are unable to accept the amendment, for whatever reason, and they remain deeply committed to the Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland—PPSNI—then potential confusion could be avoided by amending the name of that other body, the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Off the top of my head, I suggest it could be called the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I beg to move.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am sorry that the noble Baroness has vacated her seat, because I gave some warning that I would come back on some of the assurances that she gave in respect of balance.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I wonder if I can assist the noble Lord. I said at the outset that, because this Bill is of such importance, it was intended that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, would deal with Part I and the Attorney-General would deal with Part 2. That is the reason for the division.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: The noble and learned Lord has taken my comments slightly too seriously, but I am grateful. My point is that we have had reassurances throughout today about the effort that is being made to give balance to the Bill, but if ever there was an example of where that balance has totally, completely and utterly disappeared, it is by the adoption of the word "public" when "Crown" should be on the face of the Bill. In respect of those words, once again I ask the question that I posed earlier: does

    CWH 87
    anyone believe that the small minority to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred will be at all moved by such pandering to its sensitivities? The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, indicated that the judicial system in Northern Ireland is derived from the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom and from the authority which emanates from the Crown. Yet that word is to be removed.
    If the Government have their way, soon everything that identifies the majority of people in Northern Ireland and everything to which an even greater number of people in Northern Ireland have assented through the Belfast agreement, will be eroded or withdrawn. That there shall be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until the people of Northern Ireland so decide is to be eroded. Slowly—perhaps almost imperceptibly—but cumulatively, it is something that will have a huge impact.
    I shall listen with interest to what Government Ministers and the Attorney-General have to say about the reason for effecting this diminution of the place of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. There can be no justifiable excuse for a government not to be willing to stand by those things to which they put their hand in April 1998.
    In bringing forward these amendments, we have not talked about the consequential amendments that, if they are accepted, would have to be applied. In Clause 29(2) is the term, "the Director of Public Prosecutions". That title would need to be examined again. In Clause 36(1)(a) is the term "public prosecutor". I know that refers to "any" public prosecutor but I would imagine that under the circumstances of our amendment being accepted, it would be the Crown prosecutor.
    I am not a lawyer. I simply draw attention to the consequences of what we propose in this set of six amendments. I shall listen with interest to how the Government believe that they can justify this insult to the people of Northern Ireland.
    Viscount Brookeborough: I am inclined to support the amendment, but perhaps for its perception and what people will think of it. The term, "the Crown", has always been used in matters where an organisation or subject is politically neutral in every sense of the word. In the public's perception—or at least in mine—public bodies or institutions are those that are generally directed by an executive or a government. I would rather see the Crown, because it is overtly entirely neutral politically and not a public body, as it might be perceived.
    Lord Laird: I very much support the amendment. Much of what we have heard here today and on Tuesday has focused on images and perceptions of things in Northern Ireland. That is important to us all.
    The problem we have is that the Belfast agreement does not work unless it brings a range of people who are Unionist with it. That is a simple fact. The Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Government of the Republic of Ireland said at a meeting at the Northern Ireland
    CWH 88
    Office a year ago that his government's policy was to hollow out every piece of Britishness from Northern Ireland. The problem is that when the word or concept of the Crown is taken away, taking away the concept of Britishness, it seems that the Government here are playing the tune of the Government of the Irish republic. That does more damage to the Belfast agreement than anything else, because if the Belfast agreement does not have the support of the Unionist section of the community, it is going nowhere.
    6 p.m.
    Lord Glentoran: I support the amendment, albeit maybe obliquely. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General may not be used to Northern Ireland affairs and may think that the amendment and those grouped with it are petty.
    The points have been made extremely clearly by noble Lords in the Ulster Unionist Party. As I have said on a number of occasions both here and in the Chamber in other debates, the Government are riding the agreement into the ground. My party is having extraordinary difficulty in hanging on to some sort of bipartisanship, not because we are particularly pro-Unionist, but solely because we believe that the behaviour of the Government and their machine is eroding the good faith that there was in the agreement that was reached on that Good Friday.
    You have to be there and talk to all the people—I know that the Lord Privy Seal has been there regularly—to understand that what the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Laird, are saying is very real. The amendment talks about a word—the difference between a Crown prosecution service and the public prosecution service. That is very important in the perception that the majority of the people in Northern Ireland will interpret. They will pick it again and they will see it as one more little piece of sanitisation and appeasement to Sinn Fein/IRA and the republican movement, who will not play in our judicial system anyway. We shall have to come to that later in the Bill when we talk about other things to do with youth justice, which is excellent, but we have to make sure that everything in the Bill is able to stay with the proper legal judicial system.
    Lord Hylton: I am conscious that, in the speeches so far made on this group of amendments, we have listened to some very sincere expressions of opinion. However, it seems to me that the content of the Bill should be directed towards creating shared institutions and, consequently, shared symbols. Here we can take heart and be encouraged by the wisdom of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which chose as its logo or symbol the flax flower. That seems to have been accepted wholeheartedly by everybody. I am glad that that should be so. I cannot support the thrust of the amendments.
    The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): I start, if I may, by making it very clear that I for one do not for a moment doubt in any way the sincerity of those who have spoken or the importance of the points that they

    CWH 89
    made. I respectfully say to the noble Lord, Lord Glemoran, that as Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, which I am at the moment, I regularly visit Northern Ireland and claim to have some little understanding of the matters that are there involved.
    This group of amendments has proceeded in the debate—if I may put it this way—as if we were removing a word that presently exists or proposing to change the name of the prosecution service of Northern Ireland from the Crown Prosecution Service to something else. That, however, is not what is happening. The present position is that the only name that exists is that of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. What the Bill proposes elsewhere, however, is a radical and important change in the function of his office, so as to give it a far greater responsibility for cases. The number of cases that the service will be dealing with will be significantly higher. The review recommended in those circumstances, for very good reason— Members of the Committee will no doubt agree that the name should reflect the fact that there would be a prosecution service covering all of those cases—that the name should be changed to that of the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. To those Members of the Committee who suggest that this is an erosion of confidence—or a "sanitisation", to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran—I say that nothing of the sort is taking place because that is a sensible statement of what the service will be doing.
    There is no risk of the confusion to which the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred. I very much doubt that anyone would have any difficulty in Northern Ireland. They would recognise the prosecution as being conducted by the prosecution service. They would recognise that the police were carrying out a different function. If there were to be any risk of confusion at all, it would be if the service in Northern Ireland, which would be carrying out its functions in a somewhat different way from the prosecutors in England and Wales, were to carry exactly the same name.
    If there is—I respectfully suggest that there is not—any question of symbolism in the name, I agree entirely with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who expressed the view that it must be important in these circumstances to have a statement which is a shared symbol. What could be clearer—what could be more shared—than a prosecution service that recognises that it is the Public Prosecution Service? It is a prosecution service for the public, and therefore totally apolitical, because it is the public interest that is being promoted. It was, as I say, the review that recommended the change. The name "Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland" was widely welcomed during the consultations when the review, report and the draft legislation were published. The wide not universal—support that the name "Public Prosecution Service" has received from the people of Northern Ireland should be respected. I hope that Members of the Committee agree. While I respect the sentiments that noble Lords have expressed on the amendments, the approach is not pandering to sensitivities; the name is sensible and properly reflects
    CWH 90
    the very important function that the service will have. Against that background, I hope that the amendment will not be pursued.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for what he has said, although I am not in the slightest convinced by his argument. He and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, have very much missed the point —I hope that that was not deliberate—that I was trying to raise. I have tried to take a panoramic view of the Bill. There is evidence that one small section of society has been considered, and considered in detail, whereas the interests of society as a whole have been grossly neglected. There is a barrenness in this Bill in terms of the way in which it conveys a sense of Britishness—a sense of what we agreed in the Belfast agreement in April 1998.
    I hope that the noble and learned Lord does riot think I am some kind of mad extremist who has no time for or consideration of others within our society; that is not the case, nor is it the case with my noble friends who sit beside me. However, we are left with a feeling of neglect and of having been ignored. If I do nothing else this evening, I want to convey the feeling of neglect and of diminution that the Bill brings to us, insofar as there is nothing—but nothing—with which I can associate myself. There is nothing tangible in terms of who I am, and who a great number—a majority of people in Northern Ireland—have agreed they are in terms of the April 1998 agreement.
    Lord Rogan: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 122:
    Page 95, line 17, at end insert—
    "24A In section 6(5) of the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967 (c. 41) (proceedings for offences under that Act), for "Attorney General for Northern Ireland" substitute "Advocate General for Northern Ireland"."
    The noble and learned Lord said: This is a short technical amendment which adds a further offence to the list of those in relation to which the Advocate General for Northern Ireland must give consent. Prosecutions under the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967 have an impact on international relations. That has two consequences. First, offences under this Act fall within the excepted field in Northern Ireland and, secondly, the giving of consent for such prosecutions should therefore remain with the Advocate General for Northern Ireland at Westminster. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Schedule 7, as amended. agreed to.
    Clauses 25 to 28 agreed to.
    Clause 29 [Public Prosecution Service]:
    [Amendment No. I22A not moved.]
    6.15 p.m.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We come to Amendment No. 123. If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 124 and 125.
    Lord Smith of Cliftonmoved Amendment No. 123:
    Page 17, line 35, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—"(a) the Attorney General"
    The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 123 and the consequential group of amendments, I must state that devolution, which I entirely support, means having arrangements that are appropriate to the region in question. In the Bill, we have exactly the opposite: the Bill merely slavishly mimics the judicial infrastructure of England and Wales, giving no thought to what is appropriate for the relatively small size and scale of Northern Ireland.
    I raised the point at Second Reading, and I asked why it was felt necessary to have both an Attorney-General and a Director of Public Prosecutions who, in any case, would report to the Attorney-General. Because of time constraints, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House did not answer the question. I subsequently wrote to him, and, characteristically, he replied quickly and fully. I greatly appreciate that. However, the reply did not convince me, hence the tabling of the amendments.
    The noble and learned Lord wrote:
    "Of course, the responsibilities of the proposed Attorney-General for Northern Ireland in relation to criminal matters is only one aspect of a much wider role he plays in relation to the administration of justice. Just as in England, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland has important functions in relation to contempt. vexatious litigants, family law, the appointment of amici curiae. charities and vesting orders affecting public rights of way".
    The inventive officials in the Northern Ireland Office might also have padded out the list by adding the opening of fetes, umpiring cricket matches and the like. The functions are so onerous that, in the past, they were easily discharged by successive Attorney-Generals for England and Wales acting as Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, including, in his time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and his successor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. They say that they visit regularly, but I suspect that it is not too frequently nor for too long a time. I doubt that the Northern Ireland matters that crossed their desks took up as much as 10 per cent of their time. I would be pleased to be contradicted on that, but I would want evidence.
    The proposed Attorney-General for Northern Ireland could easily discharge the duties and effectively assume the role of Director of Public Prosecutions. As he is non-political, the independence of the prosecution service from political interference would be adequately safeguarded.
    At Second Reading, I also asked what additional costs would he incurred if the Bill were enacted as it stood. I was told that it would be some £30 million. Given that huge sum, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is no unnecessary extravagance. By combining the twin roles of Attorney-General and
    CWH 92
    Director of Public Prosecutions, a significant saving could be made. That is the sole purpose behind the amendments. The amendment will attract the total hostility of the lawyers' trade union, but most taxpayers would support it. I beg to move.
    Lord Glentoran: I fear that I may show my ignorance once again. I would like to support the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, except that, if I understand things correctly, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland is responsible for giving advice to the Northern Ireland Government on all legal matters. If that is so, it would be somewhat incompatible that the Attorney-General, giving his advice on legal matters to the Government of Northern Ireland, should also be the public prosecutor. Am I correct in that assumption?
    Lord Goldsmith: The noble Lord. Lord Smith of Clifton, invited me to call evidence as to the amount of time that Northern Ireland matters take up for the Attorney-General. Indeed, three Members of the Committee who either do or have held this post are presently in the Chamber. Therefore I cannot call evidence because I cannot choose between calling my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, to deal with it. The fact is that the legal affairs with which the Attorney-General has to deal are substantial and they take a considerable time. A member of my office in Belfast attends every week. Thus it would not he right to assume that these were not important and onerous matters.
    I want to say a word about the two posts dealt with by the amendment. The review group recommended, and the Government support—I do not think that there is any opposition—the notion that an independent person should be responsible for prosecutions in Northern Ireland. Under the terms of the Bill, that person is to be the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    The review group also saw the need for and recommended a post of Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, as there is at the moment. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith, pointed out, there are duties that have nothing to do with prosecutions, but which are currently carried out by the Attorney-General for England and Wales as Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. Those duties cover matters relating to civil law, the public interest in contempt cases, family law cases and in charity cases. The list is extensive and considerable and it is a quasi-judicial role. I believe that I can say without contradiction that the Attorney-General carries out an important public interest role. It goes much wider than simply the question of prosecution.
    What else the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland might do would he a matter for others to decide. I turn specifically to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. It would be a matter for the Assembly and the Executive to decide whether they wanted the locally appointed Attorney-General also to act as a legal adviser, in the same way that I have the privilege to act as a legal adviser to the Government in

    CWH 93
    Westminster. That would be a matter for them to decide and, if they decided that that was appropriate, it would for them to pay for such legal advice. It is not for me to say, but it could well he that the result would be an Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, locally appointed, who would have substantial advisory functions in relation to the devolved administration.
    In those circumstances, it seems to me entirely appropriate that there should be both an AttorneyGeneral—in this case, in accordance with the review, a non-political Attorney-General but one who would provide a line of accountability to the Assembly in Northern Ireland; accountability is a very important aspect or this—as well as, separately, a Director of Public Prosecutions who will be independent and who will not report. I must disagree with the formulation of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, on this. The relationship of consultation is carefully set out in the Bill because the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions is to be preserved.
    The end result is the proposal will not slavishly follow the infrastructure in England and Wales. Indeed, it is not the same infrastructure as in England and Wales. There are certain important differences which the review considered appropriate, having regard to the situation and circumstances in Northern Ireland. In the light of the combination of the explanation given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal in his letter and what I have now attempted to say, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, may be persuaded that there is enough for two people to do and that it is entirely appropriate for there to be two posts.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: It is not entirely in the interests of solidarity with the lawyers' trade union that 11 rise to support the words of the Attorney-General. The amendment touches on an extremely important and very sophisticated area of relationships. In England and Wales the Attorney-General superintends, by statute, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who in turn heads a very large department which is now principally called the Crown Prosecution Service. He has no powers to give directions.
    As we have been reminded, since the assumption of direct rule the Attorney-General here has also been the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. He superintends the director and has the power to give him directions, although in modern times none has ever been given, if any has ever been given. The Bill proposes that the Director of Public Prosecutions shall be independent. I believe that to be right.
    Given the highly charged atmosphere of Northern Ireland— to use a well-chosen word that appears in the review—it is important that this enormously invasive prosecution arm of the state should be exercised in Northern Ireland by an official who is entirely independent. That is a departure from the current system in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland.
    Running a prosecution service will be a very substantial task. The director currently has about 40 lawyers in his department, but I understand that he
    CWH 94
    will probably need about 140 or 150 to take over all the prosecutions that are currently run by the police. It would be nearly impossible for the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland to combine the function of running that, as the amendment proposes, with his other extremely important functions. The Attorney-General is the guardian of the public interest in Northern Ireland and I trust that he will remain so. As in England, it is high among his responsibilities to make sure that the Government stay within the law. In modern times, there have been a number of instances in which the Attorney-General has been obliged to insist upon this. That is incompatible with being the executive head of a substantial prosecuting service.
    While respecting any attempts to reduce the number of people on the public payroll, I respectfully suggest that this proposal is practically impossible to operate and would strike seriously at the important and delicate role that the Attorney-General in our system of government exercises.
    Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am not a lawyer. I shall not say that again during the course of this Grand Committee.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: And do not say, "Thank God" either.
    Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My noble and learned friend knows that on the previous occasion when I said that in the Chamber, I did not say "Thank God". However, everything I say at any stage in the Grand Committee must come with that health warning. I do not have the advantage of my noble and learned friend, not only in terms of the offices he has held, but also in terms of his legal practice. However. the delicate operation that has to be set up in Northern Ireland is a sophisticated construction. Speaking as a bystander and from some distance, I admire it. For that delicacy and I hope that the Liberal Democrats will not feel it necessary to press this point, because the balance that has been achieved is a very good one.
    Lord Goldsmith: Before the noble Lord, Lord Smith, replies, I would like to make one very small observation, which has no effect on the amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, commented on the power of the Attorney-General in England and Wales to direct the Director of Public Prosecutors here. I ought to put on record that l do not entirely agree with his assessment of that. I have in mind statements made in another place by Sir Michael Havers—when I think that the noble and learned Lord might have been Solicitor-General—and the subsequent statements of the position in another place and also in the Glidewell review. That does not affect the very powerful points that he made, but it is right that I note that point of disagreement, lest in some other debate about England and Wales, it became relevant to consider it.
    Lord Smith of Clifton: It was with some trepidation that I listened to three QCs. I knew I was not going to win to their satisfaction.

    CWH 95
    This humble juror does not find the case entirely proven, because, as my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland reminded me, the Belfast agreement was to create a fresh start. That means that we might have had a bit of lateral thinking, not the same old panoply that England and Wales are left with. Of course, we do not expect lawyers ever to have lateral thinking when it comes to their own emoluments. They should declare interests. I may well press this on Report, but at the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 124 and 125 not moved.]
    6.30 p.m.
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 126:
    Page 17, line 37, at end insert—
    "( ) The Service is to be funded by the Secretary of State."
    The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment. It makes it clear on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be responsible for the funding of the prosecution service prior to devolution of justice functions. At the time of devolution, this provision will he amended to put the responsibility for funding on to the devolved administration.
    Concerns were expressed in the House of Commons that the Bill was not clear enough. This amendment is to provide that clarity. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendments Nos. 127 to 131 not moved.]
    Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 30 agreed to.
    Clause 31 [Conchal of prosecutions]:
    [Amendments Nos. 133 to 138 not moved.]
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 139:
    Page 19, line 37, at end insert "or section 57 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16)"
    The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment expands the existing definition of police force to include special constables appointed under Section 57 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. The Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to take over proceedings instituted by the police forces defined in this clause. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 32 [Discontinuance of proceedings before court appearance]:
    [Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 not moved.]
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 142:
    Page 20, line 3, at end insert "and
    ( ) the victim or victims of the offence or, in the event of their being deceased or mentally incapacitated, their next of kin"
    CWH 96
    The noble Lord said: This group of amendments concerns victim's rights and information flow associated with that during a possible prosecution process. This is a very important amendment because it goes to the heart of victims' rights and the information that they may receive during the prosecution process.
    The first amendment is designed to place a duty on the Director of Public Prosecutions when he decides to discontinue a prosecution to inform not only the person being prosecuted in the court, or by the court, but also the victim.
    I accept that Amendment No. 143 may be a little more sensitive. It would qualify that by stipulating that the director must judge whether supplying the victim with the reasons for the discontinuance of the prosecution is against the interests of justice and the public interests generally.
    The new clauses in Amendment Nos. 239 and 240 give these issues the prominence that we feel is entirely appropriate.
    These amendments attempt to adhere to recommendation 49 in the review. For once it is our side that is coming in for the attack using the review. Paragraph 4.167 of the review states,
    "where information is sought by someone with a proper and legitimate interest in a case on why there was no prosecution, or on why a prosecution has been abandoned, the prosecutor should seek to give as full an explanation as is possible without prejudicing the interests of justice or the public interest".
    I beg to move.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I want to comment briefly on Amendment No. 143. The reference by my noble friend Lord Glentoran to recommendation 49 was helpful. I do not read that as recommending that there shall be legislation in the form in which we have it.
    One has to be very careful in imposing an obligation, even in general terms, to give reasons why a prosecution has been discontinued. There is a very practical and serious risk that damage will be done to the reputation of other people which they will not have any means of redressing. It is very difficult to explain why, in respecting the importance of not doing that, a prosecution has been discontinued. It may be because there are many practical impediments and one can then leave the impression very strongly in the public mind that whoever one was going to prosecute is as guilty as sin, and he or she would have no means of securing redress from that. That is the danger here and it may be better that that should be done through some administrative direction rather than by legislative requirement.
    Lord Goldsmith: The interests of victims are enormously important in the criminal justice system. That is something that the Government entirely accept. In Clause 67, there is already an important series of provisions relating to the giving of information on the release of offenders. There has been a substantial increase in funding for victim support in Northern Ireland to help with the funding

    CWH 97
    of victims' groups because, again, the interests of victims are extremely important. It is no different in England and Wales where there is a much greater concern to ensure that victims are protected properly throughout the criminal justice system.
    I do not in any way dissent from the underlying point that the interests of victims must be properly taken into account. However, both amendments that were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, are inappropriate for legislation and certainly for legislation in this form. Let me take the first of those proposals, which involves the provision of information to victims on the progress of their case, if I can put it that way. It is not quite technically their case, but it is very easy to understand why it is so regarded. It is absolutely right that in the past we all too often forgot the interest of the victim and treated the victim simply as a witness to a crime and not someone who was fundamentally and in a very direct and personal sense involved in what should take place.
    The review group was conscious of that and made a number of recommendations with that in mind. However. to deal with that matter in legislation is not the right way to approach it. It is a complex matter. The review group was clear, as has been said—recommendation 238, to which reference has been made. states that the provision of information to victims about the progress of a case should be,
    "a matter for the professional judgement of the prosecutor".
    That is important. In a moment I will come to the question of the giving of reasons.
    The clause would give the prosecutor no room in which to exercise that judgment if it was amended in the way in which the noble Lord seeks. It does not include, for example, the safeguards that Clause 67 includes when giving information about the release of an offender, to have regard to the potential issues relating to the safety of the victim or any other person. I can. however, tell the noble Lord this, and hope he will be comforted by it: that work is being taken forward by the prosecution service's implementation team, in consultation with the police—that is obviously important—in order to determine the precise point at which responsibility for liaising with victims will pass from the police to the prosecutor. As part of that work, they are considering the circumstances in which consultation with victims will be held, what can properly be discussed with victims and what information can be provided. I can further tell the noble Lord that when that work is completed, the details will be set out in the prosecution service's code of practice. I have been very involved in the work that has been done in England and Wales on implementing precisely that approach. I hope that the noble Lord will be comforted by that.
    I turn to the question of the duty proposed to give reasons. It is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, with his very great experience, a very difficult and complex matter. The Government policy in this area has been set out in some detail in the criminal justice review. One has to balance the interests of the victim against other interests, such as those of
    CWH 98
    witnesses and the potential damage to the reputation or some other injustice to an individual. The noble and learned Lord gave one extremely good example of that: there may be a purely technical reason for not prosecuting. That may be the reason why the prosecutor cannot continue. To say, however, that that is the reason why the prosecution is not continuing carries with it a very clear message that in the belief of the prosecutor the suspect is guilty. Members of the Committee will see that the accused can effectively be convicted in the public eye without ever having had a trial to clear his name. It would be very easy to interpret that as if the accused were actually guilty.
    I will offer another example: the reason why the prosecutor may not wish to continue, or believe it not to be right to continue, is because of a concern as to the credibility of a key witness— perhaps the complainant or the victim. The reason why the prosecutor may believe that the testimony will not stand up in court might be very personal to that person; it may be a very proper decision to take—that does happen. However, to put the prosecutor—the director—under a statutory duty to disclose the reasons, which could result in disclosing that very personal reason why the credibility of that key witness is not sustainable, could give rise to serious injustice to that individual.
    The end result—it is the present position in Northern Ireland—is that the director recognises that the propriety of applying a general practice of balancing very carefully what are the reasons in favour and the reasons against giving reasons in more than general terms. The director currently accepts—I have discussed this matter with him on a number of occasions—that he has to consider the applicability of considerations that militate against providing detailed reasons, together with any other considerations which seem to him material to the particular facts and circumstances of the case in question. Where a proper balance can be struck, the director will endeavour to give reasons for non-prosecution. That position is not dissimilar—it is broadly similar—though not identical, to that in England and Wales and in the Republic of Ireland. I have no doubt that it will continue to evolve in accordance with review, legal advice and developments in the law. On 1st March, I provided in answer to a Parliamentary Question a statement about the policy of giving reasons in particular categories of case.
    The position is complex. I entirely agree that it is legitimate and important to consider the interests of victims, but it would be, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, generously accepted, a sensitive area in which to impose a statutory duty. It might give rise to more cases of judicial review of whether there was, in the particular circumstances, a duty to give reasons.
    I hope that the noble Lord will see in those answers a response that is sympathetic to the underlying concern but which puts forward a good and important justification for not putting such complex, sensitive and difficult matters into the form of a rather bald statutory duty.
    6.45 p.m.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: I do not, in any way, dispute what the noble and learned Lord said, but, for information, I ask him what the position would be if the reason for discontinuing the prosecution was that the public prosecutor and the police knew that threats had been made that made it impossible to take the matter further. Is there any provision for that to be noted and recorded, if it does not put the life of the victim at risk?
    Lord Goldsmith: The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, has given another example of a case in which it may be difficult to give reasons. It arises not infrequently that the reason why a prosecution cannot continue is that the life of an important witness—perhaps an intelligence source or an informant—might be put at risk by proceeding. It would be a dangerous step in those circumstances to announce that the reason why we do not want to prosecute is that we are frightened that, if we do, it will become apparent that so-and-so is a police informant. That is another good example of a case in which it would not be appropriate to give reasons. It would be difficult to impose a duty to do so.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that careful and cautiously judged response to the amendment. I am delighted with almost all of what he said and with the fact that the Government take the matter so seriously. It is good that—after a lot of work and consultation—there is a proposal to put something into a code of practice. Overall, I have found the Government's answer satisfactory.
    I would, however, give one rather obvious word of warning. Northern Ireland is such a small place that rumour abounds in every direction. Little happens without somebody knowing why it has happened. As part of my consultation input, I say to the noble and learned Lord that, on most occasions, it would be better to communicate than not to communicate, because the chances are that, otherwise, the evil vine will do it for us and will do it maliciously. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]
    Clause 32 agreed to.
    Clause 33 [Consents to prosecutions]:
    [Amendments Nos. 145 to 147 not moved.]
    Clause 33 agreed to.
    Clause 34 [Police complaints]:
    [Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 149:
    Page 21, line 10, leave out "Authority" and insert "Board"
    The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 149, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 151. They are technical amendments, changing references to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. When the Policing Board was established and the
    CWH 100
    Police Authority dissolved, references to the Police Authority were changed to refer to the Policing Board. The amendments reflect those changes. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 150 not moved.]
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 151
    Page 21, line 12, leave out "Authority" and insert "Board"
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 152 not moved.]
    Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 35 [Information for Director]:
    [Amendments Nos. 153 to 159 not moved.]
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 160
    Page 21, line 42, at end insert—
    "( ) Where the Director is not satisfied with the information provided to him by the police he may refer the case to the police ombudsman for the investigation."
    The noble Lord said: This amendment again concerns relationships. In the past I have been critical of the ombudsman. That was not because I was against having a police ombudsman; quite the reverse. I was critical of the way the duties were being carried out in that department in the early stages. I should make that quite clear.
    The amendment would give the Director of Public Prosecutions power to invite the police ombudsman to conduct an investigation of the police. Clearly there must be some passage of information from the police to the director in order for him to be able to put together a prosecution. The Director of Public Prosecutions may not be satisfied that he is getting the necessary information from the police. Should the Director of Public Prosecutions have some form of power at his disposal to be able to ferret out such information if he is not receiving it?
    Although it is essential that the relationship between the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions works well, circumstances could arise where it might not. This is in no sense an anti-police measure. It seeks simply to give the Director of Public Prosecutions the opportunity to have some investigatory force to pursue information, should circumstances require it. In other words, if the Director of Public Prosecutions, in the pursuit of evidence when putting together a case, feels that he is getting less than co-operation from the police force or a section of it, he can appeal to the police ombudsman. Obviously it would then be for her and her department to decide whether to have any input. I beg to move.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: For the first time this evening I find myself in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. If he had had my experience of the police ombudsman, he might consider that she has too much power already. I am not in a position to suggest an alternative, but I should have thought that within the judicial process itself, within the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions, there would be sufficient clout to deal with a situation where a police

    CWH 101
    officer was not properly co-operating. To enshrine in legislation further powers for the police ombudsman would be a mistake.
    I conclude by saying that my objection to this springs from a practical point of view; that is, from a knowledge of how that department has grown to an inordinate extent. I want to guard against any further powers or responsibilities being devolved to that organisation.
    Lord Goldsmith: Perhaps I may say that I agree entirely with the underlying sentiment expressed in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. One would hope that the sort of situation to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, refers would arise only very rarely. The mature and responsible prosecution service and police service would not find themselves in a situation in which difficulties were not resolved. I entirely agree with that well founded hope.
    I draw attention to Clause 34(4), which is one of those provisions, because it amends the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Its purpose may not be immediately apparent, but it adds the director to those people who may refer matters to the police ombudsman. The power to make a reference of the sort of matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran refers, exists already under the Bill without the need for the additional clause. However, I emphasise that I share the hope that the sort of circumstance he has in mind will be extremely rare and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, says, matters should be resolved without ever needing to reach that stage.
    I hope the noble Lord will feel reassured by what I have said about the provision in the Bill.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for pointing out Clause 34 to me—I admit that I had not fully understood the implication of that. I also share his hopes that that sort of situation will never arise—although it is bound to, occasionally. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 35 agreed to.
    Clause 36 [Exercise of functions by and on behalf of Service]:
    [Amendments Nos. 161 to 163 not moved.]
    Clause 36 agreed to.
    Clause 37 [Code for Prosecutors]:
    [Amendments Nos. 164 to 168 not moved.]
    Clause 37 agreed to.
    Clause 38 [Reports by Director]:
    [Amendments Nos. 169 to 171 not moved.]
    Lord Desaimoved Amendment No. 172:
    Page 23, line 13, at end insert—
    "( ) The annual report must contain details on the community background. gender and ethnicity of those persons against whom proceedings have been taken by the Chief Prosecutor for Northern Ireland."
    CWH 102
    The noble Lord said: This is a very straightforward amendment. We are interested in transparency and openness. The amendment says simply that the report that is to be published by the director should contain details about the community background, gender and ethnicity of people. That is necessary because suspicions and fears will arise otherwise that one or other community is not getting its full due of justice. Therefore, more openness and more information will lead to greater accountability, which is what we want. I beg to move.
    Lord Laird: As I explained earlier, I have a high regard for the noble Lord, Lord Desai—where he is coming from and where he trying to get to. However, the amendment is political correctness gone mad and we cannot support it. It would lead to league tables and the need to boost some particular gender, ethnicity or community background. I am not sure where this would stop. Would it go on to sexual orientation and so on?
    Baroness O'Cathain: Could someone tell me what ethnicity means? What is the ethnic background of a nationalist or someone from the Republic of Ireland who is married to a Unionist? I ask that for personal reasons.
    Lord Rogan: Amber.
    Baroness O'Cathain: Amber, thank you.
    Lord Hylton: I have one or two doubts about how such an amendment would work in practice. It occurs to me that, from year to year, there might be considerable swings in the direction of one community group, gender, or ethnicity. From those swings, the public might draw very incorrect conclusions.
    Lord Desai: I always thought that ethnicity was part of the character of a person, an individual. regardless of who he or she was married to. However, Members of the Committee will be aware that a great deal of debate in Northern Ireland concerns one part of the community feeling that somehow they are not getting proper justice from the system. The circumstances should be more open and information should be gathered. That is what we would do in England. Wales or Scotland. It is not mysterious or something that I would seek to impose, as it were.
    More information is good. Furthermore there is a provision in subsection (4) of the clause which would allow the Attorney-General to prevent publication of parts of the report if he felt that such publication would be against public interest. Any potential difficulties are provided for. I am not saying that this is likely to inflame passions. However, surely that community, if it is going to stay together, needs more information. No doubt there will be swings arid roundabouts, but I think more information is always helpful.
    Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that both parts of the

    CWH 103
    community in Northern Ireland feel they are not getting justice. That feeling is not restricted to one part of the community.
    Lord Desai: I agree absolutely with the noble Baroness.
    Lord Goldsmith: This debate has highlighted some of the difficulties in the rather stark proposal put forward by my noble friend Lord Desai. What the review recommended—this was accepted by the Government—was that a strategy for what is described as "equity monitoring" should be developed and implemented in the criminal justice system. In other words, the review sought to be satisfied—I cite the language used in the report, not my own—that people would consider that the justice system was treating equitably and in a proper fashion different members of the community. The results of such monitoring emanating from the strategy should then be published. That was the recommendation of the review and the Government accepted it.
    However, I would suggest to my noble friend, Lord Desai, that it is not a simple matter of one criminal justice agency publishing some statistics about what it itself has done. The Criminal Justice Board, comprising the heads of the six organisations which make up the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, is currently considering how equity monitoring could operate in practice. For the reasons given by noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Laird; namely, that it is a complex task, it is important that the process should not compromise the independence of the judiciary; it should not compromise the independence of the prosecution; and it should have regard to individuals' rights to privacy.
    The amendment, if passed, would have two effects. First, it would pre-judge the results of the work. However, that work may result in a scheme which my noble friend Lord Desai might find entirely satisfactory, innovative and practical. Secondly, to impose this obligation on a single agency and require it to produce a single set of statistics in its annual report would go against the trend of having a joined-up criminal justice system. For those reasons, the Government could not accept this amendment. I hope that, on reconsideration, my noble friend will see the force of the points that I have made.
    Lord Desai: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his detailed reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
    Clause 40 agreed to.
    CWH 104
    Clause 41 [Independence of Director]:
    Lord Desaimoved Amendment No. 173:
    Page 24, line 5, at end insert "and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission"
    The noble Lord said: In view of our previous debates, I will simply say that the amendment is straightforward and makes a great deal of sense. I beg to move.
    Lord Laird: It will not surprise anyone to hear me say that we will not be supporting the amendment. I take the opportunity to say that it is not that I have a bee in my bonnet about the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Nothing would suit me more than to be totally in support of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. However, its record to date is extremely bad and it does not represent the entire community. That issue has to be addressed at some stage. It would certainly be appropriate to refer to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in a clause dealing with independence.
    Lord Goldsmith: My noble friend Lord Desai moved the amendment with considerable brevity. I will respond with similar brevity. We would suggest that there is no reason to put the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission into a special position in relation to consultation on the best code of practice. It is right that the two law officers, the attorney and the advocate, should be specifically consulted because they have specific responsibilities, including, as my noble friend noted, the ability to exclude certain matters from an annual report. It makes sense for them to be consulted.
    No doubt, in drawing up the code of practice, many others will be consulted. The Bar Council and the Law Society come to mind—the views of those two bodies on the code of practice will be particularly important. I suggest that there is no reason why the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission should be put into a specially privileged position. I have little doubt that its views will be taken into account. That is not the same as imposing a particular statutory duty to consult.
    Lord Desai: I thank my noble and learned friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 41 agreed to.
    Clause 42 agreed to.
    Lord Desaimoved Amendment No. 174:
    After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
    "EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
    (1) The Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In section 75(3) after paragraph (c) insert—
    "(ca) The Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, the Chief Prosecutor, the Advocate General and the Attorney General.""
    The noble Lord said: Again, this is a straightforward amendment which puts the obligation of pursuing equality of opportunity on the Public

    CWH 105
    Prosecution Service. Again, it is straightforward because we would like such good things to be pursued by the Public Prosecution Service. I beg to move.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I ask the noble Lord, Lord Desai, to expand a little on the consequences of his proposal. We are all supporters of encouraging equality of opportunity in any areas in which it is possible to influence that by legislation.
    Am I right in thinking that this will give the director the duty to promote equality of opportunity, and that there is a possibility of carry-over into prosecution policy? In other words, it is not possible simply to promote equality of opportunity within his own staff. May he not find himself under some obligation to take into account equality considerations when determining prosecution policy? Is that an unrealistic possibility to raise? If so, I should be glad to hear it.
    Lord Desai: Not being a lawyer, I would guess that that would not be the implication of this amendment. It does not say that he has to deal with an equal number of cases on gender and ethnicity when he comes to prosecute. In the prosecution service as it is built up, equality of opportunity should be one of the goals in the quality of services.
    Lord Goldsmith: What has just passed between the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend shows some of the difficulties with the amendment. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that we are all committed to equality of opportunity. I know that my noble friend will accept that the Government are committed to that. However, some thinking needs to be done about the practical implications of imposing this duty in this form on a prosecuting service.
    We have the opportunity to add bodies under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 without the need for primary legislation, because that is provided in any event under the Northern Ireland Act. Another body or person can be designated by order made by the Secretary of State. It is possible to continue to consider this question and that will be done.
    To take one example, in the broad range of categories referred to in Section 75, age is one of the equality of opportunity considerations. Sadly, statistics show that the majority of offences are committed by young men. One has to consider carefully whether imposing a duty might somehow affect that. The important point is that the Northern Ireland Act contains the ability to add a body. The Government want to keep under review the list of bodies designated under Section 75. The prosecuting authorities obviously need to be considered as well.
    Lord Desai: I thank my noble and learned friend for that explanation. I am not seeking a quota system on how many people are prosecuted. However, in building up a prosecution service, there are issues of equality of opportunity to be pursued. Since he assures me that that can be done through another device, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    CWH 106
    Clause 43 [Interpretation]:
    [Amendment No. 175 not moved]
    Clause 43 agreed to.
    Clause 44 agreed to.
    Schedule 8 agreed to.
    Clause 45 [Functions of Chief Inspector]:
    [Amendment No. 175A not moved]
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 176:
    Page 26, line 30, at end insert ", and
    ( ) the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland"
    The noble Lord said: The amendment is to do with those organisations coming under the remit of the powers of the chief inspector of criminal justice. It is a probing amendment at this stage. Clause 45 lists a whole number of people who should come under the jurisdiction of the chief inspector of criminal justice. We feel that that list is incomplete. My two amendments would add a few more names to it. However, I do not think that that is the right way to go about dealing with this situation. My purpose is to ask the noble and learned Lord to come hack on Report with a rather better and more comprehensive phrasing of the clause. It would be preferable if the Government did so, but if they will not, we shall come back with an amendment. Perhaps we could discuss the issue with the noble and learned Lord outside the Committee. I beg to move.
    7.15 p.m.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I know that several amendments are grouped here, but they are all based on the theme that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, explained so tactfully. It might be helpful if I gave my response to all noble Lords. The point that they make is common, although the bodies that they wish to have included are different. If that is of assistance to the Committee, I shall say one or two helpful words.
    Since the review was published, there has been general agreement that the organisations that were specified by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, should be inspected. However, I readily appreciate that there were suggestions that the list should be expanded. Even the organisations in the amendments—there are quite a few of them—are not wholly exhaustive of organisations with some involvement in the criminal justice system.
    Because of the concerns raised by your Lordships informally and some questions raised in the House of Commons, a review of a list of organisations that it might be appropriate to subject to inspection by the inspectorate is being undertaken by my colleague, Mr Des Browne. He has written to a wide range of organisations, including those identified in this group of amendments. Several of those organisations have asked for extra time to make their submissions as to whether they ought to be included. That is a reasonable thing to do. It is important and fair that organisations that might be proposed for inclusion should, at least, have the opportunity to make their views known.

    CWH 107
    The presently designated organisations have had plenty of notice. I hope that I am being helpful in inviting noble Lords to withdraw their amendments, on the specific understanding that the list of organisations is being reviewed and consultations with a view to adding to the list are continuing. Certainly, I am more than happy to meet any of your Lordships to give a progress report. I cannot, at this stage, promise that the list will be definitively concluded on Report, but I can say that the process is being taken forward.
    Lord Rogan: I welcome what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has said. I am certainly prepared not to press my amendment, but, before I do so, I want to amend an amendment. "Consignia" should now read "Royal Mail plc". I thank the noble and learned Lord for his comments.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his response and I beg leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 177, 177A, 177B and 177C not moved.]
    Clause 45 agreed to.
    Clause 46 [Further provisions about functions]:
    Lord Smith of Cliftonmoved Amendment No. 178:
    Page 27, line 13, at end insert—
    "( ) In carrying Out inspections, the Chief Inspector shall measure an organisation's compliance with the aims of the criminal justice system and with internationally accepted human rights standards."
    The noble Lord said: We believe that the inspector's criteria should allow for measurement against benchmarks that recognise the aims of the system and the core importance of human rights. Such a modus operandi would contribute to the development of a human rights culture in Northern Ireland, which we support. I beg to move.
    Lord Monson: I wonder whether there are any such things as internationally recognised human rights standards. Even if we confine ourselves to democracies, standards vary to some degree. For example, Greece, Israel and the United States all have human rights standards that are rather different from ours, as recent events demonstrated. Subjectively, we each believe that our standards are the right ones; objectively, who can be certain who is right?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has a point there. This is aspirational, rather than workable, if I may respectfully say so. I do not dissent from the noble Lord's purpose, but I do not believe that it is a workable requirement. I pray in aid, not for the last time, the pithy words of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, upon which I cannot improve. It is for the chief inspector to carry out his work appropriately, using operational standards which would of course be required to be compliant with human rights obligations.
    CWH 108
    I do not believe that the amendments are workable for another reason. I do not believe that an inspector can be directed in statute to carry out every inspection, whatever its nature, quality and extent, to be measured against the standards proposed. I sympathise with the thought behind the amendments, but I believe they are neither workable nor desirable.
    Lord Smith of Clifton: I thank the Minister for that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 178A not moved.]
    Clauses 46 agreed to.
    Clause 47 agreed to.
    Clause 48 [Reports]:
    [Amendment No. 178B not moved.]
    Clause 48 agreed to.
    Clause 49 [Law Commission]:
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglassmoved Amendment No. 178C:
    Page 28, line 35, at end insert "either in Northern Ireland, England and Wales or Scotland"
    The noble Lord said: The amendment pertains to the composition of the Law Commission. It would widen the base from which the Law Commission may draw on High Court judges to include judges from Scotland, England and Wales.
    I accept that a judge from the High Court in Scotland may well not be the proper equivalent. I am not a lawyer and I am not certain of the detail. Somebody has told me that the Scottish equivalent should be a Principal High Sheriff. However, the principle should be articulated.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but a Division has been called and the Committee stands adjourned for 10 minutes.
    Lord Glentoran: May I suggest that we do not reconvene?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: We have very little to finish on Part 3. We have only a couple of brief amendments to deal with and my answers will he short. I think that we can easily finish Part 3 this evening.
    Baroness O'Cathain: Between now and the Division?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: No.
    [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 7.22 to 7.32 p.m]
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I was about to point out—this has previously been stated—that there are seven High Court judges in Northern Ireland. One judge will have obligations in respect of the Judicial Appointments Commission; that leaves remarkably few, considering the other duties that will have to be undertaken by High Court judges, to act as chairmen.

    CWH 109
    In contrast, it appears that, with more than 100 High Court judges in England and Wales and in view of the number in Scotland, we should expand the choice. It is not as though there are any duties specific to Northern Ireland to be carried out. In Clause 50(1) there is a list of the duties of the commission. They are general duties for which judges from any of the four jurisdictions would be well fitted. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think that this work is a Northern Ireland-specific task. The statute books are similar but everyone in this Room knows, because of the legislation and the different orders we have ourselves put forward, there are differences in law and practice. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, rightly said that the whole of the legal system in Scotland is completely different. We want one of the eight High Court judges in Northern Ireland to carry out this work on the basis of experience, legislation, orders, subordinate legislation and practice, which differs. It is intended that it should he a part-time position; for the rest of the year the designated Northern Ireland High Court judge will sit as a High Court judge and carry out his usual duties. I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Lord. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglassmoved Amendment No. 178D:
    Page 29, line 4. leave out from "who" to end of line 6 and insert "may hold or have held judicial office or may be a solicitor or barrister or teacher of law at a university"
    The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. On the four other commissioners, the conditions in paragraphs(a), (b) and (c) of Clause 49(4) are specific and positive. Subsection (4)(d) is prescriptive and specifically precludes a person,
    "who does not hold (and has never held) judicial office and is not (and has never been) a barrister, solicitor or teacher of law in a university".
    I believe that I am right in suggesting that that arrangement will be peculiar to Northern Ireland and that there is no lay member of the Law Commission in England and Wales. To preclude someone because of a position that he may have held is probably not very wise. There is nothing in the amendment that would dictate what the person may be; in contrast to the Bill, the fourth member of the Law Commission may in fact be someone who can bring the benefit of legal experience to the commission. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am so very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is here for this historic moment, which I ant about to relish! I am going to read out the names that will live in infamy: the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, Lord Laird and Lord Kilclooney. All of them put their names to the amendment, which could be described as the lawyers' trade union amendment. The point of this proscription of those dreadful people
    CWH 110
    who might be qualified lawyers is to make absolutely certain that there should be one lay member— unsullied, untainted and unpolluted—to sit on the commission.
    Lord Smith of Clifton: Given the battering that I have received from legal representatives in the Committee this afternoon, I acknowledge the force of the argument of the noble and learned Lord. 'There is a case, occasionally, for a lay person to have a look at legal matters.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I hear the determined tone in the voice of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I know when I am beaten.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 49 agreed to.
    Schedule 9 agreed to.
    Clause 50 [Duties of Commission]:
    Lord Smith of Cliftonmoved Amendment No. 179:
    Page 29, line 26, at end insert "and consult as widely as possible on such proposals"
    The noble Lord said: The review recommended in Recommendation 245 that the proposed Northern Ireland Law Commission should be able to commission research and that it should consult as widely as possible on proposals for reform. We believe that consultation is important in making changes so that public confidence in the system is enhanced. Before we hear the ritual incantation from the Minister that of course all reasonable people will consult as widely as possible, I believe that, on this occasion, that there is some point in putting it on the face of the Bill to ensure that they do consult. The question of law revision is something that should not be simply the preserve of the Law Commission itself.
    I should be happy to withdraw the amendment if the Lord Privy Seal was willing to Meant once more and tell us that, in short, the commission will consult as widely as possible. I beg to move.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 179A. What I have to say is in line with some of the points I made earlier this afternoon. I have some reservations and know the suspicion that will derive from Clause 50(4)(c), where the Law Reform Commission of the Republic of Ireland is specifically named.
    I do not set about preventing a proper consultation from taking place but, given that we are members—for better or for worse—of, for example, the European Union, it would be preferable to specify that:
    "In performing its duties the Commission may consult any equivalent national law commission".
    Why should we seek to single out in a way that will be totally misunderstood the Law Reform Commission of the Republic of Ireland, and then not include the opportunity to consult with other equivalent national law commissions?

    CWH 111
    I would have thought that this would be an area where the sensitivities would be recognised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal and that he would see the common sense of approaching the matter on a broader base. I beg to move.
    Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: At this late hour I rise to offer as counsel to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, the great and eloquent words of the late leader of the Monster Raving Loony Party who, in the 1992 general election, enchanted the whole nation with the main slogan of his party, "Why only one Monopolies Commission?".
    Viscount Bridgeman: I should not like to anticipate the incantation of the Lord Privy Seal. However, we feel that an unspecific requirement to consult, as in Amendment No. 179, is not appropriate for the Bill.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I wish that the noble Lord had not made that reference to "Why only one Monopolies Commission?" because there will be an amendment down on Report if we are not careful.
    The incantation is exactly the one that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, gave. "Consult as widely as possible" on such proposals is in the category of mom and apple pie. It is not capable of being enforced and should not be in statute. However, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. Plainly, any responsible body of commissioners will consult as widely as possible.
    Amendment No. 179A relates to recommendation 245. In my experience over many years—I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden,
    CWH 112
    will endorse this—law commissions have never been tainted with political partiality. I see that my noble friend—if I can call him that—Lord Maginnis of Drumglass is smiling quizzically, not to say Delphically, but I know of no example in these commissions that are specified on the face of the Bill in which political partiality has played any part, although there may be differences about the outcome of their deliberations.
    These are obviously common law jurisdictions with history and traditions significantly in common. It is plainly sensible that the Law Commission should consult with the three designated ones.
    I take the wider point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, that the commission may consult any equivalent national law commission. It has that power and discretion in any event. We ought to leave it in the way that the Bill has been drafted.
    Lord Smith of Clifton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 179A not moved.]
    Clause 50 agreed to.
    Clause 51 agreed to.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: It may be convenient for us to adjourn until Tuesday at 3.30 p.m.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday 18th June at 3.30 p.m.
    The Committee adjourned at thirteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  Child Abuse Investigations
  Child Abuse Investigations
  G8 Summit, Kananaskis
  G8 Summit, Kananaskis
  Child Labour
  Child Labour
  Business Taxation: EU Code of Conduct
  Business Taxation: EU Code of Conduct
  Anthrax Immunisation: Armed Forces
  Anthrax Immunisation: Armed Forces
  NATO Forces in the Balkans
  NATO Forces in the Balkans
  Crown Dependencies: Kilbrandon Report
  Crown Dependencies: Kilbrandon Report
  Medicines Control Agency
  Medicines Control Agency
  Procurement Policy: Environmental Criteria
  Procurement Policy: Environmental Criteria
  Hunting with Dogs: Landscape Protection
  Hunting with Dogs: Landscape Protection
  Hedgerows
  Hedgerows
  Kitchen Waste
  Kitchen Waste
  Ecolabelling
  Ecolabelling
  Sustainable Development
  Sustainable Development
  Medical Student Places
  Medical Student Places
  Science GCSEs
  Science GCSEs
  Intelligence and Security Committee Report
  Intelligence and Security Committee Report