Sitting of 20 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 27 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    World Poverty
    Kali Mountford: If he will make a statement on the role of the UK in pressing for co-ordinated international action to tackle world poverty. [60335]
    Mr. Michael Clapham: What assessment he has made of responses to his call for a Marshall plan for the developing world. [60350]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Last weekend's G7 Finance Ministers meeting in Canada built on the Monterrey commitment of $12 billion a year of additional aid from the United States and Europe by 2006. We endorse the World Bank's fast-tracking initiative to achieve by 2015 primary education for all and the detailed action plan to support full implementation and financing of the heavily indebted poor countries—HIPC—initiative, as well as the new measures for crisis prevention and crisis resolution.
    That is part of our commitment to a global new deal or global compact. In return for corruption-free policies of stability and pursuing trade and investment in developing countries, Britain and other countries will make substantial additional commitments to overseas development aid to achieve the 2015 goals.
    Kali Mountford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he and the whole House will agree that not only the House but the international community benefited from the trade justice lobby yesterday. Although I recognise his important role in developing financial governance, transparency of the International Monetary Fund, the millennium development goals and the contingency credit line, those measures all go in one
    390
    direction—to help countries to help themselves. Is he concerned that some actions of some of the larger member countries of the international community may impose restrictions on trade that would undermine the very measures that he has started?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that she has been very active in her constituency in working with non-governmental organisations and Churches in promoting many of the issues. We were all impressed—there is a growing all-party consensus on the matter—by those who came to the House of Commons yesterday and put the case for changes in international as well as domestic policy. She is absolutely right that the $50 billion that is provided in international development aid is in one sense dwarfed by the gain of $150 billion that could come if agricultural subsidies—the matter to which she is referring—were reduced. If we could eliminate the subsidies, we could take 300 million more people out of poverty by those measures alone. I know that there is a recognition of that on both sides of the House.
    It is true that many of the countries that my hon. Friend mentioned have taken positions that appear to be protectionist in matters of agricultural policy and in other areas, but it is also true that, when I was at the G7 Finance Ministers meeting, the chairman of the meeting said in his summing up that there had to be more free trade. Equally, in his press conference afterwards, the French Finance Minister called for more open markets for products to help developing countries.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Clapham is not here, so I call Matthew Taylor.
    Matthew Taylor: The Government's record on debt relief has been very welcome, but as the Chancellor suggests, there is more to it than that. In particular, we must assist developing countries to access overseas markets and trade. Will the Chancellor use his influence to break down the barriers to trade into the European Union, and will he also ensure that, alongside the relief, the Government will work more quickly towards their target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP for overseas aid? On current plans, that would take 100 years to achieve.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising all those issues. There is a separate question on the specific issue of trade that will be answered later, but I shall deal with his two points about debt relief and funding.
    On debt relief, it was agreed last Saturday that we had to complete financing of the HIPC initiative. Some 26 countries have now received debt relief, and perhaps 10 or even more are engaged in conflicts and cannot benefit from debt relief, but could be eligible once they come out of conflict. The total amount of debt relief on offer, therefore, is about $100 billion. We must finance particularly the multilateral institutions' contribution to that debt relief.
    We must also ensure that countries that are not performing and that are not giving debt relief at the moment do so, and we propose to name those countries. We also propose to tackle the question of vulture funds,

    391
    where debt has been transferred to other organisations and companies which then try to charge the full amount of debt. Equally, we must provide additional money from the international community. To make real the promise that we have made to achieve debt relief, additional funds will have to be made available by this Government and other Governments to the World Bank trust fund. It is agreed that we should make those funds available and consider the eventual costs of doing so.
    On overseas development aid, the hon. Gentleman will have to be patient and wait for the results of the spending round. We are committed to a substantial increase in development aid. As far as the world community is concerned, the effort to achieve the $50 billion that is necessary every year to finance additional money and to finance the millennium development goals of primary education for all, halving world poverty and a three quarters reduction in infant mortality—they are all achievable by 2015—demands substantial sums of money. We will make our contribution to that. In doing so, we shall call on other countries to make their contribution.
    Helen Jones: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the World Bank's view that to reach the target of halving global poverty by 2015, development aid needs to double. I recognise, as I think the whole House does, the efforts that he has made to achieve that, but what progress has been made on persuading many of our international partners, especially the United States, that they too must increase their aid budgets?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that yesterday the United States Administration said that in addition to the $5 billion additional aid that they were committing from 2006, they were also going to provide an additional $500 million to deal specifically with HIV/AIDS. They announced that in advance of the G8 summit that will take place in Canada in the next few days. In other words, the combined amount of money now pledged by Europe and America is in the order of $12 billion. That is not near the $50 billion that we require, but for the first time in 20 years the amount of money to be provided by the world community for overseas aid is rising, not falling.
    We have to address how to convert the commitment to the $12 billion additional money into the far higher sum that is needed. It is absolutely true that the World Bank has pointed out that to achieve the education goals alone will require $10 billion. We fully intend to play our part in making sure that that funding is available.
    Mr. Michael Howard: May I offer my support to the Chancellor and other Finance Ministers for their work on development issues and welcome the progress made in Canada last weekend, in particular on primary school education? The Chancellor is right to say that there is a cross-party consensus on those issues. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) is also right to talk about the restrictions on free trade, which are having an extremely detrimental effect.
    What further progress does the Chancellor envisage on trade liberalisation, which offers the greatest hope for alleviating hunger and poverty, as he said? How will he fulfil the Prime Minister's pledge at his party conference to offer Africa access to our markets so that we practise
    392
    free trade as well as preach it? Will he ensure that the issue is pressed at the European Union meeting in Seville later this week and also at the forthcoming G8 and World Trade Organisation meetings?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for raising the issue in that way. We are determined to press, and continue to press, for reform in the treatment of agricultural subsidies. There was an agreement at Doha on the reduction and then eventual elimination of agricultural subsidies. That has to be followed through. A paper on EU agricultural reform is to be produced in July which will deal with cereals, direct payments, modulation and degressivity. All those issues will have to be dealt with and it is essential that the EU does that before enlargement, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows.
    As far as the general climate on trade is concerned, it is often the case that, in the US, proposals on steel and farm subsidies, for instance, come in advance of the President asking for a fast-track authority to agree substantial concessions and a reduction in subsidies and tariffs. I hope that that is the case. What I can say is that all the members present in Canada were concerned that if the world is to recover economically and if that recovery is to benefit the developing countries, liberalisation of trade is essential, as all the signatories to the communiquÉ agreed.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his language of hope is in sharp contrast with what happened in 1992, when we could not have given a ha'penny to any third world country because of the 15 per cent. interest rates and the fact that we were skint? We have to have money to be able to hand it out. The same was true in 1976, when we had to borrow from the International Monetary Fund. We are now helping out 22 of the world's poorest countries, so we do not need any lessons from the Tories. The trade lobby yesterday was encouraging because the people in it knew that to resolve the problems we need a Government who will ensure that we have money in the back pocket to help the poorest out there in the third world.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the House back to its usual discussion of the differences between party policies, as well as the similarities. I hope that the shadow Chancellor agrees that if hon. Members on both sides of the House commit Britain to the millennium development goals, they will have to be financed by additional resources. The $50 billion has been identified as the figure that has to be met and Britain will have to provide substantial additional development aid to do that. I hope that when Members of the House supported the lobby or its intentions yesterday, they also supported the commitment that their parties will back additional development aid.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Chancellor feel any guilt about the fact that we would today have £320 million more of wealth to help to tackle world poverty if he had not sold our gold at the bottom of the market and against my expert advice?
    Mr. Brown: It is surprising that the hon. Gentleman's expert advice was not listened to by the previous

    393
    Conservative Government, because they could have made substantial amounts of money if they had sold at any time between 1979 and 1997.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. James Gray: What recent representations he has received on the impact of his policies on manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement. [60337]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Chancellor receives regular representations on a variety of topics, including manufacturing. The Government have embarked on an ambitious programme of economic reform, which, having served as a solid and stable foundation for the economy, now provides the best basis for manufacturing output to recover, through 2002 and into 2003, from the sharp slowdown that has affected the world economy in the past year.
    Mr. Gray: The Minister may not yet have had a chance to read the excellent report that arrived on my desk this morning, but perhaps he will find an early opportunity to do so. The report, produced by Great Western Enterprise and entitled "Economic Prospects for Chippenham", says that manufacturing industries in the area are declining, in both relative and absolute terms. It states:
    "Large-scale closures in Chippenham and North Wiltshire, e.g. NHS Logistics, Dyson Ltd and Lucent Technologies are of concern."
    It goes on to talk about the levels of taxation and bureaucracy that have caused that large-scale decline. Does the Minister accept any personal responsibility for the fact that manufacturing is, and has been for 12 months, in recession?
    Mr. Boateng: We have cut the burden of regulation. [Laughter.] Oh yes we have. We make no apology whatsoever for what we have done on the minimum wage. We make no apology for what we have done to promote fairness at work. As for the regulation that has been imposed on industry and business over the year, this Government have done more than any other to put in place the means by which it can be checked, so we rebut that allegation.
    I very much look forward to learning more from that report about what is happening in Chippenham. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in the spirit of generosity for which he is well known, will at least acknowledge what has been done by this Government, including the action by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to support regional development agencies. In addition, in the past week, the south-west manufacturing advisory service has opened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It will fund a team of five experts, who are already in place, to provide practical advice to manufacturers in the region. That addresses the real issues that face manufacturing and builds on the stability that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has given the economy. This is something that the hon. Gentleman should welcome, instead of criticising as he has done.
    Mr. Peter Pike: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his promotion. Does he recognise that in
    394
    constituencies such as mine manufacturing is extremely important to the local economy and for maintaining employment? Will he confirm that he recognises that the aerospace industry in particular has had difficulties since 11 September, that it remains the Government's policy to ensure that industry can overcome those problems, and that the Government continue to be ready to discuss the problems faced by industry in both the short term and the long term?
    Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the generosity of his remarks. I know that he takes a particular interest in manufacturing and in the aircraft industry, and we share that interest. In the aftermath of 11 September, we have given the industry specific help on insurance. He will know that it is also benefiting from the tax credits that we have provided for research and development to promote the industry's productivity and build on its high skills. That is the best way to give manufacturing a long-term competitive advantage against our rivals.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: With Welsh manufacturing industry in sharp decline, thousands of jobs have been lost over the past five years. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that objective 1 funding will help provide infrastructure to boost the Welsh gross domestic product? Will he or his right hon. Friend the Chancellor please confirm, therefore, that Wales will receive full public expenditure cover of £170 million from Europe, plus £100 million match-funding from central Government, which we were not given last year because we were sold short? Will the right hon. Gentleman redouble his efforts to ensure that that does not happen this year?
    Mr. Boateng: I must resist the temptation, however beguiling, to make public spending announcements at this stage. The hon. Gentleman well knows that we are working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and with the Welsh Executive to do all that we can to support manufacturing in Wales. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that additional jobs have come on stream since the Government came to power in 1997, and recognise the real gains that have been made as a result of the steps that we have taken in terms of macro-economic reform, and the excellent work that is being done in Wales between the Executive and the Government to promote the Welsh economy.
    Mr. Chris Mole: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the planks of the Government's support for manufacturing industry has been the provision of resources to regional development agencies in order to establish centres for manufacturing excellence? Does he also agree that the Conservatives' proposals to abolish RDAs would undermine the ability of our regions to support their manufacturing sectors?
    Mr. Boateng: That is undoubtedly the case. Nothing undermined manufacturing more than the boom and bust that characterised the previous, Conservative Administration. We have sought, particularly in respect of small and medium-sized enterprises, to build on the platform of stability that has characterised the first five years of this Administration, and to take SMEs forward

    395
    by means of the RDAs, the research and development tax credit, and the mechanisms that we are introducing to reduce the tax burden on business. All that is good news for manufacturing and has contributed to the record number of jobs that are now enjoyed by our constituents throughout the country.
    Mr. John Bercow: I congratulate the Chief Secretary warmly on his appointment. I relish jousting with him, but I gently remind him that last year there were an extra 4,642 regulations impacting on business.
    "They're incompetent when it comes to governing. They don't care about manufacturing. They don't understand business. The end result is that my members' jobs are going down the plughole and this government isn't lifting a finger to help".
    Given that that was the recent verdict in the Financial Times of the general secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, the Chancellor's friend, Sir Ken Jackson, what need does the Chancellor have of any enemies?
    Mr. Boateng: I only wish that the generosity of the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks had been reflected in the rest of his comments. What he clearly overlooks is the fact that it is this Government who have created a record number of jobs—more than a million new jobs created since 1997. It is this Government who have created, for the first time, the basis of stability that enables us now to tackle the deficit in productivity that existed over so many years when the Opposition had the administration of the economy. As a result, the most recent survey on the subject by Lloyds TSB can say that growth in productivity has accelerated to its fastest pace in more than two and a half years. That is progress. The Opposition would take us back to the past, and that would be a disaster.

    World Poverty
    Judy Mallaber: If he will make a statement on his recent action to encourage international trade with a view to reducing poverty in the world's poorest countries. [60338]
    Mr. Andrew Love: If he will make a statement on his recent action to encourage international trade with a view to reduction of poverty in the poorest countries. [60340]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Our policy for a successful resolution of the World Trade Organisation development trade round includes negotiated reductions in agricultural export subsidies, with a view to phasing them out, and the granting of duty-free and quota-free access to the least developed countries for all exports except arms, and it will require finance to build the capacity of developing countries so that they can participate fully and effectively in the forthcoming negotiations. In order to discuss those issues after yesterday's justice for trade lobby at Westminster, the Secretaries of State for International Development and for Trade and Industry and I will meet representatives from Churches and NGOs on 25 July.
    Judy Mallaber: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. In particular, I welcome the proposals to help
    396
    those countries to increase their capacity and to engage in the multilateral talks. What is his estimate of the progress that has been made in convincing, the international community of the need to make the international trading rules fairer to poorer countries, in the light of the comments made by yesterday's magnificent lobby?
    On a different but connected note, will my right hon. Friend also discuss with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry what further help is needed by our textiles and clothing industry, which has suffered massive job losses in the past 20 years as a result of changes in international trading patterns, so that it can reposition itself in the market by developing new high value-added products and areas of work?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend will know of the textile and clothing industry forum—a partnership that is considering supply chain relationships in the industry to improve its efficiency and competitiveness. The project is worth £3.8 million and is led by the British Clothing Industry Association. On the problems faced in relation to textiles as a result of the openness of international markets, we as a Government will do what we can to work with British textile producers to see what can be done. She is absolutely right that we also need evidence that there will be progress in meeting the ambitious aims set down at Doha. Thirty years ago. the 49 poorest countries in the world had 3 per cent. of world trade. They now have 0.5 per cent., so there is an enormous challenge to be met. One of the things that we will do is help financially developing countries to play their full part by having the capacity effectively to negotiate in the trade round.
    Mr. Love: International trade is growing and I believe that the European Union has a role to play in ensuring that the poorest countries benefit from that. International trade should be happening for poor countries and not to them. In that regard, what action is my right hon. Friend taking to speed up the removal of all the tariff barriers that impede the trade of poor countries?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That issue confronts an existing policy of the European Union—the common agricultural policy. As was said earlier, the talks held this weekend in Seville will be followed by publication by the European Union of a paper on the common agricultural policy. I believe that we can make progress on cereals, direct payments and the modulation changes that have been recommended before. It is very important that we recognise that an agricultural budget that takes up 50 per cent. of European Union resources, keeps prices artificially high in our countries, and makes it difficult for the poorest countries to enter the markets is unfair to everybody and must be reformed. These proposals—and in their more radical form—will be supported by this country in the negotiations.
    Mr. George Osborne: Further to that answer. can the Chancellor offer us a personal prediction of when the trade barriers imposed by the EU will finally disappear? As he said in giving his figures on world trade.

    397
    they have held the developing world in poverty for many years. Does he have any idea when those barriers will disappear?
    Mr. Brown: We have many targets, but for me to set a target for what 15 member states of the European Union can agree in a very short time is very difficult indeed. The hon. Gentleman must reflect on the fact that, in 18 years of Conservative government, the amount spent on agricultural subsidies increased dramatically, rather than being reduced. It is in all our interests that we push the matter forward. There must be progress before enlargement and because the Doha talks resume next March. He should be encouraged by the fact that not only the Canadians, who were chairing the G7 meeting, but the French and others who were present, signed up again to the liberalisation of these markets. That is very important indeed.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Is the Chancellor confident that he can convince his fellow Ministers at the forthcoming G8 meeting that the World Trade Organisation should sign up to the international development targets that are already agreed to by the United Nations and other multilateral agencies?
    Mr. Brown: Every international organisation of substance—the IMF, the OECD, the UN and the World Bank—have already signed up to the development goals. That is implicit in the work that is being done to prepare for the next stage of the world trade round.
    I think that the hon. Lady knows that unlike many other international organisations, the WTO is in a sense a one member, one vote organisation. The role of developing countries in setting the terms of negotiation and the final outcome can be extremely important. I do not think, therefore, that it will be difficult to persuade members of the WTO that the world development goals are important and should be signed up to. I think that the hon. Lady knows also of the challenges to persuade these countries to take the action that is necessary and—I put this to all right hon. and hon. Members—and to provide the necessary resources.
    Mr. John McFall: My right hon. Friend may be aware that Horst Köhler, the managing director of the IMF, has kindly agreed to appear before the Treasury Committee in the next two weeks. In advance of that appearance, will my right hon. Friend support the proposals of Mr. Köhler's deputy, Ann Kruger, for a bankruptcy court for defaulting countries, so that they do not slide further into poverty and ruin their international trade? Is that not the proper approach for crisis prevention rather than merely crisis resolution?
    Mr. Brown: I hope that Mr. Köhler will enjoy his appearances before the Treasury Committee as much as I do. I look forward to hearing what he has to say. It may interest the House to know that there was agreement at the G7 meeting in Halifax, Canada last weekend—for the first time in all the meetings I have attended—on the measures that must be taken for crisis prevention and crisis resolution. That will include international bankruptcy proceedings.
    398
    These things are far more relevant to emerging market economies than they are to developing countries. However, a far greater role is included for surveillance, so that we are aware of what the problems are in individual countries before crises hit us. There is a far greater role for publicising what is really happening so that we do not get Argentina-type crises hitting us without prior warning, and for prior work to avoid them. There will be a far better resolution of crises once this happens. By improving crises prevention mechanisms, we will help not only emerging market countries such as Argentina, but the poorest countries in Africa.

    Climate Change Levy
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: What recent representations he has had from manufacturing industry on the impact of the climate change levy. [60342]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): As part of the normal process of contact with business, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury ministerial team have met a variety of businesses and business organisations and have heard a range of representations, including those on the climate change levy.
    Mr. Robertson: I am grateful for that reply. I suppose that the Minister will have met the Engineering Employers Federation, among other organisations. The federation has said that the climate change levy impedes manufacturing initiative and enterprise. Given the problems caused by the weakness of the euro and the decline that has continued in the manufacturing industry, do not the Government rather regret introducing the climate change levy, which is yet another problem that manufacturing industry has had to face?
    John Healey: On the contrary, all sectors have a part to play in reducing carbon emissions, which are a major part of climate change challenges. All revenues to the Treasury have been recycled as a result of the climate change levy. There have been national insurance contribution cuts and a significant boost to energy efficiency support. It is important, as the Engineering Employers Federation will recognise, not to look at one tax alone. The level of business taxation means that, with corporation tax cuts, we have the lowest rates ever in the UK.
    The federation will know also that research and development tax credits mean that large companies and small companies, especially in manufacturing, are benefiting. That has been welcomed. The OECD recognises that business tax rates in the UK are lower than those of 12 of our EU competitor countries.
    Ms Joan Walley: Along with my other north Staffordshire colleagues, I have been having close talks with the ceramic industry across the region. Contrary to the Luddite approach that we have heard from Opposition Members, that industry in the potteries is saying that it is at the forefront of helping this country to meet its international obligations.
    Will my hon. Friend recognise that where we have carbon trading and a September end of year, as in the pottery industry, it is essential that as well as informal

    399
    guidance we also have precise rules, so that the companies that will need to buy carbon credits know exactly how they can meet their targets and how, more importantly, they can benefit from the rebate? When can we have these rules?
    John Healey: I am glad to hear that businesses in my hon. Friend's constituency are keen to play a part in reducing carbon emissions to help to address the climate change challenges. The climate change levy has been operational only since 1 April last year. It needs longer to bed down, but, in keeping with all other taxation, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor keeps the detailed operation and the impact of the levy under constant review as part of the normal budget process.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: What recent bilateral discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding how his policies are affecting manufacturing industry. [60343]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I meet the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regularly to discuss a wide range of issues, such as the future of manufacturing industry and the measures that we took in the Budget, including the research and development tax credit.
    Mr. Djanogly: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that manufacturing productivity in this country is suffering. The Government's own manufacturing strategy document states:
    "It is now 55 per cent. higher in the United States than in the UK, 32 per cent. higher in France and 29 per cent. higher in Germany."
    My understanding is that the position is getting worse all the time. When I speak to businesses in my constituency, they complain about the increase in taxes and regulations, yet this document does not even mention either of those issues. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what conversations he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, how they intend to resolve the problems facing businesses, and why those issues are not even mentioned in his own strategy document?
    Mr. Brown: In the Budget, we announced the first major simplification of the VAT regime as it affects small businesses. For the first time, instead of having to produce every estimate for every transaction, a percentage figure is being applied to the VAT bills for small businesses. This is a major simplification measure—which we hope to extend to other areas—affecting more than 500,000 companies. We are alert to the need for simplification, and we will continue to pursue that.
    I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that, when he talks to businesses in his constituency, what they want most of all is economic stability. The fact that, as a result of making the Bank of England independent and of the new fiscal and monetary regime that we have introduced, we have had greater stability over the last five years than we had in the previous 18 years, shows the value of policies for stability against the old boom and bust.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that criticisms of
    400
    Government policy of the kind that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and, earlier, from the shadow jouster—or should that be "jester"?—from Buckingham, would have much greater impact, were it not for the fact that manufacturing productivity is actually up 12 per cent. on the figure that we inherited in 1997, and that exports are up almost 20 per cent. over the same period? This contrasts sharply with the 700,000 jobs lost and the 5.3 per cent. drop in output when the present shadow Chancellor was the Minister responsible for these matters.
    Mr. Brown: I have to disappoint my hon. Friend: it was a million jobs that were lost under the shadow Chancellor, and he should continue to apologise to the House for his performance as Secretary of State for Employment. So far as manufacturing is concerned, the first thing that we had to do was to create more stability. There has certainly been an increase in employment overall in the economy. Equally, we have created a better environment for investment through reforms in corporation tax and capital gains tax. Yes, there is an all-party interest in boosting productivity growth in the economy, and I hope that the Opposition will support the measures that we have taken in the Budget.
    Chris Grayling: Does the Chancellor recognise the real concern in the manufacturing organisations that support the oil industry—and in the North sea oil industry as a whole—about the adverse effect that his budgetary tax changes will have on that industry? Will he now reconsider those measures, and will he listen to the cross-party campaign to encourage him, at the very least, to delay them until a full economic impact assessment can be made?
    Mr. Brown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not fall for the propaganda of some organisations in that area. He knows perfectly well, if he has looked at the detail, that the 100 per cent. investment allowance for the development of new oil fields will make it more profitable to develop new oil fields in the future, not less.
    As for the resource take from the North sea, our tax regime is more favourable than that of other countries. If the hon. Gentleman does not want us to go ahead with that tax proposal, he will have to explain to the House how he would raise the £500 million that is going into our public services.
    Charlotte Atkins: What success has my right hon. Friend had in encouraging manufacturing to take up information and communications technology much more effectively? Is he aware of such initiatives as the e-bus in my constituency, which is promoted by Leek college and Advantage West Midlands, and provides a mobile facility for micro and small businesses? It has 10 ICT terminals, and aims to encourage training, especially among micro-businesses, which to date have been poor at taking up ICT challenges.
    Mr. Brown: I have not yet been on the e-bus, but I am interested that there are so many different initiatives as a result of our computer learning proposals. Council houses have been allocated for computer learning centres, BBC local studios have become computer learning centres and they have been set up in colleges, schools and other public

    401
    places. With the mobile computer learning centres, we are trying to diffuse computer literacy education throughout the country. That is absolutely crucial for business, which is why there is 100 per cent. tax relief for businesses that adopt new computer and information technology. Although it is costly in lost revenue, I hope that both sides of the House will support expenditure on that.

    Financial Mis-selling
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What assessment he has made of the performance of the Financial Services Authority in protecting consumers from financial mis-selling. [60344]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Financial Services Authority has statutory objectives to secure appropriate consumer protection, taking account of the costs and benefits of regulation, and to promote public understanding of the financial system. The FSA reviews its performance in its annual report, which will be laid before Parliament later today.
    Dr. Cable: Will the Minister explain the difference between the commission-driven mis-selling of millions of pensions, which led Treasury Ministers to name and shame the worst offenders, and the commission-driven mis-selling of millions of endowments, as a result of which many of our constituents have not been able to repay their mortgages, but the FSA, backed by the Government, is refusing to name the worst offenders?
    Dawn Primarolo: In some 80 per cent. of cases in which pensions were mis-sold, it was as a direct result of advisers. There are far fewer such instances in cases of mis-selling of endowment mortgages, and the compensation required is smaller. Of course, the FSA is active in ensuring that people with mortgage endowments know where they stand and how to complain. It is requiring firms to resolve areas of significant consumer detriment, and pockets of mis-selling and mis-pricing of products are being investigated. Some 218,000 policies have already been investigated, and compensation has been made available.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend will be aware of the scandals involving split-capital investment trusts. One of my constituents tells me that she has lost 96 per cent. of the value of her investment with the Aberdeen investment trust, which is part of the Aberdeen asset management group. She made that investment believing that it was low risk, and it was intended to pay for her elderly mother's nursing home fees. Will my hon. Friend urge the FSA as soon as possible to complete its investigation into the split-capital investment trusts scandal? Will she also join me in urging the Aberdeen asset management group to compensate my constituent and the many thousands of people up and down the country who have similarly lost as a result of the mis-selling of investments?
    Dawn Primarolo: I understand the seriousness of the position that my hon. Friend illustrated with his constituent's experience of split-capital investment trusts. Although the FSA does not directly regulate that area, it has been investigating such trusts since last year. It will
    402
    look particularly at marketing material, collusion between managers of split funds and mis-selling by advisers. As for my hon. Friend's constituent, of course she must take up her complaint with the firm. When firms cannot resolve complaints themselves, those complaints can be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service. However, the FSA is pressing ahead with that review as quickly as possible.

    Savings
    Mr. David Ruffley: What recent representations he has received regarding his policy on savings; and if he will make a statement. [60345]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): Treasury Ministers receive representations covering a wide range of issues including savings. The Government recognise the value of saving and asset ownership. Our policy is to create the right environment for savings and incentives for people to save, and ensure that all individuals have the information and skills to make the right savings choices.
    Mr. Ruffley: Since Labour came to office, the savings ratio has crashed from just over 10 per cent. to just over 5 per cent. Will the Minister say sorry to British savers?
    Ruth Kelly: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not claiming that a high savings ratio under the previous Government is anything to be proud of. It was driven by households retrenching and building up their savings as boom and bust destroyed confidence. We are determined not to return to that. Of course, we accept that individuals need to save more and we have a comprehensive strategy to raise the rate of savings. We have introduced individual savings accounts, stakeholder policies and across the board we are looking at ways of encouraging individuals to save more. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not claiming any success for the previous Government in that area.
    Geraint Davies: My hon. Friend will know that for many people the primary source of savings is the value of their home, which is not included in the savings ratio. Does she accept that it is worth the Government looking at the value of people's homes in aggregate savings so that we can measure realistically the move from investment in pensions to investment in new homes?
    Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and is right to point out that net wealth has indeed risen under this Government. We must ensure that we have a platform of macro-economic stability, the right savings incentives and a comprehensive strategy to encourage savings, which is precisely what we are doing.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Does the Minister agree that the policies that do most to boost long-term savings encourage people to opt out of the unfunded state pension system into genuine savings in occupational and personal pensions, for which they receive national insurance rebates, which now amount to £6 billion per year? Will she contrast the Conservative policy of putting £6 billion into genuine savings for

    403
    pensions with the £5 billion of tax taken out of pensions by the Robert Maxwell memorial tax—the abolition of advance corporation tax on pension funds, which is Labour's response to our measures?
    Ruth Kelly: The right hon. Gentleman must surely realise that when he was Secretary of State for Social Security in the previous Government, hundreds of thousands of pensioners were forced into poverty. To ensure that pensioners share in the country's rising prosperity, we are spending an extra £6 billion every year on them from this April, which is over £3.5 billion more than, for example, if we had merely restored the link between pensions and earnings which, of course, the Opposition broke when they were in power. We are determined to ensure that pensioners do not fall into poverty in their old age and have the right incentives to save in future.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: I know that my hon. Friend will be as concerned as I was in reading the report from Oliver, Wyman and Co. commissioned by the Association of British Insurers which showed that a £27 billion savings gap is accruing. Does she agree that financial services companies need to provide three things in their products to ensure that that is tackled effectively? I call them the three Cs. The first is clarity of financial product and the second comparability across the financial products range. Will my hon. Friend commend the work—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is only two."] I shall come on to the third one. Will my hon. Friend commend the work of the Pensions Protection Investments Accreditation Board to ensure that the first two Cs are achieved. The third C is suitability—I was always better at numbers than English.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the third point can wait until I call the hon. Gentleman again.
    Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend made several interesting points. He is right that clarity, simplicity, transparency and the ability to understand products are at the heart of encouraging and of making it easier for people to save. It is a fact that the selling process can be so complicated and over-burdensome that it effectively disfranchises certain groups from saving. We are committed to tackling that problem and to introducing greater simplicity and clarity to the sales process. We have commissioned Ron Sandler at the Treasury to examine how to empower the consumer and to create greater competition in the market, and the Inland Revenue to examine how the tax system behind pensions, for example, can be simplified, so that greater clarity and simplicity can be introduced.
    Mr. Howard Flight: At least in the past, the Government used to stress that an adequate level of savings was crucial to economic stability. The £5 billion pension tax grab has led not just to the pension crisis, but to a reduction in pension savings with the closure of final salary schemes. The savings rate has collapsed to a forecast 3.75 per cent this year. What level of savings do the Government think is consistent with avoiding boom and bust?
    Ruth Kelly: It is a bit rich to take lessons from the hon. Gentleman about how to avoid boom and bust.
    404
    Interest rates are at their lowest level for 40 years. Underlying inflation is at its lowest level for almost 40 years and employment has risen by 1.5 million since 1997.
    The hon. Gentleman asks about our policies on tax credits. Tax credits on pension funds were part of a wide package of corporation tax reforms, which removed a distortion in the tax system and which will encourage long-term investment. He asks how we are going to encourage savings. Earlier, I laid out in a reasonable fashion our policies on raising savings. At the same time, we are the party determined to combat pensioner poverty. It is a bit rich for hon. Members to go on about how to avoid boom and bust.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I support entirely what my hon. Friend has said, but does she agree that the one thing that should not happen is a rise in interest rates, at least in the short term, because inflation is low, the needs of manufacturing are still acute and there are recessionary trends in the world? Does she agree that we should applaud the Monetary Policy Committee for keeping interest rates down?
    Ruth Kelly: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should applaud the Monetary Policy Committee, which was a welcome innovation. It introduced a degree of stability in interest rates and inflation over the longer term. I take his specific points about interest rates as representations that he should probably make directly to Monetary Policy Committee members as they consider the next interest rate move.

    Advance Corporation Tax
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What estimate he has made of the cost of the ACT changes since 1997 on the cost of public sector pension fund contributions. [60347]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The abolition of payable tax credits removed a major distortion in the tax system that encouraged companies to pay out their profits as dividends rather than retain them for investment, and were part of a wider package of corporation tax reforms that included tax cuts. No estimate has been made of the impact of the corporate taxation changes since 1997 on public sector pension schemes.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I add my personal congratulations to the Minister, whom I always had satisfactory dealings with in his previous offices, so perhaps he will be able to give me a satisfactory answer to my question. He will be aware that the ACT changes as they reflect public sector pension contributions have put a particular burden on the local authority budget.
    Indeed, it has been estimated that the increase in contributions has amounted to a council tax increase of 1.5 per cent. Taken together with the increases in national insurance, that has a considerable impact on every departmental budget. Does he agree that the comprehensive spending review will have to be increased

    405
    by several billion pounds merely to fund these two taxes alone, or will the Treasury tax the Deputy Prime Minister's Department to pay its own taxes?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman is very generous—one tries to give satisfaction—but I am afraid that he will find my answer to his question far from satisfactory. The reality is that, under this Government, local government settlements have been generous, compared with those that were reached when his party had stewardship of the economy. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of all reason. He will understand why I do not intend to anticipate the comprehensive spending review, save to say that I am sure that local government will be satisfied.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on his wider responsibilities? He has yet to fail to satisfy me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh."]—although my needs are few. Will he acknowledge, however, that public sector pension schemes are likely to be the last bastion of salary-related schemes? Most public sector schemes are not funded, and are therefore completely unaffected by the tax changes that Opposition Members have drawn attention to. Will he ensure that, as part of the Government's policy, they will defend public sector salary-related pension schemes, funded or otherwise, particularly in areas such as health, education, and—importantly—the fire and police services?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Treasury Committee, is very kind. I always take seriously the representations that he makes, and I shall certainly take that one seriously. He is absolutely right about unfunded schemes: contrary to Opposition Members' frequent suggestions, they are not affected. Would that they realised that, because they are giving a distorted picture of the reality on the ground.
    Mr. Michael Howard: May I add my congratulations to the Chief Secretary and welcome him to his new position? In retrospect, are he and the Chancellor proud of the £5 billion a year tax hit that was imposed on pension funds, including public sector ones, in 1997?
    Mr. Boateng: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is courteous, as always. However, to describe what happened as a tax hit, a stealth tax or a raid on pensions—he has done all those things—is as absurd as it is simplistic. He knows that that is not true, and nor should he forget the cuts in corporation tax. In the longer term, investment performance is likely to improve as a result of these measures, so the situation is far from what he describes.
    The key is stability, avoiding the boom and bust that characterised the time when his party were in government, and avoiding the mass unemployment that he presided over as Secretary of State for Employment. He needs to realise that this Government have provided 1.5 million new jobs for the economy, and that his Government took away many more.
    Mr. Howard: Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the stock market was massively up on where it was five years ago, but in fact, it is down by 2 per cent. When he made that statement, was he accurately reflecting what the Chancellor was whispering in his ear, or are the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor now among the 56 per cent. of the electorate who do not regard the Prime Minister as honest or trustworthy?
    Mr. Boateng: The Prime Minister is both those things. He was absolutely right: the stock market is £300 billion net up on what we inherited. That is the truth of the situation. Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not have the grace to recognise it?

Operations in Afghanistan
12.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the contribution that British forces have made to operations in Afghanistan, and the future disposition of our forces there.
Two groups of British forces have been deployed in Afghanistan, with separate but closely complementary aims—security assistance to the Afghan Interim Administration, and offensive operations against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The United Kingdom has contributed to the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, which we have led since its inception, and through Task Force Jacana we have contributed to Operation Enduring Freedom, aimed at al-Qaeda.
I shall address ISAF first. The House will recall that, from the outset, we planned to reduce our contribution to ISAF once we had transferred its leadership to one of our partners. That has taken longer than we originally anticipated, but we had to get it right: ISAF's success has been crucial to the stability of Kabul and, more widely, to Afghanistan, a strategic aim that is profoundly important to the United Kingdom.
I told the House on 16 May that we were working towards achieving the handover of the command of ISAF by the end of June. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that command of ISAF was formally transferred from General McColl to General Zorlu of the Turkish Army a few hours ago, in a ceremony attended by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief of the General Staff.
Let me take this opportunity to record our thanks for the considerable efforts that Turkey has made to ensure a successful handover. The United States has also made a significant contribution to the process, not least by providing strategic airlift to move Turkish troops to Kabul. For our part, we have agreed to leave computer and communications equipment and a fire engine in Afghanistan for use by the new ISAF headquarters. Some British troops will remain with ISAF as well; I will say more about that later.
No one who has been involved—and the British and Turkish staffs have been working closely together for some time now—can doubt the great importance that Turkey attaches to a successful tenure in command. We have every confidence in General Zorlu and his troops as they build on and take forward the excellent work that ISAF has already achieved.
ISAF under General McColl has been a great success. It is no exaggeration to say that the force, while limited geographically to the area of Kabul, has had an impact right across Afghanistan. The emergency Loya Jirga and its local and regional groups would have been impossible without the reassurance, stability and sense of normality that ISAF helped the Afghan Interim Administration bring to Kabul; and without a secure place where representatives of all Afghanistan's people could meet to discuss how they want to govern their country, the gains of the past nine months could have been lost. Members of our armed forces who have been involved with ISAF should feel proud of what they have achieved. They have the thanks of the House, and indeed of the British people.
408
The emergency Loya Jirga, which concluded this morning, offered the Afghan people their first opportunity in decades to play a decisive role in choosing their Government. That demonstrates the great progress that has been made since the collapse of the Taliban. Less than a year ago, the lives of the Afghan people were blighted by that cruel regime. It is a remarkable tribute to the decisive coalition action against the Taliban, to the Afghan people, and to the Interim Administration under Hamid Karzai that within only six months this large and peaceful assembly, representing all the Afghan people, has met in Kabul.
The Loya Jirga has given the Afghan people the chance to build a future based on mutual respect, human rights and democracy. It is a significant step towards the goal of representative, democratic elections, which are due to be held in 2004.
As for the emergency Loya Jirga itself, I warmly welcome its decision to elect Hamid Karzai as Afghanistan's head of state. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written on behalf of the Government to congratulate him personally. Hamid Karzai risked his life to play a crucial role in the early stages of rebuilding Afghanistan. He deserves, and gets, our full support.
Through a combination of tact, diplomacy, understanding and firm authority, ISAF has made a real difference on the ground. In the six months that it has been in Kabul, it has mounted 2,185 joint patrols with the Afghan police, increasing security on the streets of Kabul. It has destroyed or disposed of nearly 3 million munitions, including guided weapons, fuses, rockets, submunitions, bombs, shells, small arms ammunition, mortar bombs, grenades and both anti-tank and anti-personnel land mines. Indeed, nearly 80 per cent. of all the munitions destroyed were anti-personnel land mines—on its own, a massive contribution towards the safety of the Afghan people.
ISAF has operated an ambulance service across Kabul throughout the night-time curfew. It has begun the process of reforming Afghanistan's security sector through the training of the 1st Battalion of the Afghan National Guard. It has completed some 200 aid projects in co-operation with the local civil authorities and other agencies, repairing roads, utilities, health, education and administrative services.
All this has made a real improvement to the lives of the people of Kabul. There is still more to do, but Kabul is again a bustling city. The vast majority of the people recognise, value and support ISAF's work. The warm welcome that its patrols receive on the streets is proof enough of that, as I have seen for myself.
This is, of course, not simply a British achievement. ISAF is a truly multinational force. Nineteen other countries answered the call to provide forces. The United States has given invaluable assistance and help. Without the efforts of all those nations, ISAF would not have been the success that it has been, but we should certainly take pride in the particular British contribution to the force. General McColl and the British contingent have made a lasting and favourable impression on the Afghan people. Thanks to the efforts of British service men and women, we now have many friends in Afghanistan, from children on the streets of Kabul to the most senior members of the Afghan Administration.

409
The House will be pleased to know that the 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment will come home once it has completed transferring its responsibilities to the Turkish battle group that is replacing it. Together with many of the British forces committed to ISAF, it will have returned to the United Kingdom by the middle of next month, but that is not the end of our involvement with ISAF. It remains vital to the maintenance of security in Kabul and a stable future for Afghanistan.
The United Kingdom will remain a major contributing nation. In total, our contribution will reduce from about 1,300 to about 400 troops, who will be primarily engineers and logistics support troops—high value specialists, who can bring important expertise that will be of specific use to ISAF.
There is now a degree of optimism in Afghanistan that was unthinkable just a few months ago, and ISAF has played a major role in creating a more secure environment, but although Kabul is a safer place and Afghanistan as a whole is more secure, there is still a terrorist threat. The mountainous and inaccessible regions remain an ideal hiding place for the al-Qaeda and Taliban forces that are working to destroy that new found sense of security. That was why we deployed Task Force Jacana—a 1,700 strong battle group formed around 45 Commando Royal Marines—at the request of the United States.
There is no doubt that al-Qaeda has been dealt a shattering blow by the coalition military action, but elements of al-Qaeda remain. Recent arrests in Morocco and the United States have demonstrated that al-Qaeda retains both the ambition and the capacity to threaten, and take, many lives. It is striving every day to find ways to use that capacity, including in Afghanistan.
The future of Afghanistan now looks brighter than it has for some time. A significant milestone has been passed successfully with the conclusion of the Loya Jirga, but al-Qaeda has not gone away; we know that it has been determined to undermine and derail that rebuilding process. The presence of Royal Marines and others on the ground in eastern Afghanistan has helped to prevent al-Qaeda from achieving that. Our forces have denied ground to al-Qaeda remnants and destroyed terrorist infrastructure. They have been crucial in providing a secure environment for the emergency Loya Jirga to take place.
The four operations conducted by Task Force Jacana—Ptarmigan, Snipe, Condor and, most recently, Buzzard—have involved destroying 28 bunkers and caves; flying more than 1,000 helicopter sorties in the Chinooks of 27 Squadron, in an environment so demanding that it required us to operate at the edge of the aircraft's capabilities; and finding and destroying 45,000 rounds of munitions, from machine gun rounds to 155 mm artillery shells. British troops also recovered two mortar systems and 440 107 mm rocket systems. Every round destroyed helps to contain the terrorist threat and safeguard Afghanistan's future.
Our troops conducted significant humanitarian assistance work in their area of operations, winning the hearts and minds of Afghan people in areas previously dominated by the Taliban and by al-Qaeda. For example, more than nine tonnes of wheat and 1,100 blankets have been distributed to those who need them.
410
I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that Task Force Jacana has been led in exemplary fashion from the very start. Brigadier Roger Lane has done an outstanding job in leading his troops in four demanding operations through rugged, high-altitude terrain that has been as tough as any that British units have had to tackle in recent memory.
We should bear it in mind that those operations carried, and still carry, real risks, and we should be grateful that we have achieved such success without loss of life. Those who carp about the "lack of action" do so from a position of ignorance about the nature of warfare. That is one thing, but it is quite another to wish that our forces had come under fire, which appears to have been the hope of some armchair commentators in recent weeks.
It would have been quite wrong had I come before the House just over three months ago and not warned of the risks that our forces would face. British troops were, and are, keen to engage the enemy. They want to demonstrate their courage and professionalism—the hallmarks of Britain's armed forces. But the enemy is no fool: he has learned from the harsh defeat he suffered during Operation Anaconda and has avoided further direct contact with our forces
I have previously told the House that the Jacana deployment would last in the order of three months. On the completion of Operation Buzzard, Task Force Jacana will be withdrawn from Afghanistan. The phased drawdown of the force will begin on 4 July and, subject as always to operational demands, should be complete by late next month.
The drawdown will enable us to rest and reconstitute our forces for future contingencies. After consultation with the United States and our other coalition partners about the challenges and likely tasks ahead, I have concluded that there is no need to replace 45 Commando immediately. We will, however, retain stores in Afghanistan to enable an even more rapid deployment than the initial one should that be required.
Taken together, the handover of the ISAF command, the return home of 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment and the drawdown of Task Force Jacana means that the number of British forces in the operational theatre—both in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region supporting the operations—should reduce from more than 4,000 today to about 2,000 by late summer. However, we will still maintain a Tomahawk-armed submarine presence, ships, aircraft and elements of other forces in Afghanistan and the region. That will include forces on the ground—elements of 40 Commando will remain at Bagram, where they have played a vital role in helping to secure and protect the airfield. We shall also have logistics support personnel at Bagram, as part of our capacity rapidly to deploy additional forces if the operational situation demands it.
This reduction in numbers does not mean a reduction in our commitment either to Afghanistan or to the campaign against international terrorism. In fact, it is proof of our willingness to keep up military action for as long as it takes. This is not a conventional campaign; it will vary in tempo and location. The United Kingdom has forces with capabilities that few can match. That is why we must use them where they can do the most good.
Crucial to the long-term future of Afghanistan as a stable and secure state will be the reform of its entire security sector—the army, the police and the structures

411
that guide and control them. That is crucial if Afghanistan is to enjoy the stability that will permit economic and social recovery from decades of conflict. It is essential to ensure that Afghanistan does not slip back to being a failed state that provides a safe haven for terrorists. Together with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, the Ministry of Defence is making a significant contribution to the international effort to achieve security sector reform.
The United Kingdom is therefore co-ordinating international counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan. The new Afghan authorities have taken a tough line on drugs, issuing a decree banning the cultivation, processing and trafficking of heroin. We should applaud their resolve in tackling this problem, given the poppy crop's economic significance to people in parts of Afghanistan. Financial assistance has been offered to farmers who voluntarily eradicate their crops. That has had some success, and we estimate that around a third of this year's crop has been destroyed. But Afghan farmers who currently depend on opium production must have an alternative, and legal, livelihood, and the international community needs to provide carefully targeted assistance to that end. It is obviously a long-term problem, not one that can be solved in a single season.
Our forces have been engaged in invaluable work in Afghanistan, and they have carried out their duties with outstanding professionalism. There is more to do in the rebuilding of the country, and we are determined to play our full part in that. That means ensuring that we maintain a sustainable commitment of forces and preserve a balance between contributing to military operations, training and maintaining skills, as well as, importantly, giving our forces the opportunity to rest and to spend time with their families. The changes in our contributions to operations in Afghanistan do that. I am sure that the House will give them its support.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for providing an advance copy earlier today.
The first thing that the House must do is to join him in congratulating Her Majesty's armed forces on a job well done in Afghanistan. General McColl has shown an extraordinarily deft touch in bringing peace and order to the war-torn and devastated city of Kabul and enabling the new Government to establish their authority. Elsewhere, 45 Commando Royal Marines and other elements have been engaged in, and prepared for, battle with al-Qaeda in the most arduous and testing conditions. The terrorists who previously ran a state within the state have been militarily neutralised and have fled. I join the Secretary of State in congratulating Brigadier Lane on his leadership of a difficult and often frustrating operation.
The Secretary of State has not announced a complete withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan, but I welcome this substantial reduction, which I understand will extend to the Balkans in due course. We have long argued that the British armed forces are overstretched, by which we mean that UK forces are engaged on more operations, with fewer resources, than was envisaged in the Government's 1998 strategic defence review.
412
The scaling back of deployments will not just be a chance for soldiers and Royal Marines to spend time with their families. The events of 11 September underlined the fact that the post-cold war world is dangerous and unpredictable. The UK and our allies must keep our armed forces fully prepared for the unexpected and ready to respond at very short notice—perhaps, as the Secretary of State suggested, for further fighting operations in Afghanistan. The UK does not have sufficient forces to sustain long and protracted peacekeeping operations as well, as General McColl confirmed on Radio 4 this morning.
Overstretch means that time on operations comes out of time for training. Does the Secretary of State accept that inadequate training adds risk to military operations? What assurances can he give that there will be fewer cancelled exercises and better supplies of parts, ammunition and equipment, so that the full programme of Army training can he fully restored? Overstretch drives some of our most experienced people to leave the armed forces. The Army is severely under-recruited—36 of the British Army's 45 regiments are now under strength. Will the right hon. Gentleman now put the necessary resources and willpower behind the Army recruiting campaign that has so far, obviously, been lacking?
There is confusion about the Government's targets for Army manpower. Four years ago, Labour promised an extra 3,300 troops for the Army, raising the fully trained target to 108,500. The Adjutant-General confirmed that to the Select Committee on Defence. Why does the Secretary of State not stand by that target? What are we to make of the regular briefings that the Army is to be cut to 95,000? Does he realise that this will be the smallest standing Army that Britain has had since the days of Wellington? How does the Secretary of State square such cuts with the very real threats that the free world now faces and the plans being laid for the next phase in the war against terrorism, to which he referred?
The former NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Wesley Clark said on Radio 4 this morning that the allies will
"go after states, not shadowy networks of terrorists."
He also said:
"Inside the American and British Governments, the decision has been made to apply the tools in hand to—Saddam Hussein, rather than focusing for a longer, more extended period of time on breaking up the al-Qaeda network itself."
Is that the Government's plan? Has such a decision been made?
One final question remains to be resolved that concerns British forces on operations abroad. I ask the Secretary of State for clarification on the Government's commitment to the International Criminal Court. Given that the Government have consistently argued that the court will be no threat to British forces conducting operations abroad, and that he has criticised the United States for its concern to maintain the immunity of its troops, will he comment on the report in the Washington Post this morning that the UK and French Governments have quietly obtained for their troops the very immunity that they would deny to the US? We have consistently warned of the need for such immunity. Has he now accepted our view?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's initial comments about the contribution made by Britain's

413
armed forces. He and I agree on those matters, but we disagree on his allegations of overstretch, which he makes regularly. When he criticises the number of operations in which British forces are engaged, he has never been prepared to say from which operation the Opposition would recommend withdrawal. At one stage, we heard some reservations about an operation in Macedonia, but as that was concluded successfully within 30 days, he will, no doubt, rewrite history on that point. I agree with him that inadequate training is a risk to operations, but that is a matter on which the chiefs of staff should advise Ministers. I assure the House that if the chiefs believe that training is inadequate, they will say so clearly to Ministers, and Ministers will act on that.
On the subject of numbers, the shadow Defence Secretary should pay a little more attention to the facts and a little less to newspapers. He repeats as fact what he reads in the newspapers, and that is a very dangerous tendency that I would advise him against. I shall give him the facts so that he is not tempted to repeat what he said earlier. The review of the Army's future manpower requirement has recently been concluded. It has been published, so perhaps his researchers would do better to research the material issued by the Ministry of Defence than the pages of certain newspapers. The revised manning target is 106,978. The figure for I May 2002 showed that whole Army strength stood at 101,320. Contrary to what he told the House a few moments ago, Army strength has increased by some 1,300 in the past 12 months. That is not by enough or fast enough and we would like recruitment to improve, but it is an increase. His researchers should work a little harder on facts, not suppositions.
As for General Clark's comments, I assure the House that no decision has been taken on military operations in Iraq, other than those military operations that are conducted at great risk to British aircraft and aircrew as they patrol the no-fly zones over that country.
On the ICC, the Government negotiated an effective immunity for British forces. It is contained in the draft treaty and that is why we support it. Obviously, that degree of immunity is available to any country that chooses to sign the treaty.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement on Afghanistan today and for the advance notice that I was given of it through a telephone call from his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence. May I thank him for the close consultation that he has had with me, the Conservative spokesman and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence on the deployments in Afghanistan in the past few months?
Almost every Member of the House will welcome the announcement today. I am especially sure that it will be welcomed by the forces themselves, their families and their friends. It is right to pay special tribute to the families of our forces who will be particularly pleased about the news.
Liberal Democrat Members fully supported the ISAF deployment and the deployment of 45 Commando. It is fair to say that some people's fears that engagements with different roles might lead to tension did not come to pass. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that it has been clear for some time that our forces have been operating at the very limit of our commitments. Does he
414
therefore agree that, until the manning problems from which the Army especially suffer are remedied, further operational commitments, whether in the campaign against terrorism or in other cases of national interest, would continue to stretch our forces to the limits?
As always, the forces in Afghanistan have conducted themselves in an exemplary fashion, and have performed the task set them with great vigour and courage. Whatever the criticism that may have been levelled at the mission undertaken by 45 Commando in Afghanistan—that it was over-hyped—it is clear, at least from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that none of that criticism was directed at the brave men and women in Afghanistan or at their commanding officer.
The Secretary of State will agree that the presence of the Marines, as well as the operations that they have undertaken, has served as an active deterrent against the al-Qaeda threat, and has allowed the Loya Jirga to take place successfully and peacefully. Will he tell the House, however, what is the situation along the border with Pakistan, which has often given us cause for concern? Who will patrol that now?
I commend the Royal Anglians, and the Parachute Regiment before them, for the exemplary work that they have done as part of ISAF. Indeed, the success of the Loya Jirga concluded today is a great compliment to them.
Finally, I add a note of caution. Is the Secretary of State concerned that such a visible and large-scale withdrawal of British troops from ISAF, coupled with the withdrawal of the Marines from Bagram, could be considered in some quarters as a sign that we are turning away from the difficult years ahead in Afghanistan, or at least seen as a reduction in the British commitment to the reconstruction of a peaceful future for Afghanistan? If that were the case, does he agree that the considerable success of which he can rightly be proud might be undermined in the future?
Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman especially for his comments about the families of service men and women. They take a considerable amount of trouble on behalf of their husbands, wives and partners, and we recognise the sacrifice that they make, which is often not acknowledged. It is therefore right that the hon. Gentleman should do so.
The hon. Gentleman quotes me entirely accurately in saying that we have been operating at the limits of our commitments. That is something that I have said on previous occasions, which is why I was so determined that there should be a drawdown consistent with the announcement that we made at the time. If he checks what I have said in the past about Task Force Jacana he will see that, within days, we will be reducing numbers entirely consistently with what I outlined to the House. He is right that we need to ensure an active deterrent against al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants, which will continue in border areas, for now at any rate, without the active participation of British Royal Marines. Other forces on both sides of the border will ensure that the passage enjoyed by certain al-Qaeda elements is not as easy as they might have anticipated.
I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that this announcement involves no lessening of our commitment to Afghanistan. We have taken an enormous amount of trouble to support the rebuilding of that country. As I

415
indicated, there will still be more than 2,000 members of Britain's armed forces in and around Afghanistan assisting in the continued rebuilding of the country. It is not simply military forces, however, that are involved in the rebuilding of the country. This operation is conducted right across Government, and in my statement I paid tribute to other Departments that will also be actively engaged in making sure that Afghanistan does not slip back to where it came from.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Can my right hon. Friend make an assessment of how many anti-personnel land mines remain unexploded in Afghanistan as a result of all the wars in that country? Will the clearance continue and, if so, how long will it take? Does he also feel confident that the Turkish force will appreciate the importance of human rights, particularly as far as women are concerned?
Mr. Hoon: I will not even try to guess how many unexploded land mines there might be in Afghanistan. The country has had 20 years of conflict and each and every organisation engaged in the conflict there has sadly laid anti-personnel land mines. That includes forces on both sides in the conflict involving the Soviet Union, which was followed by a particularly nasty and brutal civil war. It is only in recent times that efforts have been made to deal with the problem. Dealing with unexploded land mines has cost several lives recently and, although I acknowledge the risks involved to the people doing that work, I assure my hon. Friend that the efforts to deal with the problem will continue.
On my hon. Friend's point about human rights, the general in charge of ISAF from now on is an experienced officer who has served under previous United Nations commands. He has an extremely good reputation for the way in which he commands his men.
Mr. Michael Portillo: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his having the privilege of being able to make this statement about two successful operations by British forces that did not involve the loss of life. I thank him warmly for making a statement to the House of Commons. I have a feeling that Members of Parliament do not have many uses under this regime, but one thing that we can do is express on behalf of the nation the gratitude and sense of relief at the safety of our forces that we feel as they return. We can also wish them well on behalf of the nation when they go into battle. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to make statements to the House not only when he withdraws forces, but when he announces further deployments, as I feel sure that he will in due course.
May I associate myself strongly with what the Secretary of State said about armchair critics? It is true that our forces have not been involved in headline-grabbing confrontations—thank God. However, the fact that people have been able to operate in peace and security in recent times in a country where there have been 20 years of mayhem and slaughter represents probably the biggest news story to have come out of that country in many years.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He had the privilege of occupying the position that I now
416
occupy and he probably brings much greater understanding to the difficulties that people in this position face. I am grateful for his remarks, and I will ensure that they are passed on to the men and women of our armed forces. They will very much appreciate what he has said.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: If, as the Secretary of State unambiguously assures the House, no decision has been made on Iraq, should the Government not ask General Wesley Clark to withdraw or, at least, clarify the statements that he made on the "Today" programme?
Mr. Hoon: I assure my hon. Friend that no decision has been made about military operations in relation to Iraq other than the decisions that are taken and that are necessary day to day to support our aircraft and aircrew patrolling the no-fly zones in Iraq.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: May I particularly welcome the Secretary of State's remarks about the role of the UK in co-ordinating the international efforts in Afghanistan against the drugs trade? He will know that it is a deadly problem that translates directly from Afghanistan to the streets of our towns and cities. Now that our involvement in Afghanistan is diminishing somewhat, will he use his considerable skills to ensure that this anti-narcotics strategy is pursued in every way with vigour and effectiveness across the British Government?
Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his timely observations. We must continue to address the problem. We estimate that 90 per cent. of the heroin sold on the streets of the United Kingdom has its origins in Afghanistan. The trade has a pernicious effect right along the route from Afghanistan to the United Kingdom. The route involves terrorists and criminals and the trade allows many terrorist organisations to purchase their arms. We are absolutely determined to continue the pressure and effort to deal with the origins of the trade in Afghanistan and with the route of heroin back to the United Kingdom.
Linda Gilroy: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. It will also be welcomed by the families of service men and women, and those close to them, who will no doubt give them a warm reception when they come home in coming months. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the separation in times of deployment which they have to endure is made infinitely worse by some of the wilder speculation of the armchair commentators, to which a number of hon. Members referred? It has ranged from questioning whether there has been a job for the battle group to do to speculation on whether they have been in wild danger.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my local evening paper, the Evening Herald, which has given consistent, strong, positive and informed coverage of what has been happening? Does he agree that James Garnett, the defence correspondent, in quoting Captain—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady could show the article to the Secretary of State afterwards.
Linda Gilroy: I certainly will and I would have great pleasure in showing it to any other hon. Member.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend made her point more effectively than I could.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: In warmly endorsing all the points made by the Secretary of State and welcoming with tremendous pleasure the great success of our troops in Afghanistan, may I associate myself wholly with the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo)?
Does the Secretary of State agree that the unique experience that British soldiers bring to such operations, much of it learned on the streets of Belfast over the past 27 years where they served with such distinction, and the calm professionalism with which they deal with extremely dangerous and difficult situations enables our soldiers to win friends wherever they go? No one should be deluded about the dangers that our soldiers have faced in Afghanistan. They have dealt with them magnificently.
Will the Secretary of State assure me that the lessons, in particular those learned by the Commandos from operating in difficult conditions at altitude and at a considerable tempo, will be disseminated throughout the wider Army so that other regiments of the line can be deployed on major operations? He should not be deluded about the tremendous desire of regiments to participate in such operations and the increasing resentment that is felt because they are not called forward. The lessons need to be well learned so that we enable other regiments to take over the mantle that has been so brilliantly borne not only by the Parachute Brigade, but by the Commandos.
Mr. Hoon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments which are treated seriously in the Ministry of Defence, not least because of his considerable experience in that Department. There is always a challenge for any Minister in my position, as he knows. As a result of our involvement in Northern Ireland over a long period, our armed forces have the qualities, experience and commitment needed to conduct operations in Afghanistan and the Balkans, where they still serve.
Although we have that experience, the challenge is to get others to develop it too. The United Kingdom simply cannot commit its forces wherever those requirements arise. The transfer of the leadership role to Turkey means that another country will develop that expertise, which I certainly welcome. There will also be a process of lessons learned, as there always is from such deployments, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I assure him that those lessons will be disseminated across the armed forces. The experience has been unique in recent times and we need to learn from it.
Mr. Doug Henderson: May I associate myself with my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to 45 Commando Royal Marines for its involvement in Afghanistan? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is now something of a military void there, because if 45 Commando was necessary to act as a deterrent, to root out al-Qaeda and to chase it over the border, as it undoubtedly has done, there is now a problem in making sure that al-Qaeda does not return to Afghanistan and begin to disrupt the peace process established by the council in Kabul this week? Will he give the House further details about how the border is to be patrolled and al-Qaeda kept out?
Mr. Hoon: I do not accept my hon. Friend's observation about there being a military void. In response to an earlier question I indicated that there will be other forces on both sides of the border. Pakistani forces will be present in some numbers on their side, together with coalition forces, still led by the United States but involving new countries and those that are currently in the process of "rouling" their forces in order that they can continue their commitment—so there will be a significant coalition presence in those difficult border areas.
Mr. Michael Weir: I warmly welcome the news that 45 Commando is shortly to return home, which will be a great relief to the families back in Arbroath. I assure the Secretary of State that, whatever the armchair commentators may think, the families of the troops and the whole community in Arbroath are extremely relieved that 45 Commando has carried out its important work without sustaining any casualties.
The Secretary of State mentioned the border areas and the continuing threat from al-Qaeda. Given that he has also said that ISAF is basically confined to Kabul, can he tell us what assessment he has made of the Interim Administration's ability to provide internal security in other parts of Afghanistan to prevent the return of al-Qaeda and the Taliban?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question that needs addressing by the Interim Administration. The conclusion of the emergency Loya Jirga and the allocation of portfolios and responsibilities to what are, in effect, Ministers, means that No. 1 on their agenda of responsibility is the establishment of security throughout Afghanistan. We are certainly able to play a part by ensuring that they have the appropriate advice and assistance to develop their own security, but it is the people of Afghanistan and their Government who are ultimately responsible for that.
The reconstruction of an Afghan army, which I referred to near the end of my statement, is the key to that, and we shall certainly continue our support for its training efforts. That army is vital if Afghanistan is to control its own territory.
Hugh Bayley: Like other Members, I should like to express my congratulations to all our armed forces and, in particular, to the Royal Anglian Regiment, whose cap badge I had the great honour to wear for three years as a cadet.
The best defences against a resurgence of al-Qaeda or Taliban influence are peace and security, particularly food security. To what extent has the security brought to Afghanistan by our forces allowed the replanting of food crops, rather than drug crops, to help to ensure that next winter there will be fewer food shortages than there were last winter?
Mr. Hoon: I had not suspected my hon. Friend of military involvement, and I am delighted to hear of his substantial connection.
On the replanting of food crops, the signs are encouraging. There is food on the streets. Clearly, some of it has been imported—I suspect from Pakistan—but it is being increasingly made available locally.

419
Food security is a challenge. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) referred to the need to persuade farmers away from the lucrative cash crop of poppies towards something more substantive as far as the people of Afghanistan are concerned. Although in this first year we have had some success in the destruction of the crop, in truth we need to ensure that a system is in place to encourage farmers to grow crops for food rather than for destruction.
Hugh Robertson: I associate myself entirely with the Secretary of State's remarks about our forces in Afghanistan. However, he is aware that although the Pakistani army has had access to the border areas for some time, it has only recently gained unrestricted access to Waziristan. How confident is he that the remnants of al-Qaeda have not regrouped in that area, and what threat does he think they pose?
Mr. Hoon: The remnants of al-Qaeda certainly continue to pose a threat, and there is some information about their efforts to regroup. That is why, as I said in response to an earlier question, it is vital that there are continuing coalition efforts to make it difficult to cross what is nevertheless an extremely inaccessible border area. Those efforts will continue, as I stated, on both sides of the border.
Mr. John Smith: I join the tributes to our armed forces and the exemplary way in which they have conducted themselves in their mission. I also pay tribute to the organisations within the Ministry of Defence that are less visible, such as the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, which has helped to keep the Chinooks flying throughout the mission. We sometimes overlook those organisations.
I endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) regarding the armchair critics who, to my disbelief, somehow see the mission as a failure because of the absence of bloodshed and killing. That is outrageous, and we should put that on the record.
Finally, I am glad to see a Muslim force taking over from the British, but those troops do not have the same experience as our forces have had in peacekeeping and policing human rights. Will we continue to play a role to support them in their new mission?
Mr. Hoon: As I made clear in my statement, we will continue to play a role. We will supply vital specialist forces to ISAF. It is important that the existing contributors do so and give Turkey the support that it needs. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to an aspect that is often overlooked in the House—the enormous contribution that civilians make to our defence effort. That is not given proper regard, alongside the tributes that are rightly paid to our armed forces. Some 100,000 civil servants work for the Ministry of Defence. In my view, the MOD is the most joined-up Government Department, integrating people from the military and the civil service, and it is right that they should all get our praise and appreciation for the successful conduct of operations such as that in Afghanistan.
Mr. David Laws: I, too, associate myself with the comments of other hon. Members and congratulate all
420
the armed services that have served in Afghanistan over the past few months. I remind the Secretary of State of the answer that he gave me in this place on 20 March, when I asked him how long the deployment would continue. His words were:
"The deployment will be for as long as it takes to deal with the continuing threats."—[Official Report, 20 March 2002; Vol. 382. c. 337.]
Can we really say that we have dealt with the continuing threats, and is there not a risk that as our troops leave the country, the Taliban and al-Qaeda will come back in?
Mr. Hoon: It is important that the hon. Gentleman recognises that our contribution was part of a coalition—an international effort, which continues, as I made clear in answer to a number of questions. There are more forces than the Royal Marines, well though they have served in those areas. As I said, should a requirement arise for British forces to return to that part of the world, we have made contingency plans, including leaving substantial stores available to allow us to return at even shorter notice than we were given on a previous occasion.
Roger Casale: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome what he told the House about the handover of the command of ISAF, which represents an important staging-post in the stabilisation of the military as well as the political situation in Afghanistan. Does he agree that one of the lessons of recent British involvement in post-conflict situations, such as Kosovo, is that British forces can play an important role not just in maintaining security, but in helping to rebuild basic infrastructures, such as the water supply, transport links and the provision of electricity to schools and hospitals? Will he confirm that some British troops will remain in Afghanistan, both for the immediate future, as he said, and beyond the summer, in order to help with such essential tasks?
Mr. Hoon: As I indicated earlier, the task ahead of us is not simply a military one. British forces have made a significant contribution in assisting in the resolution of some of the military problems that Afghanistan faces as well as the reconstruction of an army. Throughout all departments, there will be a necessary effort to rebuild the infrastructure of Afghanistan. There cannot be real peace and security in that country until that infrastructure is properly available to its people.
Mr. Jenkin: I should like to press the Secretary of State very briefly about General Wesley Clark, as he has so far not been clear about the matter, despite my giving his office notice that I would raise it.
General Clark did not say that a decision had been made about military operations, although that is the question that the Secretary of State keeps answering. He said that the decision has been made to
"go after states, not shadowy networks of terrorists".
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether, if that is the case, we will be dealing with states rather than terrorist networks in the war against terrorism?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman draws a distinction without real meaning. In Afghanistan, for example, after an appropriate notice period elapsed and the Taliban

421
regime failed to deliver up al-Qaeda as they should have done, the state was under notice that we would take military action, which is precisely what happened. That has always been the position of the international community. Any state that harbours terrorists and gives them the sort of support that the Taliban regime gave to al-Qaeda is certainly a state against which we will consider taking action.

Business of the House
1.21 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 24 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Export Control Bill.
Motion to take note of European documents relating to single European sky.
TUESDAY 25 JUNE—Opposition Day [15th Allotted Day]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Crisis in the Care Homes Sector", followed by a debate entitled "Crisis in Zimbabwe". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
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.
FRIDAY 28 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 1 JULY—Second Reading of the Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [Lords].
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
TUESDAY 2 JULY—Opposition Day [16th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 3 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 4 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY 5 JULY—Debate on modernising Britain's gambling laws on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall on Thursday 4 July will be a debate on the reports from the Education and Skills Committee on the work of Ofsted. On Monday 1 July, there will be a debate relating to third-country nationals in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise on 24 July and return on 15 October. That will, however, depend on the progress of business in the other place.
[Monday 1 July 2002:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: 8237/01: Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents; 11803/01: Entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment and self-employed activities. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-i, HC 152-ix and HC 152-xv (2001—02)]
Mr. Eric Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for letting us know of the business for next week and for notifying us of the date of the summer recess.

423
The House will know that the Prime Minister has just concluded his groundbreaking press conference, in which he apparently gave members of the press about an hour of his time, in contrast to the mere 30 minutes that we get for PMPs each week. I am curious to know whether there are any plans to extend the time that the Prime Minister submits himself to questions by right hon. and hon. Members in PMPs, given the hour that he gave to journalists. I know that it is all supposed to be in the cause of transparency, but it seems that we are being given a pretty shabby deal by the Prime Minister. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to put that right.
Talking of transparency, I happen to have in my possession the proceedings of the parliamentary Labour party meeting that was held on Wednesday 12 June 2002 at 11.30 am in Committee Room 14. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, you are no longer able to attend PLP meetings. That being so, I am sure that you would like to know what went on at the meeting. This little item reads:
"The Party Chair referred to his article in The Times that morning and stressed the need for colleagues to go on the offensive regarding the merits of politics and politicians."
He then said:
"We also had to expose the deep hypocrisy of the media and the journalists who printed uncorroborated and unfounded stories on a daily basis."
I wonder whether the party chair had anything to do with the reference to the Press Complaints Commission that was mysteriously withdrawn. There is something rather at odds between what the party chair was saying to the PLP and what Mr. Alastair Campbell was doing at No. 10.
The party chair concluded by saying
"that the current climate of seeking to undermine politicians was completely unacceptable in a democracy".
We should have a debate on this, not in the PLP but in this place. I should like to know how it is that the chair of the Labour party believes that the press seeking to undermine politicians is unacceptable in a democracy. It is a sinister allegation, is it not? Will there be proposals from the chair of the Labour party somehow to muzzle the press, if he believes that it is being unfair to the delicacies of the PLP? We must know more. I hope that the Leader of the House will give us an opportunity to debate the matter.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the stock market is
"massively up on where it was five years ago."
My information is that shares are now 2 per cent. lower in value than they were five years ago, when the great pensions tax was first imposed. We need clarification. Perhaps the Leader of the House can tell us—I know how well briefed he is on these occasions—from where the Prime Minister obtained his information. It seems yet again that the Prime Minister has either been misinformed or has rather carelessly let slip something that may not quite be true.
In the same column, the Prime Minister went on to say,
"we are putting £6 billion more into pensions every year."—[Official Report, 19 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 272.]
I will leave right hon. and hon. Members to conclude whether that is true. However, the Prime Minister seemed to forget to say—I am sure that he would have done so in
424
the interests of fairness and transparency—that, at the same time, the Government are taking £5 billion a year out of pensions as a result of the great pensions tax that was imposed so surreptitiously about five years ago. In the interest of fairness, I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to correct the imbalance in what the Prime Minister said yesterday.
Today, a report has been issued by the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that makes some rather sensational claims and statements. I shall give the House a few of them. I hope that this will form the basis of an urgent debate on the report. Surely we cannot fail to debate it when it says such sensational things as
"we find it extraordinary that the Minister was unaware that there was a potential problem until July 2001, and that his officials had sought clarification of the Regulation on nine occasions without referring the matter to him."
Paragraph 43 reads:
"Mr. Meacher told the House in January 2002 that the Government had been 'badly let down' by the Commission. In light of the clear evidence we have received that phrase was ill-judged. Mr. Meacher himself told us on 26 March 2002 that 'I would not say it again in cold blood, no'."
I suppose that that is as near as we will ever get to an apology from a Minister.
The report continues by stating that
"the overwhelming responsibility for mishandling the implementation of Regulation 2037/2000 lies with the Government…This debacle will cost the UK around £40 million, a cost which would not otherwise have been incurred."
It adds:
"We find it deeply disturbing that the Government signed up to the Regulation whilst still suffering from 'knowledge gaps' about its full impact."
Those are extraordinarily serious allegations about the Labour Government from a Committee that is dominated by Labour Members of Parliament. I know that the Leader of the House sets great store by the work of Select Committees, and by their reports and conclusions, and I hope that he can assure us that we will have an urgent debate before the summer recess, so that Members of the House other than those on the Select Committee can give their views on the matters referred to in the report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) asked the Prime Minister yesterday whether we could expect a statement on Gibraltar before the summer recess. The Prime Minister replied:
"The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that there will be a statement when negotiations and discussions are concluded."—[Official Report, 19 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 275]
I suspect that that response did not satisfy my hon. Friend, and I am sure it did not satisfy a lot of other Members.
I remind the Leader of the House that, before he was promoted to his present position, he said on 4 February 1998 in a speech to the Dependent Territories Association, in his then capacity as Foreign Secretary, "Gibraltar is unique." He then went on say that he wished to
"restate publicly Britain's commitment to the people of Gibraltar—Our commitment to them and to all the peoples of the Overseas Territories remains as strong as ever."
I am sure, therefore, that he will now want to go further than the Prime Minister seemed able to go yesterday, and assure the House that the people of Gibraltar are going to be put out of their misery sooner rather than later,

425
that they need not expect to be kept hanging on in suspense, miserable and unhappy, and that he will keep faith with what he told them way back in 1998 rather more than the Prime Minister seems able to do. I hope that he can do that.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking a number of additional questions. I should warn him and the House that one of the recommendations of the forthcoming Modernisation Committee report is that we should both seek to be briefer at the Dispatch Box. He might wish to reflect on that when he has an opportunity to study our report.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his diligent research into my previous speeches. I was not aware that many hon. Members or members of the public had been carefully studying my speech to the Dependent Territories Association three years ago, but I am gratified that it is still current, and I stand by every word that I said on that occasion. I have heard my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary give a clear undertaking that, in the event of the people of Gibraltar rejecting any agreement, that will he the end of that agreement. We cannot, of course, put an agreement either to the House or to the people of Gibraltar until such an agreement is reached. The matter is continuously under negotiation, and, as soon as any agreement is reached, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that he and the House will be among the very first to know.
On the Prime Minister's press conference, I felt that the right hon. Gentleman fell short of his usual standards of generosity. Surely it is right that the Prime Minister should introduce such an unprecedented regular system of openness and transparency, and make himself available for questioning not only by those who happen to be among the privileged few with a pass to the Press Gallery but by journalists who are specialists in a particular topic. Nor is that in any way at the expense of his appearance in the House, where, by the way, he has cancelled fewer appearances at Prime Minister's Question Time than either of his Conservative predecessors, and where he has only recently announced that he will be appearing before the Liaison Committee.
The first of those appearances will take place before the House rises for the summer recess, and I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister will be before the Committee for a whole two hours, not just one hour like today's press conference. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman might have found it in him to acknowledge that no previous Prime Minister has ever done this, and that it is a tribute to my right hon. Friend's commitment to the House that he has introduced this innovation.
I am glad to see that the minutes of the PLP are being fully studied and absorbed. I was slightly taken aback when the right hon. Gentleman began that passage, because—if I heard him aright—he said he had the minutes of the meeting of 24 June. That cast a little bit of doubt over what he then quoted. Given the robust views of my right hon. Friend the party chairman, and given my total support for him, I shall try to ensure that the shadow Leader of the House is put on the mailing list for the minutes, in the hope that he will read to us more often such excellent, strong views, which meet with full consensual support on this side of the House.
426
I repeat what I said to the House last week: this is a serious issue for Parliament and for the press. It is important that we get back to political reporting, which is about politics as it affects the people of Britain. We need less reporting of the gossip of the Westminster village, which we lap up, and more of the policies that affect the real lives of our people, such as the remarkable way in which the Government have increased the number of people in work by 1.5 million and reduced the number of unemployed by 500,000.
As for the fridge mountain, I am pleased to give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that we have now completed four new sites at which we can dispose of fridges; we expect another three to be completed next month and a further three before the end of the year. We expect the fridge mountain to begin to melt—if that is the right term—in October.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to our attempts to get clarification from the Commission. We approached the Commission on many occasions more than two years before it gave us the fresh clarification that gave rise to the difference. Throughout those two years, the Commission's interpretation of the directive was identical to that followed by the British Government.
Lastly, I regret to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I do not have the incentive to follow the stock market as closely as would be required to answer his question about percentages. I rather suspect that he follows the stock market more closely than I do, but I am happy to confirm that the Prime Minister was absolutely correct in saying that we are spending £6 billion a year more on pensioners—more than double what would be required to uprate pensions in line with earnings.
By next April, the average pensioner will receive £22 a week more than in 1997, and the 2 million poorest pensioners receive a lot more as a result of the minimum income guarantee. Those are big advances on the Conservative Government's record on pensions. What we would all like to know, especially the pensioners who have benefited under Labour, is how much the Tories would cut spending on pensions, given their commitment to cut overall public spending. They cannot say to the nation that they will cut spending, and at the same time say to pensioners that they will maintain the pension.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's ignominious retreat over regulation and investigatory powers? I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that no fewer than six motions relating to that are still on the Order Paper. When will those motions be withdrawn to give effect to the Home Secretary's retreat?
Now that the Government have taken over the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), will its further stages be debated in Government time and not take up precious private Members' time?
I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that on Monday 1 July he has allocated considerable time to the Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill, which took only an hour to make progress in the other place. Surely that is an excessive use of time. Does not he recognise that that is a classic example of when a more manageable system of business discussion between the parties of what should take precedence in this House would make more economic use of our precious time?

427
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was particularly concerned about the quantity of the exchanges between the Prime Minister and the media, which we have all been watching with great interest. I think that the Prime Minister spent an hour and a half talking to the media. I was able to sign letters to my constituents and still listen to him, and it was an interesting occasion. Does the Leader of the House recognise that it is the quality of the exchanges that really matters? What progress is he making in the Modernisation Committee to try to improve the quality of the real answers that we get at Question Time and the extent to which they are topical? I refer not just to the Prime Minister, but to other Ministers. How will we make Question Time exchanges informative and topical? I have no problem with the Prime Minister speaking to the media, and I think that speaking to the Liaison Committee is a great step forward, but when will the Chamber have the same advantages as the Liaison Committee and the media in getting real answers to real questions on topical issues?
Mr. Cook: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the decision to go out to consultation on the order that would otherwise have been debated next week. However, may I gently chide him for describing that as an "ignominious retreat"? If the Government are asked to think again, and if Members of the House invite them to consider their proposals carefully. as a result of which the Government announce that they have taken on board those representations and will reflect and consult, it does not give Ministers an incentive to do the same again if they are told that they are being ignominious.
We have made a sensible decision, in the circumstances, to consult on the matter. It will therefore not come before the House before the consultation is concluded, which will certainly not be before the far side of the recess. In the meantime, I shall consider what to do with the motions on the Order Paper.
On the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), it is for him and the Government to discuss whether there is an acceptable way forward for both parties. The matters are complex and are taking some time to resolve. The Bill is my right hon. Friend's and I have detected on his part no wish to give it up. It was prompted by his constituency concerns and I am sure that he would wish to be identified with the final result.
On the topicality of questions in the House, I share the belief of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that it is important to ensure that our proceedings are relevant to debates outside the House and deal with issues of the moment. That is why, as he knows, the Modernisation Committee has been looking sympathetically at whether we can reduce the period of notice for oral questions and take other steps to ensure that topical issues of the moment are discussed at Question Time. I understand that the Procedure Committee will make similar recommendations when it reports in the near future. I hope that that will ensure that proceedings at Question Time are relevant and topical. Unless we make ourselves topical and relevant to the outside world, it will not pay us the same attention.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Did the Leader of the House hear the Secretary of State for Defence assure my
428
hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the Opposition defence spokesman that no decision had been made to join the United States and take military action against Iraq? However, on the "Today" programme this morning, General Wesley Clark suggested that decisions had been made to go for states rather than terrorist networks, which presumably includes Iraq. Could we have a debate next week to clarify General Clark's remarks and discuss the implications for world peace should the United States go ahead and attack those states, which are presumably those named in the axis of evil?
Mr. Cook: Having just announced the business for next week, I see no prospect of debate on those matters then. Naturally, I do not wish to commit myself to the general principle that it would be a useful use of the House's valuable time to debate speculation on the "Today" programme, as we may then find that we make slow progress on legislation.
Mr. Forth: Oh good.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has an ally on the Conservative Benches.
I heard the interview myself. I am not sure that my recollection—of course we can both consider the transcript—is quite the same as that of my hon. Friend. General Wesley Clark certainly suggested that pressure was best brought to bear on states rather than on what he described as shadowy terrorist groups. Indeed, Afghanistan demonstrates that we have made very good progress, not just on behalf of the international community, but of the people of Afghanistan, particularly the women, who now have a prospect of a better and more decent life than if we had not done so.
The short answer to my hon. Friend's opening comment is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is right—we have taken no such decision. No such decision has been asked of us; should one be made, naturally the House will be consulted and we will have a full debate.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Surely, in the light of the highly critical report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the fridge crisis, the Leader of the House ought to reflect on what he said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He should persuade the Minister for the Environment to come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement. Is he aware that, up and down the country, and particularly in my constituency, people want action and explanations? Bracknell Forest borough council faces a financial and logistical nightmare, because it has to deal with 1,000 fridges a month without any help or support from the Minister for the Environment, despite promises. The Minister therefore needs to come to the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Cook: I have already told the House about the vigorous action which will result in 10 new sites for the treatment and disposal of fridges by the end of the year. We will then see the mountain come down. If the right hon. Gentleman wants action he really cannot object if the action that we proposed is well under way.
On responding to the Select Committee report, of course the Government respond to every Select Committee report—we are obliged to do so. When our

429
response is available, it is entirely open to the Liaison Committee and others to pursue a debate on the matter. The Government have acted to provide far more opportunities for debate on Select Committee reports than were ever available under the Government to whom the right hon. Gentleman belonged. Indeed, that opportunity is available to Members who serve on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Liaison Committee should they wish to pursue it. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is willing to take part in that debate and looks forward to it with enthusiasm.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Can we give urgent consideration to the outrageous behaviour of Argos? It is ruthlessly exploiting a loophole in the law whereby shop workers in Scotland are not given the protection that is enjoyed throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, and sacking staff who between them have given years of loyal service to the company, if they will not accept compulsory Sunday working, thus discriminating in particular against those who have family commitments or religious objections, and in general against employees in Scotland.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing to the House's attention a very serious issue of principle that is of immediate concern to his constituents. I know that he has tried to resolve the matter through discussions with Argos. I regret that those discussions have not produced a better result.
We have acted in this Chamber to provide the flexibility whereby companies can open their stores on a Sunday if they wish to do so, but we have also provided protection: staff should not be compelled in England to work on a Sunday if they object in principle to doing so. Although that is not the law in Scotland, as far as I am aware, every other trading company in Scotland has, rightly, observed that issue of principle. I deeply regret that Argos is failing to act in the way in which its competitors do.
Dr. Julian Lewis: It is customary to debate the advisability of publishing opinion polls during election campaigns but may we have a statement from the Minister for the Cabinet Office on the advisability of publishing opinion polls between election campaigns? Recently, opinion polls have been showing support for the Labour Government going down, support for the Conservative Opposition going up and support for the Liberal Democrats doing neither one thing nor the other. This morning, an opinion poll suggests that 56 per cent. of the population find the Prime Minister untrustworthy and unreliable. Surely the Government should be very worried about that indeed.
Mr. Cook: For some years now, Conservative party spokesmen, when asked about opinion polls, have been saying that they do not believe them. That seems a judicious, sensible and mature approach. I suggest that the Conservative party do not immediately abandon it the one time that it gets an opinion poll that it might find encouraging. The only poll that really matters is the poll on polling day and, broadly speaking, we are quite satisfied with the past two results.
Caroline Flint: My right hon. Friend may be aware that June is national child care month. Since
430
before Christmas, the Government have been engaged in a cross-departmental review of the national child care strategy, in terms both of the spending review and of where we see child care in the next 10 years. Unfortunately, I have not been able to secure an Adjournment debate so far. May I press my right hon. Friend to allow a debate in the House, either before the spending review is announced this summer—this was mentioned in answer to a question that I had tabled—or at least when the spending review is announced, on this important part of Government policy?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an issue that is a high priority for the Government. She will be aware of the substantial additional investment that the Government are making in child care, which has provided increased child care to thousands of women and contributed to enabling many more women to enter the work force and take up full-time employment. I will certainly bear in mind what she has said about the wish to expose that further in a debate in the House, but possibly Madam Deputy Speaker might report to the Speaker the difficulty that my hon. Friend has encountered in obtaining an Adjournment debate. There may be a more efficacious and speedy response in that direction.
Mr. David Chidgey: May I draw to the attention of Leader of the House the fact that, on 12 March this year. I led an all-party delegation to meet the Minister for Industry and Energy to discuss some serious concerns that we all have about the future of the supply chain in the aerospace industry? I draw it to the Leader of the House's attention because a number of questions were raised that the Minister promised to answer. Those questions were reinforced by me in a letter on 18 March to the Minister's office. As the weeks and months passed, the Minister's office was continually reminded of that outstanding obligation. Such was our frustration in the all-party group that I eventually tabled a written question to the Minister, which was answered on 18 June—precisely three months since I wrote to him. The answer was that the Minister would reply as soon as possible.
When the Leader of the House next meets his Cabinet colleagues, I ask him to draw to their attention the fact that such behaviour can only lead hon. Members to believe that this Government treat us with contempt.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman makes his point with clarity and force. He will be aware of the deep concern in the Department of Trade and Industry and throughout the Government about the impact of 11 September on the aviation industry, and the knock-on effect on the aerospace industry. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's attention to his remarks, and try to ensure that he receives a speedy response.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did I understand correctly the final sentences of the Leader of the House's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon)? Did he say that, if any decision on military action was taken, a statement would of course then be made and a debate held in the House? Should not such debate take place before, not after, any final decision? Perhaps Afghanistan is not the most wonderful example

431
from the Government's point of view. I thought that the object of bombing Afghanistan was not so much to remove the burqa from women as to find Osama bin Laden.
Mr. Cook: The objective of the military action in Afghanistan was to prevent al-Qaeda from being able, with the assistance of the host Government—the Taliban—to carry out further acts of atrocity such as those committed on 11 September. I hope that I am not tempting providence by observing that we seem to have been successful in securing that objective, and that al-Qaeda has as yet been unable to mount another operation. Of course, we will continue to be vigilant and active in ensuring that it is unable to mount an operation such as that carried out on 11 September.
I gently point out to my hon. Friend that every hon. Member will surely welcome an outcome that has disabled al-Qaeda, and removed the safe haven from which it could reach out and strike at hundreds of totally innocent individuals across many countries, the relatives of whom are still having to deal with enormous disruption and distress, and the loss of association with their loved ones. That was surely worth doing, and we were right to take action in Afghanistan to achieve that aim.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: In his answer to my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman asserted that the current Prime Minister has cancelled fewer Prime Minister's Question Time appearances than did the previous two Conservative Prime Ministers. However, did he take into account the fact that the current Prime Minister has halved the number of occasions on which he can appear? The statistic is probably not a fair comparison, therefore, and I would be grateful for clarification.
Today's statement by the Secretary of State for Defence was restricted, appropriately, to operations in Afghanistan. However, I draw the House's attention to widely circulating rumours—I have become aware of them through my participation in the excellent armed forces parliamentary scheme—that the armoured corps will be reduced. May we have an early statement from the Secretary of State for Defence to allay our deep concerns?
Mr. Cook: Having made a statement, my right hon. Friend has only just left the Chamber, so I am loth to summon him back to make another. I say with respect that my right hon. Friend is one of the most diligent of Ministers in making statements to the House. He has an excellent record, and if a matter needs to be shared with the House, he will doubtless volunteer it.
On the hon. Gentleman's other point, perhaps my arithmetic was not sufficiently clear. I shall go through it carefully, so that he understands what we are saying. It is true that the Prime Minister attends this Chamber on Wednesdays, rather than Tuesdays and Thursdays. However, it may not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that the Prime Minister attends for twice as long on Wednesdays as either of his Conservative predecessors did on Tuesdays and Thursdays. In pointing out that they cancelled more appearances, the fact therefore remains that, at the end of any five-year period, my right hon.
432
Friend the Prime Minister has appeared at this Dispatch Box for a longer time in total than either of his predecessors.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the Leader of the House consider arranging a debate on National Asylum Support Service supervision of private-sector contracts relating to the provision of services for asylum seekers, with particular reference to the Landmark company in Liverpool? Is he aware that following years of reports of poor accommodation, poor management, and harassment and intimidation of asylum seekers in two Liverpool tower blocks owned by Landmark, NASS agreed to stop using those properties a few weeks ago? Asylum seekers who had been housed there, however, found that having left they were required to go to other properties owned by the same company, many of which had not been inspected by NASS.
Mr. Cook: I am interested by what my hon. Friend has said. I recall that concern has been expressed about Landmark properties following other business statements, and I am rather surprised at the outcome that she has described. I will certainly draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Has the Leader of the House received a briefing yet on yesterday's excellent presentations in the House of Lords by three United States Congressmen, and by Mr. Perot and Dr. Haley, on progress made in the US in identifying the causes of Gulf war illnesses? Will the right hon. Gentleman allow time in the autumn for the Secretary of State for Health to tell the House what support is being provided for those who have given service in the armed forces and contracted serious illnesses since the Gulf war, and to what extent scientists here have co-operated with US scientists to determine the cause of such illnesses and hopefully find a cure? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could also give the Secretary of State for Defence an opportunity to dispel the perception that the Ministry of Defence wants to deny that there is such a thing as Gulf war syndrome.
Mr. Cook: The Ministry of Defence has no wish or incentive to deny as a matter of principle that there is such a thing as Gulf war syndrome. Results of medical investigation remain complex and disputed, however, so there is no clear consensus among medical experts. That is partly why we are putting £7 million into research into the syndrome to see what we can establish for ourselves. Evidence from the United States is obviously important, and will be fully considered and reflected by those in the MOD who advise on the matter. The MOD is considering an outstanding tribunal ruling, and will announce its response in the near future.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government want, through the MOD as much as the Department of Health, to give every support to former service men who are in poor health, regardless of whether it can he attributed to Gulf war syndrome.
Mr. David Watts: I have been trying for eight weeks to secure a debate on entitlement to bank holiday pay. Given my abject failure so far,

433
and given that British workers have some of the worst employment rights in Europe, will my right hon. Friend consider arranging a debate on this important subject?
Mr. Cook: I strongly urge my hon. Friend not to regard his efforts as abject failure. He should develop more self-esteem, and take the credit to which he is entitled for his persistence and for raising a matter that is important to his constituents and those of many other Members.
I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate—
Mr. Forth: Ah.
Mr. Cook: I often leave this place regretful about the number of Members I have had to disappoint, but I would be in even greater difficulty if I granted debates to all who asked for them. I fear that the subsequent week's business statement would be extremely crowded. Let me tell my hon. Friend, however, that we can both take pride in the fact that the Government implemented the working time directive despite vigorous opposition from the Conservative party. As a result, 2 million people in Britain have the right to a statutory paid holiday that they were previously denied. As he knows, the working time directive provides the right to four weeks' paid holiday, but not to count bank holidays on top of that. He is right to press the case of those people who see others taking bank holidays with pay but cannot do so themselves.
Mr. Mark Francois: The Leader of the House will be aware that a debate on Gibraltar took place in Westminster Hall on Tuesday morning at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell). In replying to that debate, the Minister for Europe intimated that he would be prepared for the Foreign Office to make a statement on the fact that an agreement had been reached between the British and Spanish Governments, or on the fact that it had not been possible to reach an agreement. More than a third of a million people in Britain, including many hon. Members, have declared their support for the Gibraltarians and the population of Gibraltar overwhelmingly opposes what the Government are trying to do. That being the case, and as the negotiations may not succeed—the rumours are that they have faltered badly—would it not be appropriate to come to the House to make a statement to bring this whole matter to a close and finally remove sword of Damocles from above the heads of the loyal people of Gibraltar?
Mr. Cook: I would not disagree at all with the implication of the hon. Gentleman's question: if there should come a point at which the talks were disbanded, a statement should be made to the House to announce that fact. All I am saying, as in my earlier responses, is that the talks continue. There is no agreement at the moment, nor is there any agreement that there will be no agreement. In those circumstances, I am not clear that a further statement in the immediate future would help to clarify matters to the House.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Can we have an early debate on further education? I appreciate that the Government are injecting £310 million over the next three years into further education, but the reality is that a huge pay gap is opening between lecturers in FE and teachers in secondary schools. People are simply migrating from
434
the FE sector to schools for better terms and conditions. That problem cannot wait for two or three years, and I hope that it will be addressed quickly and that we can have an early debate on it.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which underlines the extent to which we have made very good progress in schools. Indeed, we are investing further in further education. I and my constituents have seen a remarkable improvement in the quality of the buildings and in the number of students attending further education. I will certainly draw his comments to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, and I am sure that she will wish to write to him to reflect on the point that he makes.
Richard Younger-Ross: The Leader of the House is renowned as a champion of modernisation, so can we debate the use of the royal prerogative? I ask that in the context of his answers to the hon. Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and of the Prime Minister's answer to questions that I asked four weeks ago and before that on whether there should be a debate in the House before British troops are committed abroad, particularly in relation to Iraq. Can we have a debate on the use of the royal prerogative in that regard?
Mr. Cook: First, I tell the hon. Gentleman and the House, yet again, that no decision has been taken. Indeed, no decision is immediately in prospect of being taken about Iraq and no such decision may ever be taken. [Interruption.] I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's question, but I do not want us to proceed on the presumption that such a decision is imminent or will be made.
Secondly, on committing British troops abroad, whatever the legal niceties of the matter, the reality is that this Government—indeed, I suspect no Government—could commit British troops if that were opposed by a majority of the House of Commons. In fairness to those on the Government Front Bench, we were punctilious in consulting the House before, while and after committing British troops to Afghanistan, and we have had six full days of debate, if I remember rightly, and many more statements. Should—I make this very conditional—any action be taken in Iraq. I am confident that it would be accompanied by a similar commitment to ensuring that we carry the House with us.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: First, may I reassure my right hon. Friend that Labour support in Luton is going well? Last week, a by-election in my constituency was won by Labour with a strong majority and for the first time ever the Conservatives were pushed into third place behind the Liberal Democrats.
My question concerns the housing market and housing finance. The Government have been successful in creating a stable economy and we all applaud that. However, the housing market continues to be an unstable component of the economy—indeed, it is starting to look uncomfortable again and one might argue the case for separate interest rates for the housing market and for the rest of the

435
economy. We need a serious debate on the future of housing finance and its organisation. Will my right hon. Friend consider such a debate on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Cook: I am suddenly conscious of the eyes of about 15 million householders observing me as I respond to my hon. Friend's most original proposal for a separate interest rate for mortgage payers from that for the rest of the economy. I would not want to encourage him to think that the Government are likely to contemplate that as a solution.
On the housing market, I understand that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors issued a report this morning suggesting that the market may be cooling down, so that may provide my hon. Friend with some reassurance. One of the main factors has been the remarkable success of the Government in delivering interest rates that are at a 40-year all-time low. That is a reflection of the sound economy that the Government have created and which we shall not allow anything else to ruin.
Sir Sydney Chapman: With his mega-memory, the Leader of the House will no doubt recollect that on two occasions at business questions—last January and April—I raised the issue of the Government's consultation papers on proposals to change our town and country planning system, especially changes in our handling of major planning inquiries, such as Heathrow terminal 5. As the issue is of fundamental importance to an increasing number of people, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider holding a debate on the Floor of the House? I understand that the demand for parliamentary time exceeds supply, but as the issue is of such vital importance, it would be helpful to the Government to hold a debate to find out the views of Members before they make hard decisions after the consultation period.
Mr. Cook: I cannot offer a debate between now and the summer recess—time is finite and reducing—but, as I said to the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions, there is no way that we can make progress on the matter without primary legislation and thus no way to make progress without the House having a full opportunity to be involved and to consider it.

Points of Order
2.7 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, of which I gave Mr. Speaker notice this morning. Whatever the rights and wrongs of a prime ministerial statement to the press, it is a new departure and a serious matter for the House, as Mr. Speaker repeatedly says that statements should first of all be made to the House of Commons. This is a complex subject. I am not saying that the Prime Minister is wrong; I am saying that what has been done is a significant departure. Will Mr. Speaker consider making a statement on Monday on the whole issue of whether announcements should first be made to the House? It is not a matter of the House's amour propre; if statements are not made to the House, there are many constitutional implications. If there is a misunderstanding, it should be—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I think that I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. No doubt the Prime Minister will have had in mind the importance of first of all informing the House of major policy developments.
Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 10 June, the Foreign Secretary told the House:
"So far as I am aware, no applications have been blocked."—[Official Report, 10 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 155.]
He was referring to applications for arms exports to India. Is it possible to ensure that on Monday, when the Export Control Bill is debated, there is a statement clarifying Government policy on exports to India? Small firms in my constituency are finding that their exports are being blocked while those of larger firms are not.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That point of order is not a matter for the Chair. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can raise it with the appropriate Minister at a later date.

Energy: Towards 2050
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
2.10 pm
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): This is a timely debate on energy policy and a good opportunity for me to hear hon. Members' views on its future direction. We are now involved in our consultation on the energy review, which will in turn lead to a White Paper and to actions by the Government that will have repercussions for energy policy for decades to come—hence the title of the debate. It is important that we get it right. Energy is at the centre of all our lives—it lights and heats our homes, powers our industry and fuels our vehicles—so securing affordable, reliable and sustainable energy is of crucial concern to us all. Those objectives should never be taken for granted. It is worth remembering that 2 billion people do not have the benefit of energy at the press of a switch.
Last June, the Prime Minister asked the performance and innovation unit to carry out a major review of strategic issues surrounding energy policy for Great Britain up to 2050. That was in large part a response to the report by the royal commission on environmental pollution, which recommended that the United Kingdom should aim for a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. Crucially, that placed the review of energy policy in an environmental context, making it far more pressing than would have been a similar review of 10, or even five, years ago. In future, alongside security of supply, the driving force behind energy policy must be the imperative of countering the immense 21st century challenge of climate change and global warming. We are likely to respond to the royal commission at the same time that we publish the energy White Paper.
The energy review was published on 14 February. Having chaired the advisory group that oversaw that process, I should like to record my appreciation to the members of the team led by Nick Hartley, which produced an excellent report to time. The PIU report was always going to be a report to the Government, rather than of the Government. When the Prime Minister welcomed the review on behalf of the Government, he said that he hoped that it would start a thorough debate. The consultation that we launched on 14 May in the run-up to the White Paper initiated the next stage of that debate.
We are also carefully considering two relevant parliamentary reports—the report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on security of energy supply, published on 7 February, and the House of Lords Select Committee report "Energy Supply: How Secure are We?", published on 12 February. which examines the European Green Paper on security of energy supply. Those reports, too, are timely and valuable in signalling Parliament's views about energy issues and indicating where the White Paper should focus.
Just as with the energy review, I am determined to make the consultation process in which we are engaged as open and inclusive as possible. It will run until mid-September and it will help to shape energy policy for decades to come. Of course, as well as looking to the long term, we also face more immediate challenges and decisions. There must be a keen awareness that every
438
policy decision, however short term, should be consistent with the longer-term objectives and obligations that I mentioned. As well as the primary objectives that I described, we are committed to liberalised and competitive markets as cornerstones of future energy policy. Competitiveness and affordability are also key objectives.
Let me turn now to some of the policy areas and key issues that the review will address. I shall deal first with security of supply. Energy security is often characterised as keeping the lights on, but of course it is more than that. It is about having efficient, competitive energy markets with the correct incentives to invest. It is about maximising the economic potential of our own fuel sources and building close relationships with fuel exporting and transporting countries. To that end, we shall, as the PIU recommended, continue to press for liberalisation of energy markets across the European Union, and I shall continue to work with my ministerial colleagues in the Foreign Office to build on the UK's good relations with fuel exporters.
Mr. Michael Jack: The Minister mentioned security. Can he tell the House the risk factors used to determine whether a supply of energy can be deemed to be secure?
Mr. Wilson: The PIU report dealt with that issue thoroughly. It came to the overall conclusion that the anticipated sources of imports—especially of gas—have been reliable and consistent respecters of contractual obligations, whatever their difficulties in the past. The report suggested no reason to think that that would change in the future. However, vigilance is constantly required, and the risk assessments that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned are part of that. Work continues, not least by the Foreign Office, on such assessment. Such work, and the past record of reliability of supply, has contributed to the PIU's conclusion that there are no grounds on which to fear a crisis in the energy supply in the UK once we become net importers of gas—which will probably happen by 2005.
Jon Trickett: I welcome this debate and the strategic context that the Minister is laying out. However, supplies of gas will become increasingly stretched in the next few decades. The EU intends to invest some 60 billion euros in gas pipelines from the east—from Russia and Iran. Will not those pipelines become increasingly vulnerable to terrorists or geological problems and will not that pose severe security risks in the medium term, if we become over-dependent on gas?
Mr. Wilson: If over-dependence on gas is considered to be a problem, it is a result of what has happened in the past 20 years rather than something that might or might not happen in the future. On present trends, we are projected by 2020 to be 70 per cent. dependent on gas for our energy needs, 90 per cent. of which would be imported. That reinforces the point about the need for vigilance, which formed part of the consultation. The PIU looked closely at the issue, including the past performance of those countries likely to export their gas to us, which include Norway, Russia, Algeria and those in the Caspian area. The report concluded that a crisis in supply was not likely. However, things can change, and common sense

439
suggests that we should seek a balance between dependence on imported sources and the maximisation of indigenous sources of energy.
The point about dependence on imports was reinforced last week when Centrica signed a major new deal for the additional import of 5 billion cu m of gas a year into the UK from Norway. Such arrangements are already being entered into in anticipation of the continuing decline in our indigenous gas supplies. The PIU report said, in short, that that was not a problem and I acknowledge that. The issue should form an important part of the consultation, but I stress that we should be ever vigilant even if we may be reasonably optimistic on the basis of experience.
Mr. Peter Duncan: The Minister mentioned the maximisation of our indigenous resources. What part was played in that strategy by the 10 per cent. additional levy on North sea oil and gas reserves?
Mr. Wilson: I can give the hon. Gentleman the good news that it has been confirmed today that the Buzzard field that has been discovered in the North sea will produce 1 billion barrels of oil, making it the biggest discovery there for 25 years. With such positive news on the North sea, on the basis of exploration and investment, I have every confidence that the remaining reserves in the North sea will be developed. We have discussed before and we can discuss again the changes in the Budget, but they are a package that also encourages investment. That is critical to the Government's fallow fields priority, which is to get fields such as Buzzard into production when there are identified reserves that have not been developed by the current licence holders.
I fully recognise the concerns of the industry, and I am working with it to address them. We should also recognise that there are incentives to investment, and we have an interest in working together to make sure that that potential is maximised.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend keeps saying that security of supply requires vigilance, but he sets out as a matter of fact what we all know—we will be 80 per cent. dependent on imported fuel by 2020. Vigilance is what one needs when one thinks that everything is all right but one is keeping an eye open in case circumstances change. When he sets out the fact that a problem exists, and we know that it is happening, surely that requires action to reduce our dependency on imported gas.
Mr. Wilson: With respect, that is exactly what the energy review is all about. Many other aspects of the energy review recommend action, and the Government are taking those recommendations, for example, on renewables and on other sources of energy supply.
I am merely setting out three facts. First, on current projections, we would be 70 per cent. dependent on gas as a result of what has happened in the past, 90 per cent. of which would be imported. Secondly, the PIU report says that that is not a particular problem because of the record on which suppliers would be depending. Thirdly, I do not take that as a definitive last word on the subject,
440
and it is therefore part of the consultation. That is a logical progression of statements, which does not imply complacency on the issue of sources of gas.
Paddy Tipping rose—
Bob Spink rose—
Mr. Wilson: I shall make a little more progress, and I shall then be delighted to take more interventions.
In general, we continue to monitor closely security of supply, and we will shortly publish the first report of the joint monitoring group that we set up with the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. On this, of course, as on other issues, there are different points of view. Some, as we have heard already in this debate, have said that the PIU was too lax on the security issue, and concerns have been expressed inside and outside the House that the market will not deliver and that the Government therefore need to intervene. I emphasise again that we need to understand why those fears persist. Our work leading to the White Paper will help to address those and other security issues.
Paddy Tipping: The very valuable point was made a moment ago that we need a balanced energy policy, and I welcome that. I contrast that with the view of the PIU report that 70 per cent. of our energy supply should be dependent on gas, 90 per cent. of which would be imported, by 2020. That is not a balanced energy policy; it is the road to disaster.
Mr. Wilson: In fairness to the PIU, it did not say that we should be in that position. It said that, on the basis of current trends and the infrastructure that is in place now, that is where we would be. If other recommendations of the PIU report are implemented, however, as we intend, we will not be 70 per cent. dependent on gas. It is a valid point that, in assessing the extent to which we should be dependent on gas, we should also take account of the extent to which that would be imported gas.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Will the Minister acknowledge that all three of the major disruptions of energy supply in the last three decades have come from within this country, not from overseas? I refer to major industrial action in 1974 and 1986 and the impact of British road hauliers and British farmers in 2000.
Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point. Again, I am merely telling the House the view of the PIU report, which, clearly, has drawn heavily on past experience and does not make lightly the statement that the anticipated sources of gas in the future have been reliable suppliers of gas in the past.
Bob Spink rose
Mr. Wilson: That is a statement of fact, and it is part of the mix of consultation that is now taking place.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: This is almost like yesteryear. I am listening to speeches from my hon. Friend about the PIU and the problems in the energy industry. We used to say all that in the 1980s, when we

441
told the Tory Government that, if that happened, it would be dangerous in terms of supplies, which would run out. Everybody said that we were living in cloud cuckoo land and that the pits did not matter. Of course, they went ahead and closed the pits. In 1984, there were about 170 pits, and now there are probably about 14.
The situation would be even more dire if we lost those 14 pits. Under private enterprise, the danger of losing those pits is much starker than it would be if we took them back into public ownership. We could get them for a song.
Mr. Wilson: It is always a pleasure to listen to a prophet whose time has come. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, however, as we all were. We said that the dash for gas was bonkers, and it has left us in a situation in which, on current trends, we would be 70 per cent. dependent on gas, 90 per cent. of it imported, by 2020. That is a result of the dash for gas over the past 20 years. My hon. Friend will join me in the satisfaction that, as we are a Labour Government, we are not dashing blindly into the future but carrying out a major energy review that will inform subsequent policy. That will protect us against over-dependence on a single source of energy.
In the context of what my hon. Friend said about coal, I was delighted last week at the Council of Energy Ministers in Luxembourg to be able to finalise the package of measures to support the coal industry. That package includes the flexibility, should the Government choose to use it, to have a scheme based on investment in the deep-mine coal industry. We have argued for and achieved that in the new package, and I am sure that my hon. Friend and others who have a commitment to the coal-mining communities will join me in welcoming it.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Has not the dash for gas done more than anything else to enable this country to meet its Kyoto targets?
Mr. Wilson: We will have that debate, but I was about to come on to renewables. If we had done more on renewables 20 years ago, we would have a better balance now, and we would not be starting from such a low ebb in renewables. Nobody underestimates the contribution of gas to the Kyoto targets. Whether that is why the dash for gas was embarked on might be another interesting question. It probably was not. What is undoubtedly true, however, is that, for the past 20 years, we have had a fantastic indigenous resource. We have been gas-rich, which has been a great asset for this country.
Also, given the power of hindsight—as was pointed out, this was not exactly unforeseen to start with—we will, in the space of 25 years, go back to being net importers of gas. At the very least, that seems to call into question whether that great indigenous resource has benefited from prudent stewardship, given that so much of it has gone in such a short time. That is history, however, and we are considering the future, and how dependent we should be on any one energy source.
Mr. David Drew: To give complete balance to this picture, the other source of energy that we have not mentioned so far is nuclear. My hon. Friend will be aware that at the moment, in advance of the operation of
442
the liabilities management company, there is a possibility of major realignment in generating capacity in the nuclear industry. Some of us are concerned about the speed at which that is being progressed. Will he assure me that Members of the House will be brought into any discussions that involve a public sector company, BNFL, and a private sector company, British Energy? There are major implications for jobs and the basic integrity of the nuclear industry.
Mr. Wilson: I shall say something about the nuclear industry later, but the very first people to know about the proposal to set up the liabilities management authority were Members of the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement when the process to establish it was started. The work is going forward.
Before I move on to nuclear and other energy sources, I wish to say something about renewable energy and the crucial role that it will play in future. In fact, the PIU report concluded that promoting energy efficiency and the development of renewables should be the immediate priorities of a low-carbon energy policy. Renewables and energy efficiency were the big winners in the energy review.
I was an advocate of renewable energy many years before I took up this post, but I must point out that there must be healthy realism. The unfortunate reality is that renewables start from a very low base. They comprise just under 3 per cent. of our electricity supply. As I never tire of pointing out, most of that 3 per cent. has absolutely nothing to do with anything that has happened in the past three or four decades. It is due to the vision of our political forebears, notably the great Secretary of State for Scotland, Tom Johnston, who had the vision to put in place a programme of hydroelectric schemes. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in pointing out that they were under public ownership. Hydro is still our No. 1 renewable. As a great believer in hydro, I would love to see a renaissance of new projects as well as the refurbishment of existing ones. We have made that possible through the inclusion of hydro in the renewables obligation.
Ms Debra Shipley: A vision for the future of renewables means tackling the construction industry. Not only does it create a large proportion of harmful pollutants, but it could provide a solution to the problem of renewables. If we take the bull by the horns as far as the construction industry is concerned, every new building that goes up could be energy self-sufficient. The technology now exists. If we required all new buildings to be energy self-sufficient, the price per unit could make the policy economically viable.
Mr. Wilson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the construction industry has a huge role to play in energy efficiency and in incorporating renewable technologies into new buildings. I had the pleasure of opening a new primary school—the Catchgate primary school—in County Durham the other day. It had been built along such lines and provides a model. There is no reason why any new school or public building should not be constructed without the same features being built into it. Wearing my other hat as the Minister with responsibility for construction, I make it clear that we are trying to drive forward such a policy through the rethinking construction

443
agenda. That will ensure that features such as those incorporated in that school are provided for in design and construction and at the earliest possible stage in the project.
Hydro is still the main source of renewable energy, and the only other significant contributor in terms of volumes or power generated is wind power. We have a long way to go to meet the challenging target of obtaining 10 per cent. of electricity supply from renewable sources in 2010.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: As well as the short-sightedness of previous Governments in not developing renewable energy sources, does my hon. Friend not accept that the planning system is probably the other most important factor in preventing the deployment of wind power? The fact that so many wind farm proposals are called in for planning inquiries imposes serious additional costs on the businesses that want to develop them. What hope can he give to the renewables industry that some of those difficulties will be sorted out?
Mr. Wilson: I agree with my hon. Friend's premise. Here is a sobering statistic: the forerunner of the renewables obligations was the non-fossil fuels obligation, and two thirds of the projects that were approved under the non-fossil fuels obligation have never happened. The great majority were blocked locally by planning objections. There is a clear dichotomy between the lip service that many people pay to renewable energy as a good thing in principle, and the attitudes that they strike as soon as something is proposed in practice in their localities. Many people in the environmental movement must start to square their conscience with their intellect. If they are in favour of renewables in general, they should also be in favour of renewable projects in practice.
Consultation is going on in England and Wales about the planning guidelines. Again, a balance must be struck. People should have the right to make representations, but they should not use delaying tactics. There must be a bias in favour of a balanced outcome rather than an inbuilt mechanism by which every project can be blocked. I hope that the consultation will be beneficial in clearing the way for many more projects.
Another issue that is being dealt with is the transportability of projects. One of the problems under the previous obligation was that if a project failed to get planning permission in the spot for which it was initially designated, it could not be taken elsewhere. If it becomes possible for a project to try another site where it might obtain planning permission, many of the projects may go ahead.
We can change the planning laws as much as we like, but unless there is a change of attitude and people are prepared to be reasonable, to allow projects to go forward and to recognise that they are beneficial to the local community as well as to the wider society, we will still face bottlenecks. We can have as many targets as we like, but we will not reach them unless the projects come to fruition.
Mr. Peter Duncan: The Minister referred to the inbuilt mechanisms for blocking wind projects. He will be aware
444
that one of those inbuilt mechanisms goes by the name of the Ministry of Defence. What discussions is he having with MOD officials to establish how we can get through the bottlenecks that are stopping many projects that would otherwise have great potential for the Scottish and the UK economy?
Mr. Wilson: We should be fair to the MOD. It is often said that it is blocking everything, but it is not. Some 18 sites have been designated under the first tranche for offshore wind projects, and the MOD raised objections to only four. I hope that the other 14 can proceed. I do not take the issue of safety lightly. It comes above everything else and there are questions to be answered about flight paths and interference with radar. A wide range of issues apply to civil aviation as well as to military activity. The best approach is to work through the cases individually. I do not think that the problems will be as great as they are presented. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is active dialogue with the MOD and the Department for Transport. I am due to meet Ministers from other Departments shortly to discuss exactly these issues. There is not a blanket ban from the MOD even on offshore projects. and it would be wrong to get the scale of the problem out of proportion.
Other than hydro, wind is the only other significant contributor to renewable energy. Other technologies exist, but little has been done to turn them into commercial industries. That is the hurdle that we must cross. The key mechanism that we have adopted to achieve that is the new renewables obligation for electricity suppliers that came into effect on 1 April this year. It requires them to provide a rising proportion of their supplies from renewables, reaching 10 per cent. by 2010.
We have also exempted electricity from renewable sources from the climate change levy. All that means that across Great Britain as a whole, the total value of the market for electricity generated from renewables will be between £1.5 billion and £2 billion a year by 2010. A massive new industry is being created. In addition, we are providing support worth £260 million over the next three years to boost technologies that are at the demonstration stage—offshore wind energy, energy crops, wave and tidal and solar photovoltaics—and to enhance our research and development budget for renewables more generally.
I emphasise the point that renewables are not just about energy and the environment; they are also about manufacturing and jobs. There are significant opportunities for UK industry within our current targets, let alone those suggested by the PIU for beyond 2010. Even those do not take account of the massive global market that will exist in renewables technology and hardware. If UK industry responds to that, new generating equipment and services will be supplied by UK firms and the jobs will be located here. If our industry does not respond, however, imports will meet the orders.
I am pleased that there is much activity in that sector and many signs that industry has woken up to the opportunities. That is why I decided to establish a new unit—Renewables UK—within the Department of Trade and Industry. The overall aim of the unit, which is located in Aberdeen, is to maximise UK jobs, exports and investment in renewables by promoting the same enterprise and innovation that occurred in the oil and gas industries 30 years ago. In many ways, Renewables UK

445
is an attempt to replicate the success of the Offshore Supplies Office set up by the Labour Government in the mid-1970s, which took the supply chain contribution by British companies to the North sea from virtually zero to well over 60 per cent. within a few years—and it has stayed at that level. I hope that Renewables UK and everyone else who works in the sector will have the same success in turning renewables into a major British manufacturing industry.
Mr. Blizzard: I congratulate my hon. Friend on establishing Renewables UK. It is extremely important. What role does he envisage for regional development agencies in the process, especially in developing the supply chain? That will be the real challenge. We have companies with the skills and expertise that want to build wind turbines, for example, and it is important to get the necessary supply chain for components.
Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes an important point about an activity that is truly nationwide because every part of the country can participate in it. Some of the richest renewables resources are in parts of the country that have not traditionally been associated with the generation of electricity. It is logical to locate the manufacturing activities near them. I am sure that the RDAs are alive to the possibilities. I have visited some outstanding examples. I attended an excellent conference in Manchester at which 500 companies were represented. There is a terrific initiative in the north-east of England based in Blyth. The Scottish development agencies are also very much involved.
I know of my hon. Friend's constituency interest in oil and gas. Renewables UK is located in Aberdeen to maximise the synergies between the oil and gas industries and renewables technologies. In places such as Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth, where oil and gas activity is well developed, it must be possible to transfer that into manufacturing activity for renewables.
The most energy efficient programme of all is one to which we can all contribute: it is simply to use less. The hour has come for energy efficiency to be taken far more seriously in this country. A wide range of energy efficiency programmes are in place, and they go with the grain of all our energy policy objectives. They can help us simultaneously to tackle climate change and fuel poverty, and to enhance security and promote competitiveness.
Energy efficiency offers a major chance to save carbon cost-effectively. The major instruments used to improve energy efficiency are the climate change levy, which encourages business to become more energy efficient, and the energy efficiency commitment. Advice on the promotion of energy efficiency is provided by the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust working together to lower the carbon intensity of both the domestic and the non-domestic sectors.
The energy efficiency commitment launched on 1 April gives energy suppliers an obligation to offer help and advice to domestic customers to help them to reduce their energy consumption. The commitment runs until 2005, by when we expect it to have generated outgoing annual energy savings for consumers worth more than £275 million, as well as annual reductions in carbon emissions of about 0.4 million tonnes.
446
The UK fuel poverty strategy that we recently put in place sets out a range of programmes and measures to address the main causes of fuel poverty. In England, our key mechanism for tackling fuel poverty in the private sector is the home energy efficiency scheme, now marketed as the warm front team. The scheme provides grants of up to £2,500 for a range of insulation and heating measures, and has already assisted 350,000 households.
Linda Gilroy: The energy review calls for a step change in household energy efficiency of 20 per cent. by 2010 and a further 20 per cent. by 2020. Will it be possible to bring that together with our attempts to tackle fuel poverty, so that we can square the circle? In particular, will my hon. Friend undertake to listen carefully to representations made by organisations such as National Energy Action about the questions raised in the Government's document on the social implications of fuel poverty and how they can best be addressed?
Mr. Wilson: I know of my hon. Friend's interests in such matters, and I agree strongly that the two issues should be brought together. The great benefit of energy efficiency measures is not only that energy costs less, but that we use less of it. There are winners all round. Both those desirable outcomes can be achieved for a very small investment on a household basis. We just have to be more proactive in taking that message to the door of people who can benefit from it, and work with the utilities to put in place programmes that will extend the success of some of the initiatives that have already been taken. We have strong advisory teams on energy efficiency and fuel poverty. I could not agree more that the two should be fused together to maximise the outcomes.
Dr. Desmond Turner: The Minister will be aware of my Home Energy Conservation Bill, which deals with energy efficiency. Although the Government support it, there seems to be a minor problem with it. Will my hon. Friend comment on the contribution that the Bill could make, on its great desirability and on how it could help with the issues that he is raising?
Mr. Wilson: We are as one on the principles, and I am happy to continue to discuss the detailed implementation. The Bill has played a great role in raising the profile of home energy efficiency and demonstrating the extent of parliamentary support for more action on that issue. I commend my hon. Friend on introducing it.
I shall say a few words on combined heat and power, because I do not want to be accused of avoiding the subject. On 15 May the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published the draft strategy for combined heat and power, for consultation purposes. It describes the full range of measures, some recently announced, that may be sufficient to meet the target of 10,000 MW of good quality CHP by 2010. We fully recognise the problems that the sector faces, not least because of the impact of high gas and low electricity prices. Full exemption from the climate change levy for exports of CHP-generated electricity, announced by the Chancellor in the Budget, as well as other measures in

447
the strategy, should do much to help. I am seized of the problem and will keep the CHP industry under careful review.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I welcome the Chancellor's decision on the climate change levy and the publication of the strategy. However, will my hon. Friend comment on the desirability of a CHP obligation to mirror the renewables obligation? Could that be the final bit of the jigsaw to turn round the fortunes of the CHP industry?
Mr. Wilson: It is an option. A range of technologies would benefit from an obligation. One of the problems is that the more we stack up the obligations, the more impact we have on the price that the consumer pays. There is a fine balance to achieve. Everyone in an informed debate would say that the renewables obligation is a virtuous and good measure, but when it was announced the only media coverage that it received concentrated on what it would cost the consumer. A figure was put on it. I think that consumers accept the renewables obligation in so far as they are aware of it—but at what point we run into difficulties and it becomes counter-productive to keep stacking up obligations is another question, and we have to keep that in mind.
There are several technologies that I should like to help in similar ways, but whether an obligation or a series of obligations is the way to do so is a matter for legitimate discussion. That could form part of the consultation, but I caution hon. Members to take account of what I have just said.
Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Wilson: Yes, although I want to make progress because I am aware that I have already been on my feet for 40 minutes.
Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister is very kind. Will he comment on the fact that the executive summary in the strategy document lists nine points under which CHP can be helped, but none mentions the need to reform the new electricity trading arrangements?
Mr. Wilson: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has just acted as my straight man. I want to turn now to the electricity market, and in particular to NETA, which has been going for just over a year. The PIU report argues that institutional barriers to investment in renewables and CHP should be addressed urgently. Those include the impact of NETA, the organisation and finance of local distribution networks and the working of the planning system. Action is already under way to address those issues.
NETA has been successful in reducing the generated cost of electricity, but I recognise that it has raised a range of concerns, including those that impact on small generators. Last November we published a consultation document containing proposals specifically aimed at addressing the concerns of small generators. In response to that, changes are being made gradually in the industry through its dialogue with Ofgem. I am pleased that
448
progress has been made with Ofgem and the industry in tackling some of the technical barriers. The Government recently published a response to the consultation document which sets out further action that we have identified to address the remaining issues.
In addition, a frank review is now taking place of NETA's first year of operation and where it should go from here. Everybody who studies the subject knows that at one level NETA has worked very efficiently, but equally, everybody knows that there have been negative effects that either stem from NETA or are attributed to it, perhaps wrongly. We have to get to the bottom of those and make sure that NETA's benefits are not obscured by its negative impacts. We are also preparing legislation that will extend the trading arrangements throughout Great Britain. Before we do that, we have to make sure that they are working as they were intended to, and in accordance with the Government's wider policy obligations.
Richard Younger-Ross: I hope that if I am the straight man, the Minister is not the comedian.
A company in my constituency, British Ceramic Tiles, has a CHP unit that it is not using because of NETA, so it is sitting there wasting away. Reform of NETA is urgent if CHP technologies are to progress.
Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman cannot make the ex cathedra statement, "It's all because of NETA." Other factors affect CHP, and I should be pleased to receive correspondence from him about the particular concerns of the company, or, indeed, for the company to talk to my officials or Ofgem to try to identify more closely what the mix of problems is.
Nuclear power makes an important low carbon contribution to our energy mix. While the PIU report stressed the potential for renewables, it also recognised that nuclear, which provides around a quarter of the UK's electricity, offers a low carbon source of electricity which is larger than any of the other foreseeable options. The report also acknowledged that nuclear is effectively an indigenous energy source, and it therefore argues that there are good grounds for keeping the nuclear option open and for taking practical measures to do that.
The key issues for the consultation are how confident we can be that other low carbon options will be available, and what needs to be done to give substance to the words, "keep the nuclear option open". In parallel we also need to consider how quickly we can find an acceptable long-term solution to the problem of managing nuclear waste effectively, although that is overwhelmingly a legacy issue, which is added to only incrementally by current and future generation.
Mr. Tom Watson: My hon. Friend will be aware of the 1976 royal commission chaired by Professor Flowers, which said that the nuclear industry should be extended only if we found a solution for the long-term management of nuclear waste. Does he agree that if we are to get public consensus on how to achieve that, Nirex must be totally independent of the industry, and that we should consider setting up an independent foundation that has an eye not on shareholder value but on the long-term management of waste?
Mr. Wilson: The status of Nirex is a secondary issue. I agree that there has to be progress in resolving this issue

449
if we are to gain public acceptance. This is a complex public debate, and the better people understand the difficulty of reaching our Kyoto targets and fighting climate change without the nuclear industry, the more balanced that debate will be. Of course waste is a big issue, and that debate will continue.
Dr. Ladyman: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has studied the Finnish experience, in which consultation identified sites and methods of disposing of waste material and gained reasonable public consensus. Will he consider that experience to see whether it could be repeated here?
Mr. Wilson: I am familiar with the Finnish experience, the Japanese experience, the Canadian experience and the American experience, and they all lead to the conclusion that nuclear should be replaced with nuclear. Of course there are other experiences, and they too can form part of the consultation.
Although it is largely outside my direct responsibilities, transport accounts for a major proportion of our energy use, and it too has a key role to play in the shift to a low carbon future. The Government have issued and invited comment in our draft powering future vehicles strategy for promoting the development, introduction and take-up of low carbon vehicles and fuels. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of transport to this debate. One point that stands out in my mind is that if we did all the things that we say we will do in our energy policy but did nothing on transport, carbon emissions would still have risen by 2050, rather than fallen.
I cannot finish without saying something about coal, because of the interests of my colleagues. The PIU report sees coal as having a continuing medium-term role to play in the energy mix, but in the longer term, I emphasise, its contribution, too, will depend on finding ways of handling the CO2, that it produces. The cleaner coal technology review, published on 5 February, reached similar conclusions. It sets out the work that is needed to remove a number of legal, practical and environmental uncertainties relating to CO2 capture and storage. I very much want to make progress on clean coal technology, not only for domestic reasons but because globally it has at least as much to offer in reducing carbon emissions as any other strategy that might be conceived. I am acutely aware that there are other more imminent coal-related issues that will be closer to the forefront of the minds of some of my colleagues. I look forward to responding to any points that are raised when I wind up the debate.
It is clear that although energy policy is complex, it is also fascinating and has important implications for us all. There are a range of key objectives: meeting our environmental obligations, guaranteeing security of supply, ensuring competitiveness and contributing to our social objectives, both domestically and internationally, as a Labour Government. All those imperatives have to be prioritised, and as far as possible, made compatible with each other.
I have done what I always said that I would not, and spoken for too long, but I hope that it is acknowledged that in doing so I have taken many interventions and, I hope, dealt with points as we have gone along. In the spirit of wanting an open and informed debate, I look forward to hearing contributions from hon. Members on
450
both sides of the House, and I urge everyone to participate in the consultation exercise. This is an exciting period in energy policy and we can all contribute to it, in the interests of this generation and of our children and their children.
2.59 pm
Mr. John Whittingdale: I welcome the fact that the debate is taking place. We had originally expected that we might have a debate or at least a statement when the energy review was published in February. When that did not happen, we hoped that there would be an opportunity to discuss these issues when the Government published their consultation paper in May, but that also did not come, so my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) tabled an early-day motion calling for the debate, which was signed by some 40 Members.
Today's debate is very welcome and long overdue. Nevertheless, with all due respect to the Minister of State, whose expertise in this area I fully acknowledge, I regret that the Secretary of State did not think it appropriate to open the debate.
I consider it at the very least unfortunate that the Government have chosen to hold the debate on a day when the members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry are absent on an overseas visit that has been planned for several months. The Select Committee's report on security of supply is rightly one of the documents listed for today's debate. Although I may not always agree with the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), his Committee has produced a valuable report, and I fear that the debate will be the poorer for the absence of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
On the face of it, we in the United Kingdom are relatively fortunate. We are blessed with our own natural resources of oil, gas and coal. We have a high level of diversity and supply. We have more generating capacity for electricity than we need, and since privatisation, we have competitive energy markets that have helped to bring about a fall in electricity prices for domestic consumers of almost 40 per cent. in real terms. If we look further ahead, we can already see that some of those advantages will not continue indefinitely. The Government are therefore right to say that we need to consider what actions must be taken now to avoid problems in the future.
In considering energy policy, we should bear in mind four key objectives: economic efficiency, security of supply, environmental benefit, and the relief of fuel poverty. The performance and innovation unit report is a valuable document, as it sets out a large part of the context in which decisions must be made, but it does not fully address certain fundamental questions about the balance that needs to be struck between what are sometimes competing objectives.
At present, our electricity needs are met roughly in the proportions 40 per cent. sourced from gas, 30 per cent. from coal, 25 per cent. from nuclear and 5 per cent. from renewables and imports. However, the domestic production of coal is falling and it is becoming steadily less viable to exploit our remaining stocks. Our nuclear stations are reaching the end of their working lives. Just 12 weeks ago, I attended the ceremony to mark the most recent switch-off of a nuclear power station, which was at Bradwell in my constituency. Within 20 years, all but

451
one of the remaining nuclear power stations will have closed, and nuclear's contribution to our energy mix will have fallen to just 7 per cent. unless there is replacement.
On present policies, it is likely, as we have already heard from several Members in the debate, that instead of the present diversity of supply, within 20 years we may be dependent on gas for 70 per cent. of our energy needs.
Mr. Drew: Is there not an element of hypocrisy involved? Anyone who wants to discuss what will happen when we import gas from eastern Europe ought to speak to representatives of Ukraine and Russia, both of which have made it abundantly clear that they will use the investment stream to build nuclear stations in their countries. In other words, all we will be doing by importing gas is encouraging nuclear industries elsewhere. That is a strange way of running future energy policy.
Mr. Whittingdale: The energy supply of those countries is a matter for them, but it raises questions that the hon. Gentleman is right to point up. I shall come on to those matters shortly.
The UK's domestic supplies of gas are running down. It is likely that by 2006 we will be importing up to 15 per cent. of our gas, and that by 2010 gas import requirements will exceed the existing pipeline capacity. As I said earlier, I was slightly surprised that the PIU report seems to be relatively unconcerned about that. Its conclusions are based on a belief that we will continue to be able to obtain plentiful supplies of relatively cheap gas. That is by no means as certain as the PIU seems to think, and I share some of the concerns that have been expressed about that in the debate.
It is becoming clear that we will have to look steadily further afield for supplies, and that we will become more dependent on gas from Russia, north Africa and the middle east. Quite apart from the problems of transmission and cost, that raises serious questions with regard to the security of supply. We have seen in the past the dangers of being too heavily reliant on one source of energy.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) seemed to suggest that the disruption to our energy supplies that we suffered in the past has always come about from actions taken in this country, but we have only to look at the consequences of the oil price shocks on our domestic economy to see what can happen when we become heavily dependent upon an energy source that comes from a particular part of the world which is not always stable.
Dr. Ladyman: I largely agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I ask him this question: when 80 per cent. of the supply of gas to the west is controlled by Russia and that country is effectively in control of its own cartel, do we expect the price of gas to this country to go up or down?
Mr. Whittingdale: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We could become extremely vulnerable. Almost all the major gas producers of the future upon which we may be forced to rely are countries whose political stability
452
cannot be guaranteed. To become so dependent on a single fuel produced from such an uncertain source lays us open to considerable risk.
The risk does not arise just in those countries on whose reserves we will become dependent. The Select Committee pointed out that there are bottlenecks in the transmission system, particularly at the two main points of entry into the UK, at St. Fergus and Bacton, and relying so heavily on those two terminals could make us vulnerable in the event of an accident or a terrorist attack. I know that that is a matter that the Government have addressed in their response to the Select Committee report, which I have only just seen, as it came out this morning. It is a matter that we must consider.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just the external security of gas supplies—the gas transmission networks and the interconnector—but internal security that should concern us? If we have nowhere to store large quantities of gas, should there be political disturbances on the continent, we are up the creek.
Mr. Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I was about to make that point. As the Select Committee pointed out, we have relatively little strategic storage capacity for gas. That, too, is a matter that we should address as a matter of relative urgency.
Bob Spink: To complete the picture, will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the UK would be at the very end of the supply chain?
Mr. Whittingdale: That is certainly the case. It will require the transmission of gas over considerable distances to reach this country, and it will have to be transmitted across several other countries. At present, there are severe problems in achieving that. One of the ways in which we need to address that problem is by achieving greater liberalisation of European energy markets. Limited capacity in European gas pipelines is bound to have an effect on the cost of transmission. The market should deal with that problem, but that will happen only if true liberalisation of European energy markets takes place.
Although the UK has one of the most liberalised and competitive energy markets in the world, our neighbours, particularly Germany and France, still have largely state-owned and highly protected energy companies that are responsible for both transmission and supply. They are reluctant to allow others access to their transmission networks. There is no clear pricing mechanism for doing so, particularly where their network is to be used simply as part of a longer transmission route.
It is vital that we make faster progress in this area. Although the Barcelona summit resulted in some movement in the right direction, I understand the concern expressed by the Select Committee that we should not assume that full liberalisation will take place for some time. In those circumstances, it must be sensible to seek to exploit to the maximum our indigenous sources of supply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) has already made well the point that that objective has not been assisted by the Chancellor's Budget. The decision to increase by a third

453
the rate of corporation tax on oil and gas companies is bound to have an impact on future investment in the North sea. A survey conducted by the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association has shown that half its exploration committee members will be reducing their exploration or reviewing their positions as a result of the tax increase. I have some sympathy with the Minister, because we understand that the DTI was not even consulted by the Treasury before the measure was introduced.
Mr. Jack: Did my hon. Friend not think it rather unusual that the only Minister who saw fit to come to the Front Bench to support the Minister of State was a Treasury Minister? He was almost acting as a minder, so that the Minister did not give away any important source of revenue.
Mr. Whittingdale: We have rapidly become used to the fact that almost the entirety of the DTI's policies currently appear to be determined by the Treasury. Indeed, perhaps it would be even more appropriate for a Treasury Minister to respond to the debate. The tax issue is very serious for the oil and gas companies and will have an impact on the future fuel mix. It may well lead to our becoming dependent on imported gas earlier than we would otherwise have needed.
Before I leave the question of European energy markets, it is worth noting one other glaring difference between the open, competitive regime in this country and the highly protected marketplace that applies in much of the rest of Europe. Two days ago, it was announced that LE Group—the London electricity group—was acquiring Seeboard, the supply and distribution business serving the south-east. It is not until one reaches the notes to editors at the very end of the accompanying press release that one finds the statement that, for the past three years, LE Group has been a wholly owned subsidiary of Electricité de France. Of the 14 regional electricity supply companies privatised in 1990—
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that every penny of profit made from burning the electricity that is currently being used in the Chamber goes to the Minister of Finance in Paris as a result of France's ownership of EDF?
Mr. Whittingdale: I am entirely aware of that. I am afraid that every penny that is paid for electricity throughout large parts of the country leaves these shores, as most electricity supply companies are in overseas ownership. Of the original supply companies that were privatised, only the Scottish companies are still in UK ownership.
Mr. Michael Clapham: The hon. Gentleman will recall the privatisation of electricity supply after 1990. When the plans were considered, the people who were at the helm at that time believed that we could create county-type electricity companies that would remain in the UK. However, those people did not take the view that privatising electricity supply even in small companies would result in their becoming very lucrative in the general global market and, therefore, suitable prey for American and French companies. Does he therefore believe that it was a mistake to privatise in such a way?
Mr. Whittingdale: No, I do not, because I think that electricity privatisation has delivered tremendous benefits
454
to consumers. I am not complaining about the fact that overseas companies have acquired some other companies in this country. I have no problem with that at all; at least, I would not have a problem if a similar regime applied elsewhere. I object to the fact that, if other European countries were subjected to bids made by companies in this country for some of their supply companies, it is unthinkable that the French or Germans would adopt the same relaxed attitude. They have highly protected markets, so I hope that the Government will continue to push for greater liberalisation of energy markets to take place as quickly as possible not only to enable easier cross-border trading, but to create the level playing field that is needed. At the moment, the playing field is tilted 45 deg against us.
Mr. Blizzard: Does the hon. Gentleman think that we will achieve greater liberalisation of European energy markets—an aim that I think we share—by ensuring that this country becomes more or less engaged with the European Union?
Mr. Whittingdale: I remain absolutely committed to achieving a free and open market throughout Europe. That is the reason why I have always supported membership of the European Union, and it is why the vast majority of people in this country voted to stay in it.
Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the failure of EU liberalisation. Is he aware that, at the present rate of progress, the majority of the EU market will be owned in a few years' time by just three national champions? That failure arises from EU competition policy, whose scope for movement in this sector is very limited.
Mr. Whittingdale: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that that is one of the challenges that we will have to confront. I hope that it will feature in the discussions at Seville this weekend. There is no doubt that there is currently a lack of competition throughout Europe in terms of energy, with the single exception of this country.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the need to continue to develop our indigenous energy resources. In the context of his comments about Europe, does he recognise that in Britain, our wind resource potential is massively better than that of any other country in Europe? Will he try to exercise some influence on some of the more notorious flat earth opponents of wind power, such as the notorious figure Bernard Ingham?
Mr. Whittingdale: I have a high regard for Bernard Ingham, as we worked together for a number of years, and he has valid views about wind power. I want to speak further about wind power, as it is a valuable resource that we should exploit, although it is not true to say that it is without its difficulties.
Before I leave security of supply and the energy mix, I point out that, although there is considerable danger of our becoming too heavily dependent on one energy source, I am not suggesting that the Government should seek to dictate our future fuel mix. I agree entirely that that is best left to the market, but the matter is not so simple that we can stand back and let market forces work. Many of

455
the key determinants of the outcome are under the Government's control, and their decisions will hugely influence the economics of investment in different fuels.
Dr. Ladyman: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of liberalisation, I should like to point out that my constituency, in east Kent, uses French nuclear-generated electricity that is sold to us by a French-owned company to boil water in our kettles that is also sold to us by a French-owned company. I wonder what we will sell back to the French in the liberal markets that he is talking about. As we are running down our nuclear power stations, we are unlikely to have any excess capacity to sell.
Mr. Whittingdale: I want to say more about nuclear power, but I will not be tempted to do so now. Obviously, we have to look only a short distance across the channel to see a country that has invested heavily in nuclear power and still clearly sees that it has a major part to play in its energy supply.
To finish my point about the mix of fuels, I think that the Select Committee was correct in drawing this conclusion:
"Even if the exact mix of fuels is left to market forces, it is arguable that the Government should at the very least take no action that closes off options, and perhaps should make adjustments to its policies to keep its options open."
That applies especially in respect of nuclear power, which I want to deal with later.
There is one area where the Government have not adopted a market approach. Instead, they have set a very precise figure for the proportion of our energy that must be sourced from renewables. There is a target of 10 per cent. by 2010, with a PIU recommendation that that should rise to 20 per cent. by 2020. However, it is very important to bear in mind that the target is qualified by these words:
"provided the costs to consumers are acceptable".
That is a qualification to which I shall return.
We entirely share the Government's wish to see a significant increase in the proportion of our energy that is provided from renewable sources. The environmental benefits of generation from renewables that harness the energy in our natural world—the wind, tides, sunlight and the earth—are enormous. It is now almost beyond scientific doubt that we must reduce our reliance on energy whose generation results in the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That must be done if we are to avoid potentially catastrophic climate change.
Ms Shipley: On that point of catastrophe, will the hon. Gentleman be clarifying his party's position on the construction industry, and the real need for that industry to be reformed and given statutory requirements, not merely guidance, on energy and on ways of capturing energy so that new buildings are energy self-sufficient?
Mr. Whittingdale: A certain amount of regulation is already in place, but I agree with the hon. Lady that it may well be that more can be done. Energy efficiency is certainly an important component in this debate, but before considering that, I should like to consider renewables, which also constitute an important component.
456
Despite one or two instances of slight party political point scoring, which of course I expect, it is the case that we have sought over quite a long time to encourage the use of renewables under both Conservative and Labour Governments. It is also the case that progress has been extremely slow. There are a number of reasons for that, one of which is planning requirements. As a result, less than 3 per cent. of our energy comes from renewable sources.
The Government's decision to require energy supply companies to increase that proportion to 10 per cent. will bring about change. Although I might not necessarily have chosen such a blunt instrument to effect that change, we fully support the Government's objectives. For that reason, we have not opposed the renewables obligation. However, the Minister will be aware that there are real doubts about whether the target can be achieved. One of the criticisms of the PIU report is that there was insufficient engineering input into the review, with the result that it fails to recognise practical constraints on the speed with which expansion of renewable electricity generation can occur.
Our electricity transmission and distribution system was built to cope with bulk generation from relatively few power stations. A significant increase in renewable energy will require many embedded generators producing small amounts of power and feeding directly into the distribution system. That will increase the potential for local damage to the network in the event of a fault, and the required extra investment in the network has already made some projects uneconomic.
It appears that the National Grid Company is reasonably confident that the 10 per cent. target will not cause insuperable difficulties for the network, but that is not the case for the PIU's 20 per cent. target. Problems become particularly serious if renewable energy comes largely from wind sources, which are both intermittent and unpredictable. These disadvantages mean that it may be necessary to construct standby plant, which can easily be switched on and off, but that will also further increase costs.
It is such considerations that have led Professors Michael Laughton and Bert Whittington to conclude:
"the brutal reality is that 20GW of wind power cannot be accommodated in the UK electricity system."
I am not qualified to judge whether their arguments are corrects, but they must be addressed. That is something that the PIU report fails properly to do.
Paddy Tipping: The hon. Gentleman is making an important engineering point. Let me help him on the scale of wind power. Radcliffe power station in Nottinghamshire is an important energy supplier. To build a field of windmills capable of producing the same amount of power would depend upon the spacing of the windmills and the strength of the wind. The best estimates suggest that to produce the equivalent amount of power would require a field of windmills as large as Greater Manchester. That would not be environmentally friendly.
Mr. Whittingdale: I want to deal precisely with environmental questions. However, the hon. Gentleman is right. With all the technical advances in wind generation, a wind farm can still produce only a small fraction of the power produced by a conventional power station.

457
Developments of wind power—especially offshore wind power, which probably seems the most promising area for development—are expensive in terms of plant and will require huge investment in the transmission network. That has not yet been properly taken into account. For example. the limited spare capacity in the Anglo-Scottish interconnector is a serious inhibiting factor. Yet the cost of a new west coast electricity interconnector, which was originally estimated at about £500 million, is now estimated to be about £2.3 billion. The economics are enormous and have not yet been properly calculated.
Such developments have not only an economic cost but an environmental price. This is where, perhaps, I have some sympathy with my former colleague in the civil service, Sir Bernard Ingham. Opinions differ about the attractiveness of large numbers of wind turbines, but there is no doubt that one of the biggest obstacles to development has been strong opposition to specific proposals during the planning process. To date, about 80 per cent. of planning applications for onshore wind farms have been rejected. Offshore projects have been the subject of protests from local fishermen and, as we have heard, from the Ministry of Defence. Even if a wind farm can be sited offshore where it does not blot the landscape, the necessary infrastructure to connect it with the grid—pylons and sub-stations—will still require planning consent.
Let us be clear that a deliberate policy to increase the proportion of renewables will have to be paid for by higher electricity prices.
Mr. John Hayes: Before my hon. Friend moves from the aesthetic issues that are associated with wind farms and their environmental impact, will he take on board the point that the places that are most attractive for developers of such schemes are often those where the impact is the greatest—for example, the flat fenland landscape of Norfolk, the Cambridgeshire fens and, in my constituency, the Lincolnshire fens? Their effect on the local environment is dramatic because it is disproportionate to the landscape.
Mr. Whittingdale: I agree, but a certain amount can be done to hide wind farms. I visited Wales, where I saw two wind farms. One had turbines on the top of every hill, which could be spotted from about 30 or 40 miles away, whereas the turbines at the other site had been rather more sympathetically positioned—it was necessary to get quite close before seeing or hearing them. I accept that in flat countryside they are obvious and that, for many people, they spoil attractive countryside. It is important that we take account of local objections. There is no doubt that to date almost every application has encountered extremely strong local opposition, and that cannot be overlooked.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: We must carefully consider the aesthetics of energy-producing plant. I have not yet seen an attractive nuclear power station or coal mine, never mind the issues about windmills and renewables. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we might need to contemplate a change in our approach to planning policy, and perhaps to designate certain areas of land to be used specifically
458
for wind projects, renewable projects or energy projects, as is done in other countries such as Germany. That has been a key factor in their exploitation of renewables.
Mr. Whittingdale: The attraction or otherwise of power stations is debatable. For many years. I lived opposite Bradwell power station. I looked at it from my bedroom window every morning. I thought that it had a certain charm. I accept that that may not be a universally held view.
Some of the problems of aesthetics can be overcome by placing wind farms offshore, which is perhaps why most applications are concentrated in such areas. That, of course, carries with it alternative problems of additional costs and other considerations. I would be reluctant to start to impose on certain parts of the country a requirement that they should be wind farm-friendly areas. I accept, however, that the planning process needs to be addressed, in respect not only of wind farm applications but of the development of all our future energy needs. Again, that is matter to which I want to return.
I want to continue with the point, which I regard as very important, that the renewables obligation, however desirable it may be, will have to be paid for through higher electricity prices. Estimates differ about how great the impact will be, but it is likely that it will push up the cost of domestic electricity by 4 per cent. or thereabouts, and by even more for businesses. The Minister said that he believed that people would be prepared to pay that price, and he may be right, but the Government must be much more open about the cost of the policy and to make it clear to consumers that they are being asked to pay more to promote renewables development.
We need to have a proper debate—this might be the beginning of it—about whether we are willing to pay that price, because, by deliberately setting ambitious targets for renewables as well as overall targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that go beyond our international obligations, we are choosing to put up prices and to increase the cost of energy to business by more than we are required to do. Yet our relatively small size in relation to the total global gross domestic product means that our good example will have little overall effect.
There are other ways in which we could cut our emissions and meet our environmental targets. One is to give a far higher priority to increased energy efficiency. The PIU report contains ambitious targets in this area, too, and there is undoubtedly huge scope for reduction in energy demand by increased efficiency, particularly among domestic consumers. We have supported the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and hope that it will reach the statute book despite the obstacles that apparently are being put in its way by Ministers.
Although I have raised questions about the Government's renewables target on grounds of practicality, environmental benefit and cost, let me restate that we support the Government's objective of significantly increasing the amount of renewable energy that we produce. There are, however, serious questions surrounding that issue that have not yet been properly addressed.
Even if the problems that I have already mentioned are overcome, and the target is met, that in itself will not be sufficient to ensure that we meet our Kyoto obligations,

459
let alone the more stringent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that many people now believe will be required. The target of 20 per cent. from renewables will merely be a substitute for the 20 per cent. of energy that we currently obtain from nuclear power stations, which will be lost over the next 20 years. It is these hard facts that led the Government's chief scientific adviser recently to conclude that the scientific case for building new nuclear power stations is irrefutable.
Nuclear power is the one proven method of large-scale generation that does not produce greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is also controversial and I fully recognise that it has problems attached to it.
Mr. Patrick Hall: The hon. Gentleman's claim that nuclear power production does not lead to the production of greenhouse gases is true as far as it goes. Does he not agree, however, that to make a proper assessment we must take into account the CO2 produced in the manufacture of the component parts of a power station, in its construction and decommissioning, and in handling the waste? If we take all that into account, we see that the situation is not quite as is claimed by the industry.
Mr. Whittingdale: That is undoubtedly true, and I suppose the answer is that, if we did not have any power stations at all, no greenhouse gases would be produced in constructing them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to make a proper comparison, but, even having done that, it is almost unarguable that nuclear power is responsible for far fewer carbon dioxide emissions than are fossil fuel-burning power stations.
After the 1997 general election, the Government had a policy that no new nuclear power stations should be built. They now appear to have shifted their position to one in which they state that it is a matter for the market to decide. That is a position that I instinctively find attractive, but it is also highly disingenuous, because the factors that will determine the market's decisions are largely within the control of the Government.
In the last few years, there have been considerable advances in nuclear technology. It is now undoubtedly cleaner, safer and more efficient, but the economic viability of future investment is severely influenced by the time taken to get a power station from the design stage to operation. At the moment, it is estimated that it takes about eight years for a new nuclear power station to be built and, as Sizewell B showed, building on an existing nuclear site makes little difference. If the nuclear option is to be genuinely kept open, the planning and regulatory approval process must be reformed so that decision taking can be speeded up.
Equally, we need a clear policy on the disposal and storage of waste. Other countries have successfully dealt with this problem, but the indecision of the UK Government is blighting the future prospects of the industry. A seven-year consultation period is unnecessary and looks very much like a delaying tactic, although I realise that that is not the responsibility of Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry. It is a pity that the Treasury Minister who was here earlier has now left the Chamber, because another matter that needs to be
460
addressed is that the contribution of nuclear generation to combating global warming should be recognised by exempting it from the climate change levy—a matter that I shall return to in a moment.
I should like the Minister to confirm that the Government will go ahead with the liabilities management authority Bill in the next Session, as it needs to be put in place to allow British Nuclear Fuels plc to operate as a proper commercial business.
Of course, there will always be legitimate concerns about the safety and security of nuclear power, and they have been heightened since the atrocity of 11 September. Only this week, the BBC television programme "Spooks" had a storyline about a terrorist attack on a nuclear power station. The filming of that episode took place in my constituency, and I am as sensitive as anyone to those concerns. Security worries now affect almost every aspect of modern life, but they alone must not be allowed to change our decisions.
We need to be clear about where we are going. In the past, the Minister has shown a supportive attitude towards nuclear power, as he has done to some extent this afternoon. One of the PIU report's principal conclusions was that a range of actions needs to be taken now to keep the nuclear option open, and the Select Committee called on the Government to make a clear statement on the future of nuclear energy as quickly as possible. At the very least, the Government need not just to say that it is a matter for the market to decide but take the action necessary to ensure that the factors within their control—planning, tax and waste disposal—do not place an insuperable obstacle in the way of a market-driven decision to invest in new nuclear power.
The importance of taking action to tackle global warming is one of the key factors now influencing our future energy policy, so I cannot let this opportunity pass without saying a few words about one of the Government's key instruments for cutting energy demand: the climate change levy. Having only recently put aside his Minister for Industry hat, the hon. Gentleman does not need me to tell him how unpopular that levy is with British industry. By pushing up the cost of energy, it bears most heavily on the manufacturing sector at a time when it already has its back to the wall.
Other countries do not impose a similar burden, so the levy does huge damage to British competitiveness, yet it is almost completely ineffectual in combating climate change. It is a downstream tax, so it makes no distinction between energy generated from fossil fuels and energy derived from non-polluting sources. It is for that reason that my party was committed at the last general election to its abolition.
If the Government wish to use fiscal instruments to combat climate change, there are more effective ways of doing so. In particular, I would gently point out that a carbon tax would represent a true market-driven solution to the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I hope that that, too, will be taken into account in the debate that the publication of the PIU report has begun.
The Government are to be congratulated on the establishment of the energy review. It would have been easy to duck the hard questions that need to be faced, and to leave them to some future Conservative Administration, who would have to deal with the consequences when the lights started to go out. The

461
Government have chosen instead to have a debate now, and they deserve credit for that, but the PIU report did not address some of the fundamental issues that need to be confronted. The Minister's speech did not advance that a great deal. Having acknowledged the questions, the Government will have to provide answers. I hope that we will find them, if not in this debate, at least in the White Paper that we are promised later in the year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back Benchers' speeches.
3.40 pm
Mr. Kevin Hughes: I welcome the fact that we are having this important debate, and I congratulate the Government on holding it in Government time. I apologise for the fact that I will not be able to be in the Chamber for the winding-up speeches, for reasons that I have explained to Mr. Speaker. I have also passed a note to my hon. Friend the Minister.
In February this year, the performance and innovation unit published its energy review. The report looks to 2020, and beyond to 2050. The Government are forming their long-term energy policy for our country, and this debate gives Members a welcome opportunity to influence that policy. It cannot be overstated just how important it is that we get it right for the future of this country.
Before being elected to this House, I was a coal miner for 20 years. My constituency once boasted six coal mines, but today, sadly, there is only one, which its owners closed last year. Thanks to the Minister, who agreed to keep the pit on a care and maintenance basis for a few weeks until we found a new owner, it is now doing well and should have a long-term future. Along with the colliers and their families, I remain grateful for his positive intervention. I should also like to pay tribute to Dr. Ian Roxburgh and his team at the Coal Authority, who also played a vital role in keeping the pit open for business until a new owner was found.
It will come as no surprise, therefore. that I will concentrate my contribution on what should be a new and modern future for the coal industry. I do not come from the stable that says only coal can provide the nation's energy requirements. I firmly believe that we need a diverse source of energy supply, and that we should press forward with cleaner, more environmentally friendly energy sources. Gas, oil, coal and renewables all have a role to play in our future energy supply. It is not good sense to rely too heavily on one fuel source alone.
It is important to deal with the carbon output from our generators and to meet our Kyoto targets, which is why I support research and development on renewable energy sources. As I have already said in this Chamber. I do not like wind farms, especially if they are built in the beautiful English countryside. They can be built out at sea, but they should be kept away from the beautiful English landscape. It is early in the development of such farms, and I am sure that with the correct research and development they will get better, as will wave and solar energy, but they are a long way off providing sufficient power to run this great industrial nation of ours.
462
We need to address the security of supply issue. I know that some people think that there is no long-term problem. I cannot believe such complacency. Is it possible that they have already forgotten that we were held to ransom by OPEC in the 1960s? Do they seriously believe that, in this turbulent world, the status quo will prevail for ever, and that the countries from which we import oil, coal and, in the not too distant future, most of our natural gas supplies will stay friendly and maintain a reasonable pricing regime for ever, when we have run down our indigenous industries?
It beggars belief that some people are willing to close down our coal industry and rely totally on imports, and, when our oil and gas run out—there are varying predictions about when that will be—leave us susceptible to the world market. That is madness. We all know that the very basis of a capitalist economy dictates that countries will get the best price possible for their product. When we have none, and they have all the aces, you can bet your sweet life that the price will go only one way—up.
The Government need a strategic overview of security of supply to ensure that the British people are assured of a power supply when and where they want it. Maintaining an indigenous supply source is crucial, and relying totally on market forces is bonkers.
At the moment, we can generate our electricity from various energy sources. As I have already said, that is the most desirable situation, but is it by design or by accident? I think that it is more likely to be the latter, but we should ensure that in future it is totally by design.
We have much to deliberate on, such as what to do about our ageing nuclear generators. It is true that they produce a clean energy supply, but at what cost? We have absolutely no idea of the financial cost, because we do not know how much it will cost to decommission them and to maintain them safely for ever. We do not know what long-term damage they are doing to our environment, or may do in future.
Our natural gas supplies are in decline—some say that they will last about 15 years. We will then have to import gas from the east and north Africa along mega-pipelines across Europe from countries whose political stability is questionable to say the least: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Nigeria, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Russia—the list goes on. That list hardly fills me with great confidence, but some people think that our gas supplies from those sources will be secure and reasonably priced for ever. Coal has served this country well for many years, and can go on for many years to come, provided that we deal with greenhouse gas emissions—and we can.
British coal is the cheapest and most efficient in Europe, and thanks to the operating aid scheme it has managed to stay in the market. However, that scheme comes to an end on 23 July. Again, thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister it is set to be replaced next year with an investment aid package. That is a welcome move, but there is a six-month gap between the operating aid scheme finishing and the new scheme commencing. I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that the gap is filled, so that our industry does not suffer financially in that period. We know that there will be no gap in the other European coal-producing countries, and it is important that there is not one here.
Mr. Wilson: I intervene on my hon. Friend in the knowledge that he will not be present for the winding-up

463
speeches. If a case arose in that six-month period and we wanted to intervene, as my hon. Friend suggests, it would be open to us to go to Brussels for approval on that specific case. The six-month gap is more of a hypothetical problem than a real one.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information.
With the new generation clean-coal technologies, coal can and should once again play a major role in our energy generation. It is important to fit existing coal-fired power stations with flue gas desulphurisation, because they will be around for a good while to come. However, it is also important that we support the development of new technology, such as the integrated gasification combined cycle power stations. I believe that that is where the future lies for our coal industry and the security of supply for our nation's needs.
IGCC is simple in principle. Coal is fed continuously into a closed pressure vessel, where it is partially burnt with pure oxygen. All the fuel is converted into gas and the ash is melted. The raw gas leaving the vessel is cooled and the impurities—mainly sulphur compounds—are removed. The clean gas and steam raised during the cooling process fuel the combined cycle turbines to generate electricity.
Old-fashioned coal burning, as we know, produces sulphur, nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide. Capturing those pollutants after combustion is costly and inefficient. Gasification enables all harmful emissions to be removed from the fuel before combustion. The advantage of IGCC is the near-total removal of particulates and sulphur—but that is not all. The waste slag is a valuable inert material that can be used for building-block manufacture and road-building foundations. Captured sulphur can be used in the chemical industry and captured hydrogen for fuel cells. It is also possible to use captured carbon dioxide for enhanced North sea oil recovery.
All in all, new clean-coal technology is more environmentally friendly and can help us to meet our Kyoto targets. Some people have already written off the coal industry, but they are clearly wrong to do so. With IGCC, coal should have a bright new future
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time allocation.
3.51 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I, too, welcome this debate, which is necessary and overdue. I very much appreciated the Minister's lengthy and detailed opening speech. I shall ask some questions in the hope that he can find time to squeeze in some answers in his winding-up speech.
Energy is a significant planet-wide problem—we are not simply solving a few domestic political issues. In finding the solution to the United Kingdom's energy problems, we have an opportunity not only to improve our own quality of life but to enjoy major economic growth. I hope that we regard that as a positive challenge, and not just as crisis management or catastrophe aversion. There is no doubt that the growth of CO, in the atmosphere is leading to global climate change. As the search for
464
economic growth and prosperity continues, energy consumption will rise, putting increasing pressure on the planet's ecosphere. The world's population has tripled in the past 50 years from 2 billion to 6 billion. Meeting the aspirations of people born in that period will be a challenge for the planet.
The UK's energy policy must preserve and develop a strong, sustainable economy and environment. If it is out of kilter with that goal we may both damage economic growth and undermine a sustainable environment. There is no doubt that we need a long-term energy policy, which must be pursued with diligence for a number of decades. Energy investments last for 30, 40 or 50 years. Change cannot be imposed by Government diktat in the course of one Parliament.
We also need to remember that things change over time in the energy market. I am not limiting myself solely to the generation of electricity, which has been to the fore of contributions to our debate. We use energy for transport, heating and processing, and for many other things that produce carbon dioxide emissions and contribute to global warming. A hundred years ago, in the decade 1900 to 1910, the energy scene was dominated by coal. Fifty years later, in the 1950s, it was dominated by coal and the nuclear industry. In the first decade of this century, gas and oil are at the forefront. Liberal Democrats believe that we should move strongly and purposefully towards renewable and sustainable energy generation in the decade 2050 to 2060.
Any energy system produces problems for the environment. However, we need to distinguish between life-threatening environmental issues and secondary issues, however important. There is a difference between the problems created by carbon dioxide emissions and the long-standing problem of nuclear waste and those created by the disruption to the visual appearance of the landscape caused by the building of a major power station or windmills. Britain is a leading industrial nation and its landscape is covered with motorways, railway links and electricity pylons, which are visual nightmares. However, we have got used to them. My own town of Stockport is dominated by a massive 13-arch railway viaduct. We put it on our posters—it is our trademark feature. However, if one viewed it as some people view wind farms, it would never have been built and no sensible person would ever have lived near it. We get used to things. Culture changes our views about the things that we see and how dangerous they are.
Since 1997, the Government. to their credit, have had good intentions on energy and have had plenty to say about the subject. However, they have paid intermittent attention to policy, which has been inconsistent and sometimes incoherent. No sooner had we signed up to Kyoto than we had a moratorium on gas and the protection of coal. The climate change levy was introduced for many perfectly sensible and good reasons, but the Government overlooked the benefits of a carbon tax, which would have achieved their objectives far more effectively. The renewables obligation is good and has all-party support, yet our carbon dioxide emissions are set to increase this year. Only this week, the renewables industry said that there is still a residual problem, even with the renewables obligation, as the escalator will not continue.

465
The Government have set welcome targets in the past, but as the Minister himself admitted, the target for combined heat and power will not be met. At the moment, between half and two thirds of CHP generating capacity is out of use because of the combined impact of prices and the new electricity trading arrangements. Other targets are not exactly ambitious. When I visited Germany with parliamentary colleagues earlier this year, we were told that, in the past 12 months, it had installed 2,000 MW of wind turbines, while the UK managed only 80 MW. Whatever we say about the differences in culture, legislation and approach, the reality is that we have set unambitious targets and failed to reach even those.
The energy review is good and positive, and is welcomed by the Liberal Democrats. The Government's consultation is a model one because they did not assume that they knew the answers. In fact, some of us might say that the consultation is so open-ended and wishy-washy that it may have been better to circulate the energy review and say, "What do you think of this?" In all conscience, it is hard to see the direction that the Government are coming from, or the direction that they intend to go.
Mr. Robert Key: Very skilful.
Mr. Stunell: The Conservative Front-Bench spokesman suggests that that is skilful, but I always commend a Government who are listening. I always want more listening, especially to the solutions that I am offering, which is exactly what I want to come on to.
If the Government are serious about meeting and exceeding their Kyoto targets, they must give some long-term signals to the energy industry. First, they must take the renewables obligation beyond its plateau in 2010 and continue the annual 1 per cent. escalator. I talked to the Renewable Power Association earlier this week. It said that bankers and financiers are looking at 2010 and saying, "If we advance you money, how do we know that there will still be a demand for the product beyond 2010?" That is undermining the value of the renewable obligation certificates. We need to take account of that. I hope that the Minister will come to the House soon and say that he will go with the renewables obligation beyond 2010.
We need to simplify the rules for the generation of energy offshore. People have talked about wind, but I hope that in due course wave and tidal will be issues for electricity generation, too. They will be greatly inhibited if we do not tackle some of the bureaucratic and interdepartmental fumbling.
Will the Minister tell us when precisely he will put the social and environmental guidelines for the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets in the post? Drafted they have been, posted they have not.
Mr. Wilson: This morning.
Mr. Stunell: That is excellent news. I talked to the director of Ofgem earlier this week. He was looking at his post every morning, so I am delighted to hear that, and I will study the guidelines with great interest. When the Minister set up Ofgem, he gave it a specific market-orientated remit. To achieve some of the environmental outputs that he seeks to achieve, Ofgem needs more specific guidance that would allow it to take account of that factor more completely.
466
We need more investment in research, although I concede freely that it has been increased significantly, but investment too in pilot projects and the development of near-market technologies. I hope that the Minister will not mind me mentioning a pet hobby horse of mine: the vexed issue of two-way meters. The aim is to have about 3,000 properties equipped with voltaic roofs by 2005, yet there is a major bottleneck in respect of whether, at the small scale, it is possible to resell surplus product to the grid. The development of two-way meters is one way forward.
I have suggested some things that can and should be done on energy policy—things that, on the whole, are not likely to cost the Treasury a great deal of money. I want to move on to conservation and efficiency.
Richard Ottaway: Before the hon. Gentleman moves off what he thinks should be done, what is the Liberal Democrats' policy on nuclear power?
Mr. Stunell: I am happy to address that issue. Indeed, if I had time, I would read out the two booklets that I have written on the topic. The Liberal Democrats' view is that our existing nuclear capacity should he retained for as long as it is safe and economical to do so, but that it should not be replaced by a further generation of nuclear power. The gap should be filled by two things: first, a greatly increased effort at conservation and efficient use of energy; and secondly, an energy mix.
I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about the importance of conservation and efficiency. I am sure that he recognises that it is the one area where it is very difficult to get market-led developments, because those who supply energy do not have any incentive to supply less of it. It is difficult to make them the drivers for conservation projects and for developing efficient use of energy by the end user.
I know that a number of signals, such as taxation signals are in place but some regulatory decisions need to be made as well. We are toughening up building regulations, but they need to be tougher still. We are still nowhere near the Scandinavian level of requirements for energy efficiency. If the majority of our homes could be solar heated for the majority of the year, we would save a great deal of money. I hear from people that they have a gas-heated home or an oil-heated home, but nearly all of us have a solar heated home for three or four months of the year when we do not have our central heating on. By extending that free period of solar heating, much could be gained in terms of energy and carbon dioxide emissions.
We need tougher regulation of the efficiency of domestic appliances of all sorts. I find it unsatisfactory—to put it in very politely—that a domestic appliance made by a German manufacturer is deliberately fitted with a more stupid electronic chip when it comes here. Germany has regulations that require the efficient use of fuel in products such as dish washers and washing machines. Its regulations are substantially stiffer than those in this country. That small step could be taken quickly by the Government and would make a substantial impact over the life cycle of such machines.
A couple of years ago, another private Member's Bill failed to complete its passage through the House. It would have meant that, at the time of sale, each house had to have an energy MOT, so to speak, with its particulars of

467
sale. All sorts of signals can be sent for the discerning consumer to take account of. At practically nil cost either to industry or to the consumer, the Government could require certain standards to be in place.
Ms Shipley: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but does he think that the discerning consumer will be sufficient, or might there have to be a rather larger stick than that?
Mr. Stunell: On domestic appliances, it is clear that the way ahead is to regulate and require certain standards to be provided. Just as we expect safety standards to be met as a matter of legal necessity, so we should require environmental standards to be met. The building of new houses is controlled by regulations. The buying and selling of houses is properly left to the market, although if the hon. Lady has suggestions that she would like me to take into account, I would be happy to hear from her on another occasion.
On ways of changing perceptions and moving things on, the Home Energy Conservation Bill, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), moves the argument on. I hope that the Government will find time to accommodate that Bill.
On conservation and efficiency, a recent survey said that the consumption of energy by Government offices was 82 per cent. higher per square metre than that of equivalent commercial offices. The Minister may want to comment on that and suggest how he is approaching other Departments to improve the efficiency with which they consume energy.
I want to say where we should be in 2050. We should look at the direction in which we wish to go, examine what total energy needs will be at that time and balance them by tackling efficiency and the conservation of resources, and by looking at the resources that we use to provide energy.
The Minister—and, indeed, all hon. Members—accept that we need diversity, security, economy and sustainability. Some of those things are best achieved through the liberalisation of markets and the operation of market forces at an international, as well as a domestic, level. Others require direct intervention by Governments and through international agreements.
It is clear that, by 2050, world supplies of oil will be steeply in decline, and gas will soon face such a decline. Perhaps there is a future for nuclear waste—[Laughter.] I meant to say perhaps there is a future for nuclear power, but there is indeed a future for nuclear waste: about 100,000 years-worth. I have made it clear that I do not particularly want the nuclear option to be kept open, but if the Minister wants to do so it is absolutely vital that he tell the House what progress the Government intend to make on dealing with nuclear waste. If, in 2050, the majority of nuclear waste—admittedly, it has already been created—is still sitting in ponds at Sellafield or is dotted around the country at the sites of decommissioned nuclear power stations, the scope for building another generation of such stations will be as limited then as it is now.
Bob Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that replacing nuclear with nuclear would increase the
468
total amount of nuclear waste that this country has to deal with by between just 5 and 10 per cent? Waste is therefore a problem that we must manage regardless of the nuclear-for-nuclear replacement question.
Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that we are here in this Chamber today because of our democratic system. He must face the fact that, unless that system is totally overridden in order to impose a new nuclear industry on this country, and until the issue of nuclear waste is resolved in the long term to the public's satisfaction, it will be almost impossible to develop a second generation of nuclear power. [Interruption.] I am not inviting the hon. Gentleman to agree with me; I am stating my opinion, which is viable in the context of the outside world.
Mr. Hayes: There is surely a paradox in the hon. Gentleman's argument. He said that the transfer of emphasis to renewable energy sources is very unlikely to be dealt with locally, and can be addressed only through national and international agreement. Yet in answer to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), he said that the democratic process—presumably, he is including the local democratic process—should not be overridden. It seems that he wants to override that process in respect of renewable energy, but not of nuclear energy.
Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood what I said. I certainly was not implying that the way ahead is to bow to international agreements to which we have not given assent. We signed up to the Kyoto agreement, and we are—I hope—willing participants in ensuring that it reaches a satisfactory conclusion. My point was that Kyoto and beyond will require international action by many nations, not just the United Kingdom. I am sorry if my explanation was not sufficiently clear.
I should tell those hon. Members who are keen to see the nuclear industry redeveloped that not even its best friend would claim that it is the cheapest way to generate electricity. An element of subsidy and support would be required, and my investigations have led me to believe that the Government would get better value by putting the equivalent subsidy into renewables.
Dr. Ladyman: I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Objective calculations by independent engineers on a like-for-like basis show that all the so-called renewable energy sources that he is espousing are more expensive than the nuclear option. Nuclear is the only energy source that, by law, must meet the cost of its own waste and decommissioning. He advocates the future use of wave and marine energy sources, but in both cases the production unit cost is twice that of nuclear power.
Mr. Stunell: I was about to say that, between now and 2050, there will be at least two generations of technology: land-based and offshore wind farms, to which reference has been made, and biomass and other technologies that are ready to be marketed; and other forms that are not yet ready to be marketed, of which—as the hon. Gentleman rightly says—wave and tidal energy are two examples. Such forms have huge potential, particularly in the context of the UK's geography, but at the moment they are a long

469
way from being marketable. I agree that the use of such sources is some way off, as is the use of fusion nuclear power. However, I do not oppose work continuing on that, or on clean coal. Indeed, I was encouraged by the Minister's comments, and I take his point about the development of proper clean-coal technology and the efficient burning of coal. At the moment, perhaps the best way to reduce global carbon emissions is to fit clean-coal technology to existing plant in China. China's coal-burning technology is running at about 19 per cent. efficiency, and it is one of the planet's major pollutants.
The Minister—and perhaps the Prime Minister, too—has some challenges, and I hope that he can respond to them. One is developing targets beyond Kyoto, expanding the renewables obligation, considering carbon tax as a possible replacement for the climate change levy, and setting targets in general beyond 2010 and 2012. Progress needs to be made on two-way meters and domestic appliance efficiency.
Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that we should extend the renewables obligation beyond 2010, but perhaps that was a slip of the tongue. In fact, the renewables obligation extends to 2027.
Mr. Stunell: I am aware that the obligation will continue at its 10 per cent. level, but as the Minister knows, my plea is that we do not simply go up the escalator and remain on a plateau. We need instead to increase that figure in subsequent years.
Mr. Drew: I apologise for missing the first few minutes of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Does he agree that one way to advance the obligation to which he refers is to increase customer involvement? Each generating company could enable its customers to buy renewables through the device of ticking a box. Although they would pay more at the moment, there would be genuine customer involvement. One of the saddest things is that customers are not given the option to buy, and generators need to do much more to ensure that that can, and should, happen.
Mr. Stunell: I accept the hon. Gentleman's general point, and I am certainly in favour of much more positive marketing of renewables. Such things can be done—indeed, I myself have signed up to a renewables supplier.
Will the Minister explain what is to be done about interdepartmental co-ordination in this vital policy area? Conservation and efficiency appear to be within the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the generation and supply side is the Minister's own business within the Department of Trade and Industry; taxation is dealt with by the Treasury; the built environment and building regulations are the responsibility of the newly created Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; and transport issues are of course dealt with by the newly created Department for Transport. Five Government Departments are dealing with what should be integrated policy areas. Will the Minister give some assurance that the Government recognise the importance of this topic, and are co-ordinating it properly?
The United Kingdom can benefit from a sound, sustainable renewable energy policy. Such a policy can improve our quality of life, reduce pollution and flooding, and provide greater home comforts for us all. It can lead
470
to growth in our economy domestically and in our exports nationally. It can certainly give us a far more sustainable environment, and produce far fewer harmful residues.
I suggest to the Minister that there is a route map for the future, a road on which to travel and a vehicle to put on that road. I want to hear from the Government that they will stop dithering—that they will stop just talking, and get on with it.
4.20 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead: By coincidence, a while ago I was considering what might be the position of my city, Southampton, in 2050 if business continued as usual in terms of energy use in this country and throughout the world, and nothing was done to curb the growth of energy use and the carbon dioxide emissions that go with that. I consulted the Southampton geodata institute's study, which projected sea-level rises of between 0.8 and 1.2 m, and noted the institute's concern about more cyclones and anti-cyclones, greater tidal surges, and specific conditions in the south of England that would prevail by 2050. It predicted that the defensible shoreline resulting from those developments might be up to 5 m above the present level.
I looked at a map of my city, and imagined how it would look. Freemantle and St. Denys, two of its suburbs, would be completely under water, or defensible only with high sea walls. The River Itchen would not be crossable by bridge. All Southampton's main industrial areas and estates would be under water, and the port that is being built largely on reclaimed land would itself be wholly under water.
That is not an academic fantasy any more; it could happen almost in my lifetime. The forecast may be slightly out in terms of sea-level rise, but something along those lines is distinctly likely unless something is done, in the light of climate change, radically to reduce the energy consumption of all our industries and, indeed, all our countries. The report of the performance and innovation unit rightly identified a target of a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
I am proud that Britain has taken the lead in terms of the Kyoto targets, and is taking the lead in embarking on what is only the first stage of a process that must go much further. We must accept, however, that whether or not we want to take the lead in the future, other countries are likely to reach the same conclusions. They will therefore probably be subject to international long-term targets that will cause us to take the lead in any event.
The PIU report also considered the cost of reaching the target. It suggests that only six months' growth in gross domestic product would be lost over 50 years. Surely, on any reckoning, the benefits of attempting to reach the target easily outweigh the cost, and would do so even if it were much higher.
The report places much emphasis on renewables. We should double our target by 2020, as it suggests, and I think we need to start picking winners. We cannot afford to stand back and hope that the market alone will make some vital technologies marketable. Such action will entail investment, not in permanent subsidy but in making the renewables market ready to play its part.
I consider two aspects particularly important. One was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). Photovoltaics are the only urban renewable

471
that we can seriously consider, given the overwhelmingly urban nature of our environment. When we talk of planning constraints, we are usually talking about constraints on what we want to put in our rural environment. We have millions of roofs, however, and the sun shines on all of them. The fact that they do not play their part in generating energy to heat the houses below them strikes me as a significant omission in terms of our long-term energy strategy.
The main problem with photovoltaics is the lack of demand for the cells that could be placed on the roofs. The problem is not that the technology does not work, or that it needs extensive research; the problem is that mass production and long-term stability of demand are needed if costs are to fall significantly. We can do much at an early stage to enhance market readiness.
There is already one example of the success of building regulations in making the country ready for the challenge of climate change. Building regulation L changes boiler and double-glazing standards. Once the changes are fully in place, some 1.4 MT of carbon dioxide could be saved over 10 years. That approaches the level of savings envisaged by the Government's 10-year transport plan.
We need a change in building regulations to alter the way in which we clad our buildings. That could make a tremendous contribution. I suggest a regulation embedding photovoltaics in the cladding of roofs of new buildings. Even given its present cost, PV is a competitive alternative to cladding. We need a regime in which buying a PV roof is not the result of individual commitment, whim or fancy. We need PV roofs to be there, part of the low-carbon economy and something that people switch on and off every day.
We should also make progress on the use of biomass as fuel. Astonishingly, we have 800,000 hectares of set-aside land that could be used—and, indeed, was used for agricultural purposes—while we have a crisis in employment in rural communities and their sustainability. Using it for biofuel crop production—for biodiesel, short-rotation coppicing or elephant grass to fuel combined heat and power plants—would have multiple benefits. The advantage of combined heat and power is that it can function on a larger or smaller scale, which makes it an ideal partner for such a change in policy. Again, all we need is investment in creation of the necessary climate and the maturing of the arrangements. No costly investment in research and development is necessary.
Those are just two technologies in which we should invest to expand radically the role of renewables in our energy supply. I congratulate the Government on introducing a renewables obligation that will lever confidence and some investment into renewable development, but the PIU report has done us an equal and longer term service. It has set out calmly and unemotionally the scale of the task involved in transforming the landscape of our energy economy, and has drawn our attention to how quickly action needs to be taken even if we want to address ourselves to much longer-term changes. Moreover, it has told us that action on biomass, PV and a range of other new and existing fuel technologies can be taken and can work. Our task now is to ensure that that happens.
4.29 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: That excellent speech by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) illustrates the important interplay, mentioned earlier, between matters connected with the environment, technology, taxation, and, indeed, industry. All those factors affect energy policy.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the role of the rural economy and agriculture in our future policy. I was heartened for a brief moment when I saw the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs come into the Chamber, but she disappeared very quickly. Sadly, the Minister was not supported by someone from that Department. Although such support might be symbolic, it would show a dimension that has not been much discussed hitherto in the debate.
This debate shows the House of Commons at its best. We have heard excellent, well informed and knowledgeable speeches, and I have already learned a considerable amount from the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members so far. None the less, energy security lies at the heart of the matter. The PIU report has been cited almost as a security-free zone, but I would counsel colleagues to read page 86. In box 5.1, we find a telling but short sentence. Under the words "natural gas", it says:
"Strategic security is therefore a concern."
That is prefaced by this acknowledgement:
"By 2050, the UK will, like most other countries, be predominantly dependent on imports."
The report acknowledges the importance of what it describes as "geopolitical concerns".
The speeches that we have heard so far illustrate clearly the fact that in the world of energy supply, there are no absolute certainties but a great number of complex issues, so it is important to have a balanced portfolio, as the Minister has said, and the Government have a central role to play. Given the energy providers, it is easy to believe that this is almost a private sector matter—but it is not; it is a very public matter that involves large parts of the public sector.
The public sector sets the environmental targets and the fiscal regime. It deals with agriculture and rural policy. Most importantly, it deals with the establishment of the electricity market, and sets the regulatory framework in which the industry operates. The Government therefore have a central role, so their consultation exercise is to be welcomed, and the questions and challenges thrown up by the PIU are central to our further discussions.
It is important that, unlike the United States, we remain fully wedded to the aim of achieving our Kyoto targets, and address the decline in the amount of electricity that can be generated from nuclear sources in the future. I want to say a few words about that from my constituency standpoint.
My constituency is the home of BNFL's Springfield plant. Apart from the fuel for pressurised water reactors, all the other fuels for nuclear power stations are produced in my constituency. The tremendous efforts that the work force at the Springfield plant have already made to improve not only their efficiency but the safety of their operations are noteworthy. They have recently won a national aware for the way in which they operate.
Although a while ago, the events at Sellafield perhaps represent a blot on the landscape of safety and probity in the nuclear industry. However, post-Windscale, we in the

473
United Kingdom have had a safe, regular and consistent supply of nuclear electricity and the waste has been dealt with, difficult though that may be. The plants that manufacture nuclear fuel have a record of increased investment and improved safety. Without doubt, if my constituents were here today, they would make a plea to be given an early and clear indication of just what the future of the nuclear electricity industry will be.
BNFL, with its expertise now drawn from Westinghouse, which it took over in the United States, has produced new and interesting design prospects. From the United Kingdom's point of view, the best design is the Westinghouse-designed AP1000 reactor, the potential cost of which could certainly match, if not better, anything currently available. In fact, it is said that that design's potential cost of generation could be competitive with the current average bulk electricity price.
Clearly, we all want a competitive and—I suppose most people think—cheap electricity supply. We need a pricing policy that provides affordable energy, but does not preclude a range of options, and helps to provide a secure electricity supply. If the returns are not right, people will not invest in the variety of energy sources that hon. Members have mentioned today. Without that cocktail of different sources, we will not have the security of supply that, above all, should underpin this country's energy policy.
One of the key issues is the disposal of nuclear waste. The Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member, recently conducted an in-depth study into the consultation exercise that is trying to build a consensus on what we should do with such waste. The time scale is too long and the idea of a universal public debate is heroic. It has been suggested that because there will have been a debate, there will be no explosion of opposition when someone at last points a finger at the map and says, "We'll get rid of it there"—but we have to recognise that that is not the case.
Perhaps we also have to recognise that we are seeking a sort of ideal state that the technology cannot provide, whether for the legacy of waste or for the waste from nuclear power stations. Perhaps we should recognise the fact that what we need to sustain our nuclear industry is an acceptance that we shall do our best with technology at our disposal, such as dry storage, on-site storage at nuclear power stations and some form of deep but perhaps not absolutely final repository, just as the Finns have done. The Finns have recently decided to build a fifth nuclear power station, and they accept that they cannot provide the absolute ultimate answer, because they recognise that the disposal technology is moving on.
BNFL's proposed new nuclear reactor is based on a proven design. Westinghouse has designed about 50 per cent. of the power stations already in service. The design builds on pressurised water reactor technology, which is known and proven. Fail-safe technology has been built into the new AP1000, making it one of the safest designs possible. It relies not on pump technology for cooling water if something goes wrong, but on good old-fashioned gravity. It is an extremely safe design, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House and the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) mentioned waste, and opting for like-for-like replacement would effectively produce less waste, given the newer technology. The old "If it ain't broke, don't fix
474
it" formula underpins the question of nuclear power—it is certainly not broken, and it has proved successful. It is worth stating that some 438 commercial nuclear reactors are in operation, 32 are under construction and 35 are planned.
Nuclear power is the largest source of electricity in Europe, and new building programmes are being commenced in Finland and the United States. It is certainly not a redundant technology. As for providing security, it is something that we can have and hold, and secure for ourselves. Certainly, British engineering technology is well up with the rest of the world when it comes to constructing plants and producing fuel.
Risk is a key word in the energy world. The nuclear industry may be risky, and there are certain problems with it, but coal has its risks, too, including carbon dioxide emissions. Clean-coal technology has been discussed, and I support efforts to secure the use of that indigenous technology. Risk is involved in the interruptability of renewable energy sources, but I personally support the development of those sources because that will give us a balanced portfolio. Saving energy using better insulation and building techniques also involves risks.
There is no guarantee that all the sources will deliver simultaneously, so, as the Minister said, we need a balanced energy portfolio. Not just for parochial reasons, but for good national reasons, I believe that nuclear power, with modern new power station designs, can underpin a sensible United Kingdom energy policy, and I support it.
4.39 pm
Dr. Desmond Turner: I am glad that the PIU report has been produced and that we can debate it today, but I want to challenge some of the terms of the debate and the basic assumptions that underpin it.
The terms of the debate drive the outcomes. The political drivers for both the debate and the PIU report are, as we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), security of supply and the need for cheap affordable energy. That is fine. However, another political driver—the overwhelmingly important one—should be climate change.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs publishes climate change scenarios and recently issued an update. I commend those documents to everyone. We should all read them—they are required reading. The scenarios are scientifically sound—I am convinced of that—and they make it clear that even if we start to take action on carbon dioxide emissions now, the milder of their forecasts, at least, will still come into effect. Some of the more extreme scenarios would happen even if we implemented the Kyoto targets, but if we do not do that things will get worse and worse.
If we are to slow down the inevitability of climate change, we need to adopt targets more like the 60 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions proposed by the royal commission on environmental pollution. We should be doing that almost immediately if we are to make a significant difference.
I give much credence to the catastrophic scenarios—they are truly terrifying. As we know, the polar ice caps are already melting at an alarming rate and mountain

475
glaciers are retreating. Once the ice has gone global warming will accelerate, and one of the likely climate changes will mean dry winters in what are currently areas of tropical rain forest. If the Amazonian rain forest were to burn, the huge quantities of carbon locked up in that enormous carbon sink would be released.
Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere would double and climate change would again accelerate precipitately. It might reach the point at which the northern and southern oceans warmed up sufficiently for the enormous deposits of methane hydrates on the ocean beds to be released—the seas would boil and methane would be released into the atmosphere in massive quantities.
Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The planet would fry. Temperatures would go up by at least 20 deg C. The inevitable consequence would be the mass extinction of species, including the human race. That is a truly terrifying scenario and it could even happen in 2050, if we do not start to take action now. There is evidence in recorded geological history that just such a scenario once occurred. That is why carbon dioxide reduction at the earliest possible moment should be the crucial driver.
It is thus imperative that we put the emphasis on production of energy that does not involve carbon dioxide. The report has a great deal to say about that. I agree with its recommendation for a 20 per cent. saving in home energy consumption by 2010, which is completely consistent with the target in the guidance in the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, of 30 per cent. between 1996 and 2010.
Unfortunately, if things go on as they are and we take no further action, we shall miss those targets by 6 percentage points. The way to fill that gap, which equates to a few million tonnes of carbon dioxide, happens to be through my Bill, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I do a brief plug for it. Only slight obstacles remain and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will use his eloquence to maintain Government support for my Bill to ensure its passage. Significant environmental and social benefits could be achieved, and the measure will make a contribution to our energy future.
I want to concentrate on renewables. Although the PIU report recognises that by 2050, wave and tidal energy will make a massive contribution to the UK's energy requirements, I take strong issue with its view that by 2020 there will be almost no such contribution. We are in a unique position geographically, in having energy sources that are capable of supplying more than twice our current electricity generation requirements. It would be complete folly not to exploit them to the greatest possible extent.
Furthermore, to return to security of supply, there is nothing more secure than the waves—who can interfere with them?—and the tide, which flows with exact timing, predictability and strength wherever one goes. Tidal power is just as capable of supplying what is frequently claimed of nuclear power by its proponents—a regular and predictable baseline load. It is vital to develop it.
The assumption is that it will take 30 or 40 years to make significant developments in tidal power. We should consider the example of wind power in Denmark and
476
Germany, where we can see what Government priorities can do—even in a liberalised energy market—to exploit a technology and bring it to a commercial point of development.
There are already demonstrators in the water that are working successfully, and if the Government took wave and tide power seriously and gave the technologies enthusiastic support, which would not need a massive Government investment, those energy sources could be supplying the bulk of the 20 per cent. renewables target by 2020. Furthermore, we would have a wonderful green industrial revolution through the manufacturing industries that supplied the technologies, and we could offer the world a great example by doing something about climate change and providing energy at an economic cost. Even before commercial development and exploitation, the demonstrator machines operate at about 5p per KWh, and it is reasonable to assume that the generating costs will fall to meet the current costs of fossil fuel generation. It is unrealistic to expect that fossil fuel prices will remain at their current low level.
However, there are constraints on the development of those sources—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
4.49 pm
Richard Ottaway: The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) speaks with great authority. Indeed, so catastrophic was the picture that he painted that I will certainly take him up on his required reading.
I declare an interest as a consultant to AEP Energy Services, as set out in the register.
I welcome the debate, which is long overdue and necessary. The most notable feature of the performance and innovation unit report was the lukewarm commitment to keeping the nuclear option open without any serious proposals on why—or, indeed, how—that should happen. I am pleased that the Minister did nothing to diminish that commitment today. I suspect that he is a supporter of the nuclear option in any case, but he is right to keep it open and to allow the debate and the consultation process to reach a conclusion.
Some seven years ago, when the last nuclear power station came onstream, the Government were in an enviable position—there was an abundance of supply and plenty of capacity. But the world has moved on since then. Clouds have loomed on the horizon: Californian power failures; oil price hikes and associated fuel protests; the collapse of wholesale electricity prices; dwindling North sea gas supplies; and, as has just been amply demonstrated, growing political pressure to address the issue of climate change. That affects our views on the future of nuclear power and the nuclear option.
We all share the aims and objectives of reducing carbon emissions, although I think that the Government will have some difficulty in meeting their target of a 10 per cent. reduction by 2010. It is right to try, but, as the Minister will appreciate, it is a very big job, even with the assistance of nuclear power. As nuclear power will start to be phased out after 2010, and will be totally removed from the energy mix by 2035, the task will be even greater. The probable decline in the use of coal—at least, dirty coal—will make the situation more difficult. There

477
are no easy options, but in my judgment nuclear power has to replace the dwindling reliance on fossil fuels. It gives diversity and security to the energy mix, and is a reliable low-carbon source of energy. We all assume that gas will take its place, but, as other hon. Members hinted, there are inherent dangers in placing an excessive reliance on gas and on reducing the energy mix. The Government should employ whatever options are necessary to support the nuclear industry and to provide a stable regulatory framework for the nuclear sector.
We have to reach a decision on waste disposal. There have been countless consultation processes, and it is time to make up our minds. Until we do so, it will be hard to make decisions on new nuclear plant. We have to make those decisions, otherwise we cannot achieve our low carbon targets.
I welcome the Government's commitment to renewable energy. Barely a day goes by without a Minister announcing another initiative or a subsidy for this project or that piece of research. That is just the sort of role that the Government should be playing, and I congratulate them. Although they will have difficulty in hitting their targets, it will not be down to any lack of energy and effort on the part of the Minister.
I want to discuss a factor that has been hampering the development of green power. In the past, the Minister has welcomed the use of co-firing to meet renewable energy requirements. In layman's language, that is a mix of, say, 90 per cent. coal and 10 per cent. biomass, which produces 100 per cent. electricity with 90 per cent. carbon production. It is therefore a good process, as it reduces carbon output. The problem is that the Environment Agency has less enthusiasm for co-firing than has the Department of Trade and Industry. Its policy is far from being developed—in fact, it is still working on it—and producers trying to embark upon co-firing are having difficulty in persuading the agency to give them its full support. The problem is not insurmountable—it is a question of joined-up government. The Department and the agency need to get together to improve their liaison on that important matter.
The PIU report centres on security of supply. The word "security" can be loosely defined, and in this context it has many definitions, including stable prices, availability of a good energy mix, and physical security of supply.
It is a given that gas will be the central feature of our drive for a low carbon energy sector. However, North sea gas supplies are dwindling, and we will be a net importer by 2006. As more than half the world's gas supplies are based in Russia, it is essential that we build up a good long-term working relationship with that country. We must develop long-term commercial contracts and work with the Russians as partners. Their pipeline system is old and their own demand is growing, and it is essential to get right alongside them to produce security of supply.
European market liberalization—a matter touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale)—is the area where most problems exist. The PIU report makes it clear that the liberalisation of European Union gas and electricity markets is essential to safeguard national security of supply. That puts the future in doubt, as the one thing that we do not have is EU market liberalisation. The distortions are manifestly obvious to all who study the EU market. The UK cannot be looked at in isolation—it must
478
be regarded as 20 per cent. of the EU market. One cannot draw up a plan for 20 per cent. of the market and ignore the rest. Unexpectedly, the Government seem to be going down that road by acquiescing in EU developments. The Barcelona summit was a failure in that respect, and a comprehensive proposal from the European Parliament was largely ignored. The French made a concession on their domestic market, but not in the business sector. How is it possible to have a genuine market if British generators cannot sell into the French retail markets, but EDF is allow to sell into the British market? We need a level playing field with a symmetrical market structure.
It is a matter of growing concern that the whole EU energy market is slowly falling into the hands of three players—EDF, which already owns a substantial part of the UK market, and the two German companies, RWE and Eon, which are currently buying Innogy and Powergen. The issue is not that those events are taking place in the UK, but that they cannot take place in France or Germany. At every opportunity, those players are buying up all the available assets in the European electricity sector, and within a few years they will control more than 50 per cent. of the European market. That is a totally unacceptable state of affairs, and I am astonished that the Government do not seem to realise the impact of what is happening. We have been through the pain of breaking up the market in this country into small fragments, which has produced genuine competition. To put it back into the hands of three major players that do not have the British interest at heart is to take a dangerous road.
At the root of the problem is a failure of EU competition policy. As far as I can see, the PIU report makes no reference to competition policy whatsoever, yet it is emerging as the most critical aspect of the European energy market. The difficulty is that transnational mergers and acquisitions in the European market are distorting the market as a result of the revenue rules that prevent competition policies from intervening. EU competition law must be revised or a special set of rules must be introduced for the electricity market; otherwise, we will have a completely distorted market dominated by powerful players with little interest in this country. The Government should press for divestment of assets in Germany and France and market-driven access to transmission capacity. That can be achieved only by unbundling the transmission and transportation companies from the supply companies, as was demonstrated and implemented in the UK.
Generators are having a difficult enough time as it is. Wholesale, not retail, energy prices in this country are at a rock-bottom low. That is a result of the NETA rules introduced by Ofgem, which has made it clear that its priority is to reduce prices regardless of the consequences. The sale of electricity in this country is a nakedly open market that reduces prices to the lowest level, and the NETA rules are having an impact. Several power stations have closed down and several generators are in serious financial difficulties. Consequently, the banks will close power stations and maintenance schedules will slip, resulting in brown-outs such as those that happened in California.
I can see that my time is running out. I welcome the report and what the Minister is trying to do, and I look forward to his White Paper.
4.59 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Unashamedly and unambiguously, I say that I would like to see three new nuclear power stations authorised, probably at Sizewell, Hunterston and Hinkley. Of course, the difficulty is the waste issue, as outlined by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). Therefore, I wish to press the question asked of the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), which was also mentioned by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), about the Finnish situation.
In Britain, we should all take note of the remarkable developments in nuclear energy in Finland, including the progress made in the storage and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste—for example, at the Olkiluoto plant.
Some 15 years ago, the Finns built a surface store to keep lifetime spent fuel safely for 50 years and 10 years ago they built a deep underground repository, sized to dispose of all the low and medium level waste products from lifetime operation. They have also selected the site for the ultimate disposal of all Finland's spent nuclear fuel and have parliamentary and local community support for it. People may wish to claim that no community in Britain would act like the Finns, but I think that people would do so in the area of Caithness and Dounreay, where they are familiar with the nuclear industry.
The Finns have reviewed their future energy needs and they have decided to build a new nuclear power station, for which they have got parliamentary and public support. Clearly the Finns have moved on from debate to implementation. They are demonstrating that solutions to the issues do exist. In the light of such progress elsewhere, why are we in Britain making such slow progress in dealing with the waste and the possibility of replacing our existing nuclear stations?
The House of Commons has shown this afternoon that it is more pro-nuclear power than I ever remember before. Members may think that they have to fill 10 minutes, but I would be content if the Minister would address the Finnish situation when he winds up. He may have to visit many other places, but he should buy a ticket to Helsinki and see what they are doing there.
5.3 pm
Bob Spink: As a responsible nation, we must move from a carbon-based economy to a hydrogen-based one. Only by retaining a nuclear option can we provide the stepping stone that we need to make that change successfully. A hydrogen-based economy is not yet a practical option—for instance, we need continued research and development into fuel cells—and we need time to reach a longer term solution. A reliable, safe, cheap, environmentally friendly, secure interim solution is not available now. We will have to compromise on some of the criteria, but we cannot sacrifice safety or our environment and, therefore, cost is under great pressure.
The PIU report predicts that gas could supply 70 per cent. of our total electricity needs by 2025, 90 per cent. of which will have to be imported from Russia, north Africa and the middle east, with all the obvious threats to security of supply and cost that that would entail. The suggestion that gas is an easy solution, and that we can be sanguine about our increased exposure to imported gas, is naive. Other hon. Members have called that total madness.
480
The Kyoto protocol sets the goal of a 50 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Renewables and energy savings, especially in the domestic market, must be energetically pursued and can make a sound contribution, but only at the margins. The real option for replacing the current 27 per cent. nuclear capacity is between new nuclear reactors, based of course on the best available safe and reliable technology with improved economy, or even more carbon, at a time when carbon emissions must be reduced.
Some Labour Members baulk at the word nuclear. They are averse to technology, but Lord Sainsbury—who I presume was speaking for the Government—said that it was most important to convince the public that the application of science and technology is the solution to the present problems, not the cause. He said:
"Persuading people to change their habits will have only a limited effect but it is the scientists and engineers"—
perhaps even the nuclear engineers—
"who will be mainly responsible for protecting our environment."
The belief that people will not change their habits conflicts with the PIU report's recommendation that we should aim for a 20 per cent. power saving in the domestic sector in only eight years, and for 40 per cent. in 18 years. Those targets are overly optimistic.
We need to follow Japan, which is committed to maintaining nuclear power. Like Finland and the US, Japan has a plan for long-term radioactive waste management. It has also committed itself to a major programme of research on nuclear fusion. It is a partner with the EU in the international thermonuclear experimental reactor.
We must hope that nuclear fusion will be the longer term solution, because it is potentially the most significant opportunity facing the scientific world today. Recent developments are encouraging. Physicists in the USA make claims—viable ones, I hope—to have created nuclear fusion through sonoluminescence or bubble fusion, using deuterated acetone. Other scientists have voiced doubts about that method and the truth will emerge from the current debate in good time.
There are other ways to create nuclear fusion. For example, the fast-ignition approach uses intense short-pulse energy to initiate fusion reactions. Those could be generated by the upgraded Vulcan laser at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory near Oxford, which could create temperatures and pressures comparable to those found inside the stars. That is exciting and—to some—frightening, but nuclear fusion offers an unlimited and safe energy source with no waste problems. It is a target for the whole world to aim at, in this blue sky debate.
Other hon. Members have mentioned waste problems, and I shall try to put them into context. If we decide to replace nuclear with nuclear, we would add only 5 to 10 per cent. to the existing stockpiles of nuclear waste that we need to manage regardless of the decision. Therefore waste is not a key issue in the debate, although it is an important problem that we need to tackle.
We have much of the technology to deal with nuclear waste but we have none of the political courage to make the decision to deal with it appropriately. The PIU report seeks, impossibly, to square a circle in advocating low cost and low carbon outputs. Those two are incompatible. It is granted that costs are currently very low—1.7p per kWh—

481
but to achieve those low costs we are running out our oldest, least efficient and dirtiest plants. Indeed, carbon emissions increased last year by 1.5 per cent. at a time when we are promising to reduce carbon emissions by a massive amount, and when global temperature in the first three months of this year was the highest ever. With parts of my constituency—Canvey Island, of which Members will have heard before—below sea level, global warming as a result of increased carbon emissions, which is causing sea levels to rise, is a matter of pragmatic concern. It is not an academic debate for my constituents—they live with it day to day.
Another key and difficult issue is that very low prices inhibit new investment, and, therefore, hold back the development of safer and cleaner technologies. Many commentators regard 2.7p per kWh as a more appropriate current price planning level. Even at that level, however, the private sector would be reluctant to finance innovative new technology such as the new nuclear plants that are now emerging—for instance, pebble bed reactors. Government support will be needed to ensure that we get medium-term energy supply that is secure, reliable, safe, environmentally friendly and as cheap as possible, consistent with those aforementioned criteria.
The PIU has avoided the obvious decision to replace nuclear with nuclear. It talks of 20 per cent. of energy coming from renewables by 2020. I believe that that is an unrealistic target. I suggest a future energy profile, an alternative to the PIU approach, using coal via gasification with CO2 sequestration, balanced with a third of generation from gas—that is just about manageable within our objectives of stability and security—with about 15 per cent. from renewables and savings. That would provide a realistic strategy. It would require the replacement, however, of the UK's existing nuclear capacity with the latest reactor technology, as David White of the Institute of Chemical Engineers has explained. That more balanced strategy is lower risk. It spreads our sources of energy evenly and creates a greater degree of self-sufficiency while we buy time as a nation to pursue the necessary research and development into new hydrogen-based technologies and improved renewables.
In summary, our current energy generation plant and technology is old, inefficient and in dire need of replacement. Our over-dependence on gas is not the answer; it is the soft, sloppy, dangerous option. It would put our supplies at security and cost risk and hand strategic control of our nation's energy to uncertain foreign powers in unstable areas of the world. The sensible solution is a balanced generation strategy, building up renewables to supply about 15 per cent. of our energy requirements, with one third produced from new coal technologies, one third from gas, and 20 to 25 per cent. from new reactor capacity. That is the courageous, and, if I may say so, the Churchillian vision—the rational interim solution. It provides an environmentally sound and geopolitically secure medium-term energy supply while we search for a—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
5.12 pm
Ms Debra Shipley: I am pleased to be called today because I want to explore the position of my Government regarding nuclear power, and to consider
482
some of the statements made by Ministers, including the Prime Minister, on the environment and renewables. In brief, the argument appears to be: we are running out of natural energy resources, CO2 is a problem, nuclear power is CO2-free, and renewables cannot meet out power requirements. Let me try to deal with some of those points.
Are we running out of natural energy? A statistical survey by the World Resources Institute of the world's mineral reserves predicted that, in 2050, we will have run out of oil and will have just two years' supply of gas left. Better news is that we will still have 380 years' supply of coal, but, of course, consumption of coal creates CO2, a major greenhouse gas. The same study suggested that we will run out of arsenic—very useful—cadmium, copper, gold, lead, sulphur, tin and zinc, and that recycling will be the only way to get hold of those primary elements.
Meanwhile, the world population is growing quickly. I will be one of 9 billion—not 6 billion—people on the planet. All 9 billion of us will aspire to living standards that Britain currently enjoys. Many visions of a dystopian future are offered to us: apocalypse by volcano, the coming global super storm, global warming, rising sea levels and warfare over diminishing stocks of fresh water and energy. Current nightmares are sparked by 11 September and dirty bombs. All that does not include things such as weird weather conditions and incoming asteroids.
It is important to remember how wrong most warnings have proved to be. In 1914, the US Bureau of Mines forecast that 10 years worth of oil was left. In 1951, the Department of the Interior predicted exhaustion of oil reserves by 1964. However, the overwhelming scientific evidence that we have suggests that global warming indeed exists and that it is a human creation. I therefore commend my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's timely foresight in reviewing our energy requirements. That review must be wide ranging.
For instance, the politics of some of the most unstable and illiberal regimes critically affect world raw material and energy reserves, and western involvement in the middle east is inextricably linked to the importation of energy. Oilfields and gas pipelines are central to the developed world's concern with Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the Gulf and the ex-Soviet states.
A book on the Taliban by Ahmed Rashid revealingly illustrates the existing and proposed oil and gas pipelines in the region and the oil and gasfields that they serve. The suggestion is that energy control is already playing a significant part in warfare on the supply side while, on the demand side of the equation, consumption, consumerism and economic growth seem addicted to using up diminishing energy resources. By 2050, Kyoto will seem to have been a muted wake-up call.
To survive in the current century in a comfortable and relatively peaceful way, we will need to make a supreme political effort and engage in global co-operation. Dystopia is extremely easy to create. The real struggle will be trying to create the conditions for our continued long-term existence. We will have to do so with less, and harvest the sun, wind, rain, tides and energy stored in the core of the earth.

483
What is the Government's position? In response to my question on the environmental impact of the proposed European energy market, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister illustrated the current dilemmas. He said:
"We have made it clear that at the same time as opening up the energy market, we must push forward on energy efficiency and fulfilling the Kyoto targets. We are well aware that opening up the market may benefit consumers on price but that it is important to take other measures on energy efficiency that are necessary for the environment."
Later in the reply, he stated the current orthodoxy:
"All the evidence that I read week after week suggests that climate change has become a more serious rather than a less serious issue. It is essential that the Governments of the world face up to its seriousness."—[Official Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 30.]
I could not agree more.
I have since asked a series of parliamentary questions on renewable energy to see the state of play of the Government's commitment to alternative energy sources. I received a reply from the Department of Trade and Industry to my question about the renewables obligation. It said:
"The renewables obligation will require licensed electricity suppliers to demonstrate through a system of renewables obligation certificates (ROCS) that they have brought a specified proportion of their electricity from renewable sources. Alternatively, suppliers may meet their obligation through the independent market purchase of ROCs."—[Official Report, 25 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 704W.]
That is interesting.
I welcome the creation of demand for renewables, however small, and I suggest that it is very small. Furthermore, £260 million over three years to March 2004 is proposed to be spent directly on support for renewable energy initiatives. Again, I welcome that, but proportionately it is a very small sum.
I also asked the DTI how it would ensure that sustainable energy and realistic pricing would not increase fuel poverty. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction said:
"The Government will continue with actions to put downward pressure on prices. The Government's Fuel Poverty Strategy also sets out a range of programmes to improve the energy efficiency of homes of the fuel poor."—[Official Report, 25 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 694—5W.]
In the same reply, however, there was an implication that energy prices would rise. I am therefore not totally reassured that my poorer Stourbridge constituents will be protected from increasing fuel poverty, but I am pleased that some of them have already benefited from the warm homes initiative to insulate their properties.
I also welcome the planning Green Paper, which made several references to sustainability in its introduction. However, sustainability is not embedded in the proposals.
Construction creates nearly half the harmful pollutants that now concern us. It also depletes natural resources and the countryside. My recommendation to the planning Green Paper was that there should be separate statements about the sustainability of any development and that they should include statements on the embodied energy of chosen materials, life cycle costs, adjacency of public transport, car use and pollution generated by use.
484
The previous Minister for Planning and Housing assured me in writing that the omission will be rectified in the White Paper. I am pleased to put his response on record. He said:
"I can offer definite assurance…We now recognise that the Green Paper did not emphasise sustainability sufficiently. Therefore we intend to set out a statutory purpose for planning that will put sustainability at the heart, of the system. We want planning to promote environmental quality, sustainable economic development and social inclusion."
I will be most interested to see how the Government do.
Furthermore, excellent design can meet stringent environmental designs. One of the current awards by the Royal Institute of British Architects is for a barn conversion by Hudson Featherstone that limits materials to those available within a five-mile radius. It is possible to reduce energy expended in construction in a simple and direct way. Energy wasted in construction and in the use of buildings is only just beginning to be tightened in new building regulations. The move to limit the generation of CO2 by domestic buildings could have a significant impact. Dr. Susan Roaf built a suburban house in Oxford using existing technology to reduce the amount of CO2 produced to around 150 kg per annum from the average of 6,500 kg for a comparable conventional house.
The nuclear option ignores two things: the dangerous waste products that are created and the intrinsic threat that nuclear power stations now pose as terrorist targets. What does exist requires generations of political stability, which is unrealistic. In addition, 11 September demonstrated the potential vulnerability of nuclear plants.
The existing nuclear programme is coming to the end of its life, and maintaining a nuclear component for energy production means building new power stations. Private money has yet to be attracted to the lifetime costs of construction, disposal and, importantly, the decommissioning of nuclear power stations. It is an expensive, insecure, uncertain and hazardous option. By contrast, if every dwelling in this country came just part of the way to meet the CO, reductions of the Roaf house, nuclear power would become an irrelevant option. We must consider how much more secure a country is if it is full of dwellings that act as micro-power stations, each self-sufficient in an emergency.
Every surface of every man-made object, from roads to buildings, could collect energy from the sun. Solar trains could have massive collectors on their backs and run on rails ballasted by solar collecting rocks. That is not a utopian dream. It is a real option and we have the nascent technology for it. For example, Marks Barfield Architects, designers of the London Eye, has just won an architectural competition for a solar collecting walkway in Cambridge to power electrical shuttle buses. That uses a developing painted, not manufactured, technology.
Many hon. Members who contributed to the debate have nuclear interests in their constituencies and they rightly pressed their constituents' concerns. I have no such nuclear interests and my constituents probably have different views. I cannot do better than quote from Mr. Lea Williams, who wrote:
"As one of your constituents I am writing to ask you to join me"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I have to cut him, and the hon. Lady, off.
5.23 pm
Adam Price: I congratulate the Government on at least resurrecting the notion of having an energy policy; the previous Administration largely left it to the vicissitudes of the marketplace. I also welcome the fact that the Government are taking a long-term approach to energy trends and are seeking to combine economic and environmental objectives. Having said that, I take issue with some parts of the energy review, although I realise that it is meant as a platform for debate. Following the lead of the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), I will focus principally on the role that the coal industry could play in meeting the Government's objectives of security, diversity and sustainability.
The energy review is a little complacent about the risks of disruption to energy supplies, as hon. Members explained. It observes that the UK will be heavily reliant on gas imports, but does not regard that as too much of a problem. It notes that the gas grid can be disrupted by disabling a relatively small number of key points—landing points—and that the effects could be dramatic. The review largely ignores the risks, however, and it seems that it was written before 11 September. As the report notes, coal is at much less risk of such disruption.
In general, the report highlights the importance of diversity as a means of ensuring security, but it is silent on how that should be achieved. We have heard from several hon. Members about the consequences of falling gas reserves in the UK. Over the past eight years, the remaining lifetime of our gas reserves has fallen by 19 years, so we are obviously using them much faster than they are being replenished. As a consequence, we are increasingly reliant on gas imports. It is estimated that Gazprom in Russia and the Iranian national oil company control almost half of the global gas reserves. The knowledge that the future custodians of our energy security are a company allegedly run by the Russian mafia and another run by Islamic fundamentalists does not inspire much confidence in anyone.
The UK is at the end of a very long pipeline that passes through many countries, which means that we are subject to the highest transportation costs and the greatest risk of supply interruption. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned the Californian blackout. The report recognises the significance of that experience and the need for incentives for investment to prevent the same thing from happening here. However, although it says that the UK should learn from that mistake, it is silent about what should be the consequences for policy options.
Coal clearly offers long-term security and diversity of supply at an affordable cost, and the report acknowledges that. Coal reserves in the UK are far greater than those of gas and oil. At the current usage rate, we have at least 50 years of reserves. Coal is a defensive fuel in terms of security of supply because it is plentiful, it is cheap and it is available from a variety of sources. UK producers of deep-mine coal are able to compete on the world market if current subsidies are taken into account. The cost of coal production in the UK compares very favourably with that of other EU producers.
We have heard about the prospects for investment in clean-coal technology, which will enable us to replace the current, ageing coal-fired stations with far more efficient and environmentally friendly capacity, while sustaining
486
diversity. However, that will clearly not happen without Government support. We need to ensure that we invest in new technologies such as clean-coal combustion and the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide. It should be noted that, globally, the demand for coal is still growing, and we could make a positive contribution to the reduction in CO2 emissions precisely by investing in clean-coal technology. As global demand continues to grow at about 2 per cent. a year, we could ensure that it does not damage the environment through CO2 emissions.
Ensuring diversity and security of supply means that we must protect the indigenous coal industry. One of the worrying factors over the past few years has been the increasing competition caused by coal imports. Imports of steam coal rose from 8 million tonnes in 1996 to over 14 million tonnes just four years later. The Minister talked about keeping the options open with the nuclear industry, but if we are to keep the options open for the domestic coal industry we must take a long-term view. If the remaining deep-mine pits close, those assets will be permanently sterilised. The coal industry faces high set-up costs and relatively low marginal costs, and if supply exceeds demand, investment will be affected in the short term, so we need to look to the long term.
Finally, I should mention my constituency and the specialist coal produced there, anthracite, which is not widely available on world markets. The anthracite industry is important to the domestic heating market in a number of specialist applications. The only alternative sources of anthracite are China and Vietnam, which present particular problems with security of supply.
I have some sympathy with the Minister, who is continually bombarded by various sectional interests, some of which we have heard in the debate. He should be lauded for taking an open-minded and balanced view of the potential role of the various sources of energy. I was grateful to hear his reply to the intervention from the hon. Member for Doncaster, North about the hypothetical six-month gap, which we hope will be closed shortly. I look forward to welcoming the Minister on his visit to Betws colliery, and I hope that there will shortly be an announcement from the Government about continued support for the coal industry.
5.30 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: I, too, welcome the debate. It is important that the House should have the opportunity of putting its view on the record before the Minister reaches his conclusions in reply to the PIU report. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) showed us clearly why we must develop an energy policy that is considerate of the environment.
I shall develop three points. First, any balanced energy policy takes account of the environment. I support the coal option rather than the nuclear option, and I believe that the coal option addresses the environment argument. Secondly, there is a great danger of UK over-dependence on gas. Thirdly, the coal industry can make its contribution to the UK economy. It can be a competitive and sustainable industry, provided that we get a coal-aid scheme that deals with the investment aspect. I was encouraged by the Minister's comments. From the negotiations in which he has taken part in Brussels, it seems that we will get an aid package that focuses on

487
investment in the coal industry. I shall discuss some of the features that I think should be included in that aid package.
On the environment, it is clear that, as other hon. Members have said, there needs to be a fall in CO2 emissions. We must meet our Kyoto and other international obligations. However, it is worth pointing out to the House that between 1990 and 1994, there was a fall of 18.5 per cent. in carbon emissions in the UK. That was the result of the massive colliery closure programme and the cut in some of the coal generating plant. In a bizarre way, it shows that mining communities have already made their contribution to the environment argument.
There are at present four coal-burning power stations fitted with flue gas desulphurisation, and I understand that another six stations are likely to be equipped with FGD. That short to medium-term option gives us the opportunity to address the long-term issue. Over the next 10 to 20 years, we will require more than 10 GW of replacement for nuclear stations and coal stations. We need to concentrate on clean coal technology to replace those stations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to IGCC as the technology that should be replacing coal-fired stations. He is correct. The Minister should aim high and that means going for the best that is available. He should consider the current support for clean-coal technology and how we might improve it. The current level of assistance for research and development is £17 million over five years, but that is insufficient. We should consider how we can improve the assistance that we give to clean-coal technology. I believe that IGCC, the gasification way, is the way to the future.
The PIU report refers to an increase of about 20 per cent. in the use of renewables by 2020. We must take that route, but at the same time, we should take into account the fact that renewables are not the whole answer. They are costly, which means that we will need a cheaper supply of electricity to subsidise their development. Again, the energy source that could be used to subsidise investment in renewables is clean-coal technology. I refer the Minister to the International Energy Agency, which recently said that the one option that would reduce CO2 was gasification. It referred to IGCC technology rather than renewables. Indeed, it added that the use of such technology would reduce CO2 faster than investment in renewables. I hope that he will consider that aspect.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Clapham: I am sorry, but we are tied to speeches of only 10 minutes, and I want to make my points.
My second point relates to gas and the increasing over-dependency on it. In 1990, no gas was burned off in power stations, but today, a third of our electricity is generated by gas. The decision made in 1989 to allow gas to be used in power stations was wrong, but it is a matter of history and we must now deal with the consequences. Three years ago, the gas interconnector allowed suppliers to push their gas down into Europe, chasing the higher
488
prices. They pulled UK prices in train behind them. The fact that prices began to increase attracted investment in generating capacity, and the result is overcapacity.
I refer the Minister to the cost of the pipeline from Russia to the European national grid, which will be of the scale of 35 billion euros. I understand that the trans-European network will take another 26 billion euros of investment. In comparison, the infrastructure for transporting coal to our power stations is already in place. World coal production is now in excess of 4.5 billion tones—and that comes from secure sources of production. We should start seriously to consider investing more in clean coal technology, because the source for supplying our electricity is there, safe and secure.
I want to make one point about the gas network. I understand that Coalpro commissioned a study by a military expert and has made the report available to the Government. It shows that the detonation of a bomb placed in the UK network could disrupt about half our gas supply. We must bear it in mind that the supply of gas is vulnerable to terrorist attack.
The coal industry contributes about £1 billion to the economy annually. It is small compared with its previous size, but it is a large national and regional player. In Yorkshire, it contributes about £400 million per annum to the regional economy. Mining machinery manufacturers contribute about £35 million. There has been investment in the industry and we have high-tech collieries. However, we need an investment package of aid that will include certain features. One of the main features should be the inclusion of the Coal Authority—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order.
5.41 pm
Mr. Peter Duncan: I welcome the debate, which gives us the opportunity to examine in detail the Government's current energy policy, their review and the implications for the future. I question in passing whether 2050 is the right date for the title of the debate. The issues that I shall outline will require Government action much sooner than that time scale would imply. Some decisions need to be taken now to cover our short and medium-term objectives while securing the United Kingdom's long-term future energy needs.
The debate is also appropriate as we contemplate continuing change in the balance of our energy mix. During the 1950s, almost 90 per cent. of fuel used in the UK was coal. By 2000, that had declined to only 15 per cent. There were major increases in the use of natural gas and oil. Over 50 years, the combination of natural gas and nuclear generation grew to account for more than 65 per cent. of power created. The past 50 years have seen huge changes in the mix, and we should not underestimate our opportunity to make significant changes by 2050.
Without change in energy policy, the UK will become increasingly reliant on natural gas imports. We face being dependent on a single fuel to an extent never before experienced. According to industry consultants Wood Mackenzie, in its report to the Department of Trade and Industry in 1998, it expected the UK to become a net importer of gas any time between 2003 and 2009. It reported that by 2020 the UK may need to import between 55 and 90 per cent. of its gas requirements. The major

489
emerging exporters that will then be keen to exploit the commercial opportunity are Russia, the middle east and north Africa. Put simply, our security of supply will be in question, and supply will certainly be subject to price manipulation in future.
The House will be aware that we have the opportunity to change what seems to be a worrying prospect. Expansion of the renewables sector is perhaps the most media-friendly and certainly the most environmentally acceptable alternative together with promoting continued energy efficiency programmes. However, the objective must be a secure, sustainable and deliverable supply that enjoys consumer support, is environmentally friendly and cost-effective. That will not occur automatically. The Government need to make it happen.
I regret that the Government are prone to putting off decision making to such an extent that existing nuclear stations face imminent demise. Renewables will be unable to fill that gap. It is inevitable that the gap will be filled predominantly by imported natural gas. Even the Minister estimates that the UK will become a net importer of gas by 2005, and points out that we already import natural gas during periods of high demand. We face being highly vulnerable to international price variations.
The Government have set a target of securing 10 per cent. of electricity from the renewable sector by 2010. I sincerely hope that that target will be met. I am delighted that Scotland in general, and my constituency in particular, has the potential to make a significant contribution towards its achievement. Galloway's existing wind turbine scheme at Windy Standard has been a huge success. Interestingly, it has enjoyed its most vocal support from the communities closest to it. Proposals are now going forward for its extension, and I compliment those involved on the sympathetic way in which they have developed their scheme. Notwithstanding the Minister's earlier reassurance, I would point out that the Ministry of Defence consistently remains the biggest single obstacle to these new schemes.
My constituency also faces plans to host one of the new offshore wind farms for Scotland, with proposals being put forward by TXU to build on the Solway Firth, some nine kilometres from the Colvend course. This has understandably elicited considerable public interest, and I have suggested that such a scheme, located, as it is, adjacent to a national scenic area, deserves a full public inquiry. That would enable a proper, full and frank debate on the merits of the proposal. On my recent visit to Denmark—the acknowledged world leader in wind energy—people whom I spoke to revealed that they would not have chosen such a location for this kind of offshore scheme. However, I trust the Scottish Executive, as the ultimate arbiter on planning matters north of the border, to make the right decision after proper scrutiny.
There are also questions about the additional costs involved in developing the infrastructure to distribute the wind energy generated. As is common in most renewable projects in Scotland, the ideal sites are rarely in the ideal places for the national grid. Power Systems, for example, has raised with me its concern that adequate incentives are not yet in place for investment in and development of the renewable energy infrastructure. Indeed, its planned investments have often been ruled out of order by the industry regulator.
490
Scotland faces a new devolved landscape in energy policy. Plans for fossil fuel and nuclear power generation are set by the UK Government, while those for renewables, the environment, and, crucially, consents for power stations are set by the Scottish Executive. There is clear potential for conflicts of interest and confusion, which was considerably added to by our debate in the House on 5 March 2002. On that occasion, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister who is with us today failed to resolve the issue over which Parliament would make the final decision if a nuclear plant was welcomed in Westminster, but planning consent was withheld by Holyrood.
At present, Scotland has a relatively balanced mix of fossil fuel, nuclear, and renewable power sources, together with oil and gas reserves from the North sea. We are currently a net exporter of electricity, although planned plant closures on nuclear sites such as Chapelcross in Dumfries and Galloway indicate that that position could be reversed before the end of the next decade unless new builds on old sites such as Chapelcross can be Government-led.
Scotland has the potential to exploit its geography and become a centre of excellence in all existing and emerging forms of renewable energy. Even the Danes look at the Scottish coastline with envy when contemplating wind and wave developments. The Scottish Executive have recently announced their programme to develop the market, but action is required from central Government to make that happen.
Taxation is reserved, and, as a result, the main mechanisms for encouraging the development of these new technologies remain in the control of Westminster. It is a matter of regret that, in the Chancellor's April budget, he announced a 10 per cent. supplementary charge on the UK's oil and gas production. However, this presents us with an opportunity. The Danish Government saw the strategic advantage of investing in wind power development and research in the late 1960s and 1970s. They created an industry in which they became world-beaters, and now, some 30 years later, it employs 40,000 people in that country.
Surely, by directing a small proportion of the supplementary charge on oil towards renewables research, we too could become world leaders by exploiting fully the economic and environmental potential of the next generation of renewable energy. Wave and tidal power, along with the biogas and biomass industries, are still in the early stages of development. Further Government commitment to investment in research could reap huge rewards for employment in our most vulnerable rural communities.
Nuclear plants remain the backbone of our electricity production, and urgent decisions need to be taken by the Government to encourage their replacement as successive plants approach decommissioning. Failure to do so will further expose the UK consumer to the vagaries of the international natural gas market—a risk that Ministers are duty-bound to address urgently.
This has been an important and balanced debate.
Mr. Wilson: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point, there is no ambiguity about where planning powers for nuclear new build in Scotland would lie. They would lie with the devolved Parliament.
Mr. Duncan: I thank the Minister. I simply observe that, if he reads the debate on 5 March, he will see that it was far from clear.
We must remain focused on a balanced future for UK energy production. Anything less would leave us all in the dark.
5.50 pm
Mr. Patrick Hall: I am pleased to contribute to a debate in which hon. Members from both sides have revealed great enthusiasm for and expertise in a crucial subject with far-reaching implications. I acknowledge the respect that the Minister has shown for the House by remaining in his place for almost all the debate. He has made his point by remaining for so long.
In thinking about energy policy towards 2050, we are also invited to think about the world that we would like to see in 50 years' time, or, as I would be in my 99th year by then, the world that we would like to hand on to our children and to future generations.
The Minister set out the context of the debate. Clearly, there is no shortage of information, reports, interest or research. The record shows that there have been a number of well-informed debates in the House on these matters. That is as it should be and it is understandable because the production and use of energy is fundamental to human activity.
Energy is a crucial and highly political issue. It is central to the economy, and has a significant impact on the environment. It affects every one of us, and has the potential to affect all living things for good or for ill. Energy policy helps to shape society and the world in which we live. Access to energy raises questions of social justice and social equity. Civil nuclear power also has a bearing on the secrecy that Governments want to impose on society, and on the nature and activities of security and surveillance services.
In thinking about the world in 50 years' time, it is uncontentious to look to a world in which energy is produced in a sustainable and efficient manner with the minimum of pollution, in which supplies are secure, accessible and affordable to all, and in which innovation is welcome. In thinking about the next 50 years, I am drawn to reflect about the past 50. That period saw the dramatic demise of coal, which was our major, historic, commercial energy source even though we still have well over 300 years of supplies in the ground untouched. We have seen the rise and the peaking of North sea oil and gas, and we have witnessed the rise and, it would seem, the fall of nuclear power. The energy utilities have changed from the might of the publicly owned Central Electricity Generating Board, and to many private and foreign-owned companies that provide our electricity. We have seen the privatisation of British Petroleum, and the end of the National Coal Board. We have seen the relentless and massive increase in road transport, which is now the major user of oil and the major producer of pollution and greenhouse gases. We have had the Gulf war over oil supplies, the shocks produced by the 1973 OPEC-forced oil price rise, and the widespread panic buying that was triggered by a small group of people who sought to bring down the Government by blockading petrol supplies in September 2000. We have also witnessed incidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which helped to bring down nuclear power.
492
Significantly, our modern economy has broken the historic link between gross domestic product growth and energy growth, as we have changed from having a heavy industrial base to there being a greater role for service industry, together with greater energy efficiency. Now, by sharp contrast with 50 years ago, we are members of the European Union. and I have every confidence that we will remain members of the EU in 50 years' time.
Three key elements of the proposed long-term EU energy policy provide a framework for the future: security of supply, environmental protection and competitiveness. The lessons of the past suggest that we should be cautious about simplistic campaigns on future energy policy. At different times in the past 50 or 60 years, we have been told that the future is coal; the future is oil; the future is nuclear; the future is gas. Now it is tempting to say the future is renewables.
Renewables have a huge role to play in fulfilling a range of desirable objectives. I would like to believe that the future is renewables, but to get there we cannot just switch off nuclear power stations. There is a big gap between the run-down of the old nuclear capacity and the point at which renewables could take over. We should not seek to close off the possibility, which the European Union is exploring, that future innovation might deliver nuclear fusion. However we look at it, renewables, together with greater efficiency and conservation, must play a significant role. Until now, British Governments have been reluctant to get going. Even now, there is a long way to go.
However, provided that there is leadership from Government, much will be delivered locally. Bedford and Kempston, which I have the honour of representing, need to play their part as does every other area of the country. Bedford was wisely selected by BP as the first place where solar photovoltaic systems were installed on two new petrol stations. At Little Barford on the Bedfordshire-Cambridgeshire border, Innogy has built Britain's first industrial-scale megawatt regenerative battery, which represents a breakthrough in electricity storage and opens exciting possibilities for the more efficient and widespread use of renewables such as wind power.
In the middle of the county, the considerable landfill capacity in worked-out clay pits, which supply the local brick-manufacturing industry, produces a great deal of methane gas which is used to generate 29 MW—enough electricity to meet the needs of 30,000 people. That fits in neatly with plans to build a new settlement for 10,000 people at Elstow in Bedfordshire which will incorporate high energy standards—higher than those required by current building regulations—as well as combined heat and power fuelled by landfilled methane and, in future, by biomass based on forestry waste from the adjoining new national forest. There is a great deal of enthusiasm locally for those initiatives, which in turn have given impetus to the search for local opportunities for sustainable energy measures driven by the local Agenda 21 process.
In looking ahead to 2050, many complex issues are involved. A key requirement is the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. When making investment decisions, we are all familiar with the concept of economic payback time. In assessing future energy policy, we should enhance our ability to decide the best way to proceed by exploring the idea of energy payback

493
time. The relative savings of carbon dioxide associated with different types of electricity generator are clearly of great importance. Renewables and nuclear fuel do not produce carbon dioxide. Indeed, the nuclear power industry has gone on the offensive to point out that it does not contribute to global warming—a point that I made to the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) earlier.
However, we cannot make a proper calculation unless we account for the carbon dioxide produced in making a generator, building it, running it, decommissioning it and dealing with the waste. Research on those matters suggests, for example, that photovoltaic panels have an energy payback time of two years or a little more. A new nuclear energy plant needs to produce energy for at least 10 years before it has paid back the CO2 produced in its manufacture and construction. That is an important concept, and it could be a useful tool. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government to explore and to develop it, so that we are better informed and better able to make rational decisions about the best systems for the future.
6 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I commend the performance and innovation unit report. It gave not just a good canter around energy issues, but a good sense of strategic direction. It made it clear that although affordable energy was an essential driver, there are a lot of risks. Among those risks, one is pre-eminent: global warming and the need for a low-carbon economy.
The report dealt with security of supply in an intelligent, unemotional and balanced way. It brought out the fact that there are good arguments in relation to security of supply, which we must deal with, but there are also rather disreputable arguments, which are fundamentally economically nationalist and protectionist. I think that we had a bit of that from the Welsh Nationalist and from the Conservative spokesman, who was particularly striking as he was talking about free trade yesterday, but not today.
There was a helpful contribution from the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), who made a distinction between different types of energy security. It is worth while breaking them down. One has nothing to do with Russian gangsters and Arab fundamentalists. It is about how to manage the relationship between the producer, the consumer and the regulators—the California problem: how to create an environment where energy producers can invest as, say, oil companies do over 30, 40 or 50 years in gas projects or, for a big new power station, over a decade or more, when consumers are looking for short-term advantage; and how to balance those issues. It is the job of the regulator to do that by creating an environment in which one can have long-term contracts. There is a genuine issue that Mr. McCarthy is familiar with but has not yet fully solved.
There is a second problem, a different issue: disruption of production. There can be disruption of production for a variety of reasons: technical reasons, failures in the grid, man-made disruption—as we had with the energy blockade a couple of years ago—and disruption of raw material supplies from overseas. However, there is a solution: if there are risks and they can be quantified, one builds up strategic reserves. One of the lessons of the
494
blockade two years ago was that the oil companies and the Government had not correctly built up the right level of strategic reserves.
There is a third type of energy security issue, again a different one, which is about price shocks. The problem is that we are not economically an island. The fact that a country has indigenous oil and gas does not protect it from oil and gas shocks internationally. The Brent crude price is linked to the middle east price. There is an international gas price and an international coal price. Having indigenous production does not insulate us from those factors.
When we talk about energy security of supply, we need to be more specific about what time horizons we are talking about. That is crucial. I go back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said. The debate should focus on 50 years from now, when the world will be very different. It will be dominated by renewable energy and major advances in energy efficiency, possibly things such as carbon sequestration, which would in the long term be the future of the coal industry. Many of the worries people are expressing are not about that period half a century on, but about the intermediate position, when we have a relatively high proportion of gas in the electricity mix. A lot of those security issues surround that precise issue.
There is a high percentage of gas in the electricity input for good reasons. It has been competing with coal on price because it is cleaner, emits less sulphur and emits 60 per cent. of the carbon dioxide. It is competing with nuclear power on economic grounds because nuclear power has environmental risks, so there are good reasons why gas has that position, at least in the medium term. A lot of the negative comments about gas are misconceived. I make two brief points about it.
The first is the running out of supplies issue. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) made some helpful historical points. We always underestimate the availability of reserves. In the oil and gas industry, constant exploration takes place. There is horizontal drilling and deep-water drilling. No one knows how much gas and oil there is west of Shetland in the deep continental shelf. All the current estimates of supplies could be way out. They constantly have to be revised.
The more important point is that the sophistication and robustness of the international gas business and market has been underestimated. Several of the many pipelines that exist are in north Africa, which represents just one corner of the business. There are also pipelines going through Spain, Italy, Algeria and Russia. Although Algeria has experienced a civil war and Russia has been through a period of upheaval, such events have had not the slightest impact on the supply of gas from those countries. Gas is increasingly supplied by boat and liquefied natural gas carriers, rather than through pipelines. Various means of supply therefore exist within the gas industry itself. Although we must be responsible and think about the threat of terrorism and so on, alarmist talk about it has been wildly exaggerated.
In the very long term, gas must of course be phased out, but because it is a carbon-based fuel rather than because of foreign suppliers. The reason why gas will have to go is that some 60 per cent. of the molecule by weight is carbon. In due course, it will have to be replaced by renewables. We should focus on creating a set of

495
incentives through which renewables can be brought onstream rapidly, and in the right manner. The way to do that is to create a level playing field and send the right signals by establishing a carbon tax and a renewables obligation. We should not try to pick winners, or be highly prescriptive about which renewables will be competitive in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years' time, because we do not know the answer.
Yesterday, the European Commission produced a particularly daft initiative: a biofuels directive that establishes a renewables obligation specifically for biomass. Perhaps biomass is the fuel of the future—I have no idea—but to narrow the field in that way is to adopt completely the wrong approach. In establishing a very strong long-term commitment to renewables, we must accept that we do not yet know which are the fuels of the future. A strong argument exists, therefore, for diversity and variety and for having an open mind about which fuels will come through in the long term.
6.7 pm
Paddy Tipping: The title of today's debate—"Energy: Towards 2050"—shows clearly that we are talking about long-term policies. Our discussions and decisions in the coming months and years will have real consequences for the economic activity, living standards and—perhaps most importantly—environment of our children.
I welcome the performance and innovation unit's report and the vigorous debate that is taking place. I want to focus on two key issues raised in the report, one of which is the prospect of cheap energy. Indeed, in his foreword to the report, the Prime Minister says:
"Securing cheap reliable and sustainable sources of energy supply has long been a major concern for government…Electricity prices are now cheaper than ten years ago."
He is of course right, but the conditions have changed. The days of cheap energy and cheap electricity are perhaps behind us. There are various reasons why energy is cheap at the moment, but by and large the practical reasons have disappeared.
There is an issue of principle here. We have discussed the need to invest in new plant and new equipment, but the notions of cheapness and of investment in the future do not sit easily together. One current problem in the nuclear industry is that of replacing nuclear with nuclear, which has not only environmental but cost implications. Power stations that produce electricity from coal are aged and need replacing, and by definition, higher prices will lead to a focus on conservation. I am therefore sceptical of the notion of cheap energy that underpins the report. Indeed, the renewables obligation belies that notion, because it clearly acknowledges that we must pay more for sources of renewable energy.
Another vital issue raised in the PIU report is the notion of a balanced energy policy. I feel that the report is complacent on that score. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) spoke of the importance of gas. I do not deny its importance, but I think that it would be risky in the long term to allow 70 per cent. of our energy supply to depend on gas, 90 per cent. of it from abroad. by 2020.
496
The Minister spoke emphatically of the need for a balanced energy policy. I want him to trust his own judgment, because the PIU report was made to and not by the Government. I hope that the voices we have heard here today calling strongly for a balanced energy policy will be heeded.
All sources of energy involve difficulties. The hon. Member for Twickenham, who produced a vigorous defence of gas, pointed out that in the long term there were sure to be problems, although they might not be as serious as we think. Although I support them, I consider the targets for renewables very challenging: I anticipate real difficulties in our achieving 10 per cent. by 2010 and 20 per cent. by 2020.
Planning issues have been mentioned, but there are other key problems with the transmission system: recyclables, or renewables, will require a different system. As has been said, the most important issue for the nuclear industry is the cost of disposal and decommissioning, which the private sector alone will not be able to meet.
That brings me to coal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) said, coal is an old friend. It has done its business over the years. It is indigenous and reliable. The problem is that it is not clean.
The coal industry has short-term difficulties, mid-term prospects and long-term environmental constraints. Let me tell the Minister how delighted I was with the coal aid operating scheme. I am extremely pleased that a new European Union framework has been established. It must, however, be translated into a United Kingdom context, and it is vital for that to happen by January, because, as the Minister knows, the current subsidy scheme runs out on 23 July. I am very keen on the notion of bridging, and I heard the Minister say that he would consider it on a case-by-case basis, but I think the industry needs more clarity.
The idea of investment aid, which is part of the new EU framework, is very important. I know it has been difficult to negotiate with partners, but it is good that for the first time we shall be investing in the long term—in new faces and new seams. At Clipstone colliery, for instance, there is a desire to access the black shale, at a cost of perhaps £20 million. There is a possibility of £6 million in support, which would be vital in the mid term.
In the long term, we need to do more to make coal environmentally friendly. It pains me a great deal that we in the United Kingdom spend less on clean-coal research than is spent in Japan, which has no coal industry. I hope the spending review will acknowledge that, and will make a move on clean coal technology.
It is vital to consider carbon sequestration, which, as has been said, involves real problems but is a source of help for the future. I would like to see a demonstration plant. I would like to see the public and private sectors working together. I would like to see coal producers and generators establish a clean coal plant. As we have heard today, coal is a growing fuel throughout the world—so we can demonstrate new technology and sell it across the world. We can sell it to China and India: it can be a world leader.
We need to consider other issues, too. Coal-mine methane is a legacy of the coal industry, and if we can tackle it, we will be in a win-win situation—it is a pollutant, but we can get energy from it. We made

497
progress in this year's Finance Bill, but it is vital to go further. Methane from landfill is covered by the renewables obligation, but coal-mine methane is not. That issue is being tackled in debates on the Finance Bill at the moment, and I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the amendments that have been tabled, as they would provide an easy way out that would cost the Government nothing.
I hope that the Minister will also think about combined heat and power. He did accept that there were problems, but those problems are very real. Not only will we not achieve our target in 2010, but we have not yet achieved our 2000 target. Again, the renewables obligation for exported electricity and CHP plants, along with other measures, needs to be considered very carefully.
I want to say a few words about different forms of renewable energy sources. Biofuels are very important, and again, progress has been made. Biomass has real environmental benefits as a source of fuel; it is also good for wildlife. We should focus on biomass, but we should also look at the liquid fuels, such as biodiesel and bioethanol. Again, progress has been made in this year's Finance Bill—the rate of duty on biodiesel has been reduced by 20 per cent.—but it ought to be put on the same basis as hydrogen-based liquid fuels such as LPG, which benefit from a 40 per cent. rebate.
It is important that we make further progress in that direction. We need to do better. We need to ensure that we have an energy policy that has good consequences for our children: it must be balanced, and it must recognise the importance of the environment.
6.17 pm
Richard Younger-Ross: My constituents are particularly aware of the importance of this debate in two ways. They are aware of the problems of climate change. The main line from London to Penzance passes along the sea wall between Dawlish and Teignmouth, and services have frequently been interrupted in recent winters by severe storms. We are only too well aware that if the sea level rises by half a metre or a metre, the closures on that line will be more dramatic and more regular. It is clear that we need to act to cut CO2.
We are also aware that there are solutions. At Newton Abbott we have an excellent company called Centrax, which tries to make and market combined heat and power units. I use the word "tries" because although the company makes excellent units, it is not helped by the Government's legislation at the moment.
Do the Government recognise either of those issues? The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs clearly recognises the first. On 26 April she said:
"research tells us that the effects of climate change in the UK are likely to be sharper and stronger than many people originally thought."
Does she recognise the solutions? On 15 May, in the foreword to the CHP consultation document, she said:
"The Government is committed to a sustainable approach to energy that reflects the environmental, social and economic impacts of both its supply and use."
She went on to say:
"Combined Heat and Power…has a vital role to play in achieving this."
So why have market conditions for CHP been worse in the past 18 months than for a decade?
498
The Combined Heat and Power Association says that that is largely due to the impact of the new NETA electricity market and the loss of local generators. The net effect has been the loss of more than 1,500 jobs directly from the industry, the virtual collapse of new CHP investment and the departure from the CHP industry of major companies, including Powergen, Innogy, Northern Electric and Scottish Power. The Government's formal target of 10,000 MW of CHP by 2010—the current capacity is only 4,600 MW—will be difficult to achieve unless those issues are addressed. Their carbon targets have already been undermined: carbon dioxide emissions have risen during the past two years.
The CHPA and its member companies have been lobbying the Treasury and other Departments to support the industry in order to balance the impact of the unfair market conditions under NETA. I know that the Government have listened to representations about the climate change levy, but they have not yet acknowledged the need to reform the NETA agreement.
The full climate change levy exemption has been welcomed by the CHP industry as a much needed shot in the arm, after two years of unrelenting damage to its prospects. The CCL exemption for power exports will assist companies exporting significant electricity as part of the design of their CHP system or those which need to import and export power to meet the energy needs of their customers during the year. The full exemption will especially help the food and horticulture industries, hospitals using CHP and major industrial sites serving a number of customers.
However, as I pointed out earlier, not everyone is helped by the CCL. Some people are counting on reform of NETA. The CHPA argues that other measures will be needed if we are to accelerate new CHP investment. Such measures include removing the unfair balancing penalties under NETA for CHP and wind power, extending enhanced capital allowances to improve finance-based leasing, and introducing arrangements for CHP similar to those for renewables.
CHP needs to secure financial benefit for the carbon savings that it delivers. That will help to get the industry moving again and could deliver the Government's CHP target. The CHPA has submitted a NETA action plan to the Government. When the Minister sums up the debate, will he address the following points from the plan? The CHPA calls for
"fair access for small generators and consolidators to all markets and revenue streams; proportional transaction costs; a single cash-out price; removal of the barrier to new market entry imposed by imbalance risk especially during plant commissioning; the end to conflict between industry codes, including restrictions on 'self-balancing' under the Grid Code that affect larger CHP plant; a change of the governance arrangements in the Balancing and Settlement Code to ensure that small and independent participants have an effective voice."
There is a future for the CHP industry and the Government are correct in the belief that CHP has a role to play. However, it is difficult to explain to the 300 people in Newton Abbot who are losing their jobs how the Government's actions follow their words.
6.23 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: Governments initiate many important debates, and this is certainly one of them—rightly so, because, like food and shelter, energy is a basic human need. I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate, albeit briefly.
The publication of the UK fuel poverty strategy by DEFRA last year, and of the PIU energy review this year, have catalysed the debate. It is spreading across the nation, and I hope that everyone will be aware of it before the Government take decisions that will be among the most important that they take. Those decisions will lock future generations into an energy policy for decades, so it is important that we get them right.
I am pleased to announce that next Tuesday, the Royal Society of Chemistry is holding a parliamentary links day in the House, to which all Members have been invited. We have chosen as our theme the future of energy, and I hope that many Members will take part in it.
Three Select Committees are already considering the energy debate. The two most important considerations should be security of supply and diversity of supply; the first can be achieved through the second. All options should be left open. We should not put too great a reliance on any one energy source, as we tend to do at present. In the past we thought that we could rely on nuclear power, but for various reasons, we were wrong in that assumption. Then there was the dash for gas. Following privatisation, it was not surprising that the industry turned to gas, because combined cycle gas turbines can be built with very low capital costs and give far faster returns, owing to shorter construction times.
As a chemist, I have always objected to the burning of fossil fuels. That is not only because it produces carbon dioxide, which has become more significant because of climate change, but particularly because our fossil supplies—with the possible exception of gas, but especially coal and oil—are the sources of the chemicals from which we prepare our pharmaceuticals, paints, dyestuffs and other products that we take for granted. It is important to leave those fossil fuels in the ground for as long as possible for the benefit of future generations. That is why I strongly support non-carbon methods of generating energy. Energy conservation, too, must play a large role in the future, and I am pleased that the PIU report recognised that.
Just as Denmark led the way on wind power after our lack of investment caused us to lose out, so we must invest in wind and tidal power. Some people believe that the winds and tides could provide all our energy requirements if we tapped into them. I am pleased that the Government are now turning towards investment in wind and tidal power, although whether the process will be fast enough remains to be seen. Another reason for investing in wind and tidal power is that, despite the Minister's announcement today about the discovery of a new field in the North sea, the North sea oil industry will decline rapidly. A great deal of manufacturing expertise is invested in that industry, which could be transferred to the generation of wind and tidal power—as Denmark employed agricultural equipment manufacturers to manufacture equipment for generating wind power.
I say in passing that I am a strong supporter of the Home Energy Conservation Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) is steering
500
through the House. I hope that the Minister, and other Ministers and Secretaries of State, will strongly back that Bill when it returns to the House on the last day for private Members' business.
The big debate this year will be about the role of the nuclear power industry and the future of renewables, although gas and its future will obviously play a part in the discussions, too. There is no doubt that renewables, including wind and tidal power, could supply our entire energy needs. Rapid and considerable investment in basic and applied research will be necessary to deliver a range of demonstration projects in the renewables sector. Later, we will need to provide new infrastructure and bring existing infrastructure up to this century's standards.
I have great doubts about whether we can bring renewables on board fast enough to replace the declining fossil fuel-burning industries. Those doubts are echoed in the PIU report. That is why I am a strong supporter of keeping the nuclear power industry going. Its expertise needs to be maintained, for a reason that other hon. Members have mentioned: we are not too far away from nuclear fusion. It has reached phase 2, and the Select Committee on Science and Technology is going to Japan in the autumn to look at the new fusion experiment that is to take place there. Most commentators think that we are about 50 years away from nuclear fusion, which is not long in historical terms. The chief scientific officer, David King, believes that that period can be cut down to about 30 years, and he is very keen on investment in nuclear fusion.
The nuclear power industry is already losing personnel, and it is critical that the Minister and the Government send the right signals to those who remain. They must be retained at least until the Government have made a decision on nuclear energy—and, in fact, until long after that, so that they are there eventually to introduce nuclear fusion. It is a sad reflection of the present situation that new graduates are not choosing to work in the nuclear power industry and it is already suffering from a shortage of skills. It is important that the Government send out strong signals from this debate about the future of the nuclear power industry.
An energy research review group, under the chairmanship of the chief scientific officer, has met and identified six key areas of research that need investment. I hope that the Minister has noted those six areas and will get together with Treasury Ministers to find that investment.
I was a housing chairman for 10 years, which has given me an interest in energy efficiency. Not one contributor this afternoon has mentioned the condition of the housing stock in connection with the debate about energy efficiency. Bolton has 22,000 unfit houses, of which some 5,000 to 6,000 are irredeemably unfit, and they are pumping energy into the atmosphere. I ask the Minister to join other Ministers in an effort to ensure that the condition of the housing stock is improved. I hope that the comprehensive spending review will put housing further up the agenda, so that we can tackle the poor energy efficiency of the clapped-out houses that still exist throughout the country.
6.31 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard: It is difficult to look 50 years ahead. If we went back 50 years from today, few people would have foreseen the massive contribution that

501
natural gas from the North sea would make to our energy supply. The world and its technology are changing ever more quickly, so looking ahead is very difficult.
The first principle of any energy policy must be to keep the lights on. Woe betide any Government of any party who cannot achieve that. When people argue against any particular source of energy, they should bear that warning in mind, because we might end up with not enough energy. The second principle is not to waste energy. Energy saving is a prerequisite of any policy, but that issue has been well covered by other hon. Members today.
We have to start from where we are, with oil and gas representing 85 per cent. of total UK energy production, with our own oil and gas supplies constituting 75 per cent. of all the energy we consume. Some 40 per cent. of electricity generation, on which we have concentrated today, is currently from gas. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) put the gas supply industry fairly In context. It is our gas, so it would be difficult to find a more secure supply. It has enabled us to reach the Kyoto targets and the dash for gas happened because the economics were good, delivering energy without the Government needing to put in taxpayers' money.
An important plank for energy policy, therefore, is to maximise our own gas production and to delay for as long as possible the moment when we have to import big gas supplies. If we look at our gas reserves, we see that 58 trillion cu ft have been produced so far, but it is estimated that 72 trillion cu ft remain. Thirty-five years ago, people said that we had only 20 years' supply left. People now say that we have only 20 years' supply left, but who knows what new technology will bring?
My hon. Friend the Minister was right when he said that we must squeeze every last drop of energy out of the North sea, and that is what the DTI's Pilot strategy has aimed to do. It is against that background that we should consider the tax measures in the Budget. I must say that they came as a bombshell to me and many others, and we will have to look carefully to see whether they prove to be so in terms of what wreckage they may cause. They certainly do not sit easily with the direction that was being pursued by Pilot. My first reaction was to ask how one could take so much money out of an industry and retain the investment in it. I must admit that the Treasury proposals are very clever, because while they increase the tax on existing developments, they provide generous capital allowances that will—at least on paper—make the return on future developments look better.
Those are powerful arguments. I am concerned, however, that decoupling upstream and gas corporation tax from general corporation tax will offer less fiscal stability, pose a greater fiscal risk, and, therefore, have an effect on investment. The Treasury is saying, basically, that we now have fiscal stability, as the 1997 review has been concluded. I am not sure that the industry will necessarily see it that way, however, as the Budget announcement was a surprise compared with the direction in which we had been going. Although Government can say, "Yes, we are not going to change the tax regime for the remainder of this Parliament", that also implies that it could change again after three or four years. Consequently, those investors who have just been burned might not be as keen as they were before.
What can we do under the new regime proposed by the Treasury? We must focus on how to generate the most investment. We should give particular attention to the
502
smaller companies and new entrants, which are the feature of mature provinces around the world. We must focus on the current proposal on financing costs because access to capital is absolutely crucial to the companies. At the moment, it is proposed that financing costs should not be offset against the supplementary charge. Will my hon. Friend the Minister ask the Treasury—as I have asked the Treasury—to reconsider whether that is really necessary? The Treasury says that it is necessary to make the supplementary charge work. I think that that is disputable. There is a risk that double taxation might deter American investment. As we must accept that the Treasury wants to impose a supplementary charge, we should consider again whether there is another way to deliver that without disallowing firms from claiming their financing costs. That is a crucial element in getting the investment needed to realise the underlying assumption of the PIU report—that we must maximise our own gas supplies. That is in line with my hon. Friend the Minister's argument.
One of the advantages of persisting with energy produced from gas is that it is relatively easy to transfer to imported supplies. Our most obviously secure next supply is from Norway—one could hardly ask for a friendlier, more stable neighbour—because we can connect relatively easily to Norwegian gas. It is worth noting that the PIU report says about security of gas supply that those countries about which Members have raised doubts today need the revenues from their gas as much as we need their gas. I know that gas pipelines are vulnerable to terrorism, but that is true of just about any other generating plant, whether a nuclear power station or another type of power station. Somehow, we have to live with terrorism, because if we say, "Terrorism rules this out", we will not be able to do anything in the world. Again, I thought that the hon. Member for Twickenham put security of supply for imported gas in proper perspective.
Clearly, we need a diverse energy policy, and we must focus particularly on renewables. We must look at what is our most obvious natural asset—wind. After all, we are the windiest country in Europe. We must get over some of our self-imposed obstacles to energy production from renewables, however, as we need to make sure that we can create a market in which they can flourish. I was very impressed by what we found on a recent visit of the all-party group on renewable and sustainable energy—PRASEG—to Germany, where there is a kind of feed-in law that gives people a price on which to rely to encourage investment in renewables. I hope that our 10 per cent. obligation to encourage such investment will work. Above all, however, we must sort out the planning laws. We must pursue and persist with the Green Paper's ideas. If it takes 10 years to get planning permission for whatever power source we choose, we will not get very far. The planning system will be one of the biggest obstacles to achieving our energy policy.
We must ensure that we have supply chains in place for the offshore wind industry so that we can develop an indigenous wind turbine manufacturing industry. That would make the economics much better and would enable us seriously to get into renewables and to convince people to invest in them. My one doubt about nuclear power is that, if the Government step in and solve the problems of decommissioning and waste management for the industry, they may deter people from investing in renewables. We need that investment.
6.40 pm
Mr. Robert Key: In the 10 minutes left to me, all that I can do is thank the Members on both sides who have taken part in the debate—in particular, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan)—and try to set down an agenda for the future.
It was perhaps a disappointment that so few people who have spoken in the debate have looked forward to 2050 and taken this important opportunity to do so. In the next 40 or 50 years, the issues will be carbon emissions and literally saving the planet. However, the issues will also involve education, and everything from the conservation of energy, the reduction in energy use and the efficiency of energy use in distribution, industry, generation or the home.
The issue is also about science. From primary schools onwards, we have an anti-science popular culture in this country, and that is damaging. It means that we do not have the engineers that we need for the future and that we shall not have the scientists to work in any sophisticated energy field if we are not careful. From primary schools to postgraduate research, we need to devote far more attention to science.
The debate has also been about engineering, engineering and engineering. Whether we are talking nuclear or whether we are talking wind, we are talking engineering. We are desperately short of engineers, and they are perhaps the key to finding the way forward in energy over the next 50 years.
We need to make it clear that renewable energy and nuclear power are part of the same agenda. We will come to different conclusions and different points of balance, but those two sources of energy are not mutually exclusive—far from it. They are part of the same agenda, because they are both carbon-free. If we are serious about carbon emissions, we should not rule out nuclear power. The handling of nuclear waste is a separate issue—a red herring, distraction and diversion. It is a problem and a challenge, but it does not involve the future of the nuclear industry.
The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) spoke about housing stock and he was entirely right. If we want to do something practical comparatively quickly to start to save energy, we must replace deficient housing stock. The Carbon Trust is doing a fantastic job. Its chief executive, Tom Delay, has said:
"There is huge scope for better energy efficiency and if we take these opportunities they would carry us half way to the Royal Commission's target. Energy efficiency must become as natural to us all as riding a bike."
I could not put it better myself.
The fact is that whole areas of energy production have hardly been mentioned in the debate—solar power, for example. We are near the longest day in the year and nights will start to draw in from tomorrow. Cloudy, grey old Britain is perhaps not the ideal place to install solar power. However, it is not the climate that is holding back solar power, but cost. Photovoltaics have an important future, but we face the problem of the high system costs—£10,000 to £12,000 a house—and that investment will take years to pay back.
504
Solar power—converting sunlight into electricity—is one thing, but water heating units on the roof cost about £2,000 to install. There is great scope for them. There is also huge scope for geothermal heating and air-conditioning systems using heat pump technology. Chesterfield borough council is using them. Why cannot more? That interesting technology is widely used across the United States and more used in Europe than it is here. Energy efficiency is the key to solving most of our problems.
Another important issue that has been mentioned by one or two hon. Members is the possible use of liquid and solid biofuels. The National Farmers Union is right to be keen that we take the idea seriously. We know what the problems are with the energy input into sowing and harvesting those crops and transporting them to central units for burning. We need to explore that further.
We also need to concentrate on nuclear fusion. It is crucial to the future, certainly in 2050. That new nuclear technology is safe. It joins nuclei rather than separating them and is nearer than we think—in fact, it is at Culham now. I have seen the tokamat there and it is extraordinary to realise how close we are to having that technology. The director at Culham pointed out that it is up to politicians to decide how seriously they want to take the technology. Culham can deliver electric generation using fusion in 50 years if we go at the speed we are at now or in 30 years if we increase the budget a bit. However, the budget is being cut this year as a result of a European Commission decision. Although that is not the Minister's fault, I hope that he and the Government's chief scientist will argue strenuously for nuclear fusion to receive a higher priority. Were people to see the process of the creation of nuclear plasma on a television screen inside the tokamat with their own eyes, they would realise that it is not science fiction but today's reality.
Future fuels are important. We cannot ignore transport. The Government are groping their way through a huge range of alternatives as we decide what to do about the motorist and the commercial vehicle. Some important fuel experiments are taking place, none more so than the hydrogen revolution, which will be relevant much sooner than we think. It does not matter whether one believes BMW, which says that it will take 15 years to arrive, or Ford, which says 17. What we know is that it will happen in that time scale because it is market-led by the greatest producers in the world. They want to do it but have not decided which way to go. With hydrogen generation, the fuel will either have to be pressurised and liquefied before it is put into car tanks, which means that it will have to be transported, or there will have to be fuel cells on each vehicle. We do not know what those companies will do. Perhaps the Government could think about giving a steer, if I can put it that way, in that direction.
Much is happening. For example, there are dual-use vehicles. Toyota has produced the Prius which allows electric power and petrol to be used in the same car depending on the type of motoring. Those are great realities. The biggest message that we should give to the Government, however, is that we recognise that it is possible to have a mixture in future. It would not just be a strategic mix, in the interests of the United Kingdom, but an engineering and technology mix. That will ensure that we beat the devil of carbon emission at the same time as providing more efficient use of resources and fuel in our homes and at work.

505
We should rule nothing out. We should have an open mind. We all have vested interests, which are perfectly legitimate. The coalfield communities must, of course, contribute. They will be part of the future equation. Similarly, we must be cautious about the costings of, for example, wind. We should never forget the cost of transmission. We know that a change is happening between embedded generation and transmission over long distances. We need to access technology and put behind us some of the prejudices and battles of the past. In that way, we will set an agenda for 2050 that will work.
6.49 pm
Mr. Wilson: With permission, I should like to respond to the debate.
I know that it is a cliché to say how good the debate has been, but today it is true, and that is a tribute to all hon. Members who participated. If we compare it with an energy debate at probably any time in the post-war years, it is striking how non-ideological it has been. As an old-fashioned ideological guy, I am not sure how comfortable I am with that. I like to know where the enemy is, and it should be on the Opposition Benches—[Interruption.] Well, so long as it is not on the Benches behind me.
It is a tribute to the way in which the debate has been conducted that there has been great openness of mind and diversity of view in all corners of the House. Labour Members talked about liberalisation and competitiveness, and the Tories, in the person of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), correctly acknowledged the primacy of the Government's role in maintaining security of supply. Members on both sides acknowledged the environmental imperatives that were barely recognised a decade ago. The policy objectives are pretty clear, and the debate is about means, rather than ends.
The challenge that I set, for myself and my colleagues in government as well as for others, is for intellectual consistency within the parameters of that debate. In other words, the policies for objectives to which we pay lip service should be consistent, and not merely a series of contradictory aspirations or headline-catchers. Each of us has a responsibility to ensure that the bits of our thinking join up. The Government create more initiatives and policies and have more Departments than anyone else, so the responsibility on us is commensurately greater to make sure that there is consistency and intellectual honesty.
That is why I am wary—perhaps more than someone in this position would normally be—of setting targets that will not be tested against reality until we have all moved on, and maybe even passed on. It is infinitely more important to make sure that existing targets are compatible with what is happening on the ground. The usefulness of the debate lies in the fact that Members have tested consistencies and inconsistencies in a very helpful and considered way. It is a good model for the wider debate about energy policy until 2050 that should be taking place in the country, although I am not optimistic that it will be discussed in the pubs and clubs and on the highways and byways of Britain. The conclusions of that wider debate will come together in a White Paper.
Turning to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and others, it is
506
important to look at these matters from the perspective imposed on us by the climate change imperative. This is not an academic abstraction. It is about flooding, and the submersion of people and the places in which they live and work. Globally, it is about wholesale loss of life and the means of subsistence. It must be taken seriously, and, faced with that prognosis, we have to be very sceptical about special pleading. Everything that we do in energy policy has to reflect that environmental imperative.
I shall try to tackle some of the specific matters that have been raised, but obviously I will not get to them all, and where appropriate I will write to the Member concerned. The debate about gas supplies is interesting, and this has been a good forum to air both sides of the argument. I have certainly listened carefully to the concerns about the security of gas supply expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I take them very seriously. Equally important, there was support for the PIU conclusions from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). This is not a one-sided argument.
It is easy to exaggerate these matters and to suggest that all the pipelines will be vulnerable to threats that for some reason have not manifested themselves in all the years that countries have been supplying us safely. However, security is clearly a source of concern. Perception and acceptability to public opinion are very important, so we must be clear that the gas supplies that we will be relying on, possibly to a large extent, are secure and are seen to be secure. From the tone of today's debate, I am in no doubt that that is an important part of the consultation in which we are involved, and it is an aspect of the PIU report that will be tested in an exchange of views as robust as the one we have heard today.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) about the liabilities management Bill. I can confirm that a liabilities management unit has been set up in the DTI as a forerunner for the agency that will emerge. The parliamentary programme for the next Session is still the subject of discussion, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) incorrectly said that the renewables obligation plateaus in 2010. As I pointed out, anyone entering into renewables now has the unprecedented security of 25 years of the renewables obligation. It is true that the present target is set for 2010, but I revert to my previous point. It is not due to some inherent caution or lack of commitment that we do not set targets of 10 per cent. a time for 2020, 2030 and so on. Let us hope that that is attainable, but it is far more important to get everyone satisfied that 10 per cent. by 2010 is attainable.
There is no party in government or prospectively in government—hopefully not before 2030, 2040 or 2050—that is not signed up to the renewables obligation and that agenda. Any City financier who is sitting in his tent worrying about the length of the Government's commitment to the renewables obligation is raising a spectre that does not exist, and possibly an alibi for non-investment and non-support, rather than any rational reason.

507
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove made clear his support for wind power. I look forward to the leader of his party coming out clearly in support of the wind farm developments on the Isle of Skye, on which I note he has been conspicuously silent.
On nuclear power, I am not sure that I would go to the length of reading the two booklets written by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, but I note his views.
On my earlier comments about intellectual consistency, anyone who suggests that we should not replace nuclear with nuclear must say how our environmental obligations are to be met if nuclear is not replaced with nuclear. The debate will move on. The world should not be divided into fan clubs—pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear. People must consider all the arguments, see the advantages that nuclear undoubtedly provides in a low-carbon economy, and balance that against any doubts that they might have. There is the potential for a much more rational debate. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) have been pleasantly surprised that the nuclear argument in the Chamber today has been so balanced. There is certainly not the blanket hostility to nuclear that some vested interests would like to pretend exists, both politically and in the country as a whole.
I was asked about photovoltaics. I agree that more money is needed in the longer term. We have launched three pilot projects—domestic trials, public building pilots, and the first phase of a large demonstration programme worth £20 million over the next three years. Progress is being made in photovoltaics. As in so many such projects, the tragedy is the low point from which we are starting.
I was pleased to be asked about tidal and wave power—two of my particular favourites. Earlier this week at Wallsend I was pleased to launch the Stingray device, which has been developed in the north-east of England and will be tested in the Sound of Yell in Shetland over the summer. I have been hearing about wave and tidal devices for 25 years, but at present the total industry in wave power, not only in this country but worldwide, is half a megawatt in Islay.
That is great, but it is not conclusive proof that those technologies can make a serious contribution. I desperately want them to make a serious contribution. However, as far as I know, no research and development project has been proposed that does not have the support of Government. I give my personal commitment to try to push those two technologies. I cannot emphasise strongly
508
enough that at some point R and D must be turned into a manufacturing industry if those technologies are to be serious contributors, rather than long-term dreams, as they have been for the past 25 years.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), who told me that he would have to leave before the end of the debate, spoke about market liberalisation. I agree entirely with what he said. We must create a level playing field throughout Europe. We are working hard and we did make progress in Barcelona, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said—
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION

  Road Traffic Accidents
  7 pm
  Mr. Nigel Beard: The presentation of this petition arises from the death of my constituent, Stephen Williams, aged 24, and his fiancee, Sheila Ryan. They were both killed instantly when their car collided with a lorry whose driver had fallen asleep at the wheel. The driver, Paul Couldridge, knew that he suffered from a condition that sent him to sleep uncontrollably. For that reason. he did not have a licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle.
  Stephen's parents have campaigned with the relatives of those killed and injured as a result of similar negligence through the organisation RoadPeace. I have the highest respect for the bravery of Mr. and Mrs. Williams in overcoming their own grief and campaigning to avoid other parents and loved ones having to go through the misery that they have experienced.
  The petition, which has been signed by 6,458 people, states:
  The Petition of supporters of "RoadPeace" declares that court sentences for offences which result in road death and injury do not take into account the fact that such offences involve the killing or hurting of fellow human beings.
  Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to bring forward legislative proposals which will ensure that road deaths caused through negligence or law breaking are prosecuted as homicide; that serious injuries so caused are prosecuted with appropriate severity; that all such offences be prosecuted before a judge and jury; and that sentences for such offences should properly reflect the level of culpability involved.
  To lie upon the Table.

Fisher Frozen Foods
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
7.2 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I should like to thank Mr. Speaker very much indeed for granting this debate on the situation at Fisher Frozen Foods. I raised the matter under Standing Order No. 24 a week ago and asked him for an emergency debate, which was understandably turned down, but I am grateful to him for awarding me this debate. I should also like to thank the Minister for coming here to respond. I point out that the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) is going to say a few words, which has been cleared with the Minister's office, and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) would also like briefly to speak, as his constituency is obviously affected by the receivership of the Albert Fisher Group plc.
It was announced on 23 May that the Albert Fisher Group had collapsed into receivership. KPMG was appointed by the banks with instructions to sell off the various individual plants as going concerns if that were possible. One of the biggest plants was Fisher Frozen Foods on the Hardwick road in my constituency. The factory had been operational since the mid-1960s and employed more than 400 people. Its main business was processing, sorting, packing and freezing various vegetables, but in particular, it dealt with peas, beans, carrots, cauliflowers, rice and French fries. Indeed, one in four of all frozen vegetable packs in UK supermarkets were processed at the plant.
KPMG moved into the factory and gave two weeks to find a buyer for the company as a going concern. In spite of the receiver's efforts, none of the six parties that visited the site came up with a bid for the business as a going concern. On 16 June, KPMG dropped a massive bombshell on King's Lynn and west Norfolk when it announced that the plant would close, with the immediate redundancy of 351 employees at the firm. Frigoscandia, the neighbouring cold store, issued 84 HR1s. The pea crop in East Anglia was imperilled and many experts in the processing and packaging industry said that the knock-on effect in unemployment would be job losses at a 4:1 ratio. We were obviously faced with possible devastation throughout the locality and the prospect of unemployment in my constituency almost doubling.
When I applied for a Standing Order No. 24 debate on Tuesday 10 June. the situation appeared grim. It looked almost inevitable that the plant, equipment and site would be broken up and the factory asset stripped. I am extremely pleased to say that today the receiver, KPMG, announced that a buyer has been found for the site, the plant and the equipment. It is a Belgian company called Pinguin, which is in partnership with Frigoscandia, which owns the plant next door.
The chink of light emerged last Friday, and slightly unexpectedly. At that stage, the hon. Member for North Norfolk and I were fairly depressed. However, an announcement was made today that a deal has been completed. As we speak, Pinguin and Frigoscandia are bringing staff into the plant to start the pea processing campaign tomorrow. This year's pea harvest will be dealt with, and when the six to eight week campaign is over, I hope that the new company will turn its attention to other crops and vegetables.
510
There is every chance that it will be taking on 200 to 250 employees out of the previous 400 or so. It is extremely good news that a dark cloud has been lifted. I take the opportunity to wish Pinguin and Frigoscandia every success in running the plant.
Last week, I was critical of KPMG, the receiver. I said that I felt that it had not given enough time to find a buyer of the business as a going concern. Strong language was used, and I apologise for any offence that was caused. At the time, there was a great deal of emotion in west Norfolk, with 351 people being made redundant at Fisher Frozen Foods, and another 84 next door. It was a bleak time.
I put on record now my gratitude to KPMG. Since the announcement of redundancies was made, it has worked tirelessly to try to find a buyer of the site, the plant and the equipment. The hon. Member for North Norfolk and I had a constructive meeting with KPMG. It made it clear that it would work tirelessly to try to find a solution to the problem, and to find a buyer who would continue production on the site.
I pay particular tribute to the partner in charge, Michael McLoughlin, and to his colleague who was on site conducting negotiations, Murray Stewart.
A complication set in earlier this week. It revolved round an outstanding Anglian Water bill of £228,000. In the words of the receiver two days ago, the bill was a real "deal breaker". Understandably, Anglian Water was insisting that either the receiver or the incoming buyer should clear the bill. It was in a strong position because the incoming buyer would need water to continue to run the business. There were also discharge consent charges.
The hon. Gentleman and I talked to the receiver on that point and on other matters. As a result of negotiations between the receiver and Anglian Water, a deal was done on the bill. I thank him and my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) for discussing the issue with Anglian Water. Initially, it took a legalistic view, but we managed to talk to personnel at the highest level. They understood that it was in their interests to have a thriving business on the site paying water rates and discharge consent fees rather than having no one on the site. It is a good example of a real team effort to resolve a potentially serious obstacle.
Another obstacle has arisen, on which I would like the Minister to comment. I was telephoned this morning by the senior Transport and General Workers Union steward on site, Neville Addison. He is working hard with the new owners of the company to bring in a large number of staff so that the pea campaign can start tomorrow and the business can get under way with processing.
The problem revolves around the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—the TUPE legislation—because the staff coming in to work for the new company will have TUPE entitlement. This is a problem, because they were made redundant roughly 10 days ago, and the average redundancy payment could he anywhere between £5,000 and—20,000. That redundancy is in respect of Fisher Frozen Foods, and those people feel strongly that they should have that redundancy money because it relates to the employment that they had with that firm. On the other hand, TUPE is giving them the same rights, pay and conditions as they had before, and they will effectively be doing the same job.

511
I would like the Minister to comment on that. The hon. Member for North Norfolk might also have an idea of the answer to this problem, because he is a former employment lawyer. This is a real problem, first, because the company is determined to get as many people in as possible who are experienced and have the appropriate skills; obviously, most of them are former employees. Some, however, are holding back because of the threat to their redundancy payments.
Secondly. the receiver kept 28 employees on at the plant to ensure that—certainly, to begin with—it was kept on a care and maintenance basis. What will happen to them? Will they get extra compensation as well, if the 351—or perhaps 250—people come back into the plant with their TUPE entitlement as well as their redundancy payments? On a further, smaller point, if the redundancy money is not paid and the employees come back into the plant and are entitled to TUPE protection, what will happen in relation to the eight, nine or 10 days during which they were out of work? Will they get jobseeker's allowance?
I would like the Minister to comment briefly on the employees of the company who will probably not be brought back into the operation. There will still be a significant number who, having been made redundant, will probably not have a job, and they are obviously concerned about their jobseeker's allowance entitlement, and about re-skilling and retraining. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House what his Department would recommend to help those employees to get back to work as soon as possible.
The new owners of the company have made an important and significant commitment in terms of cash resources and of the investment that they are going to make for the future. They will undoubtedly be looking at new technology and at various other forms of innovation. Perhaps the Minister could pass on to the Department of Trade and Industry the new owners' concern that they want to hit the ground running, and to find out whether they have any entitlement to Euro-grants, innovation grants or any other form of DTI grant. North-West Norfolk is not an area with any special status, but if there is any possible entitlement, it is important that the company should know about it now. All too often, in my experience of dealing with grants, I have found that if a grant application goes in once an investment has been made, it is almost certainly too late. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that important point.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also had a watching brief on all this, because when the announcement was made about the closure of the factory and the redundancies, there was a real threat to the entire pea harvest of East Anglia. There was also a serious threat to jobs in agriculture, haulage and contracting. If the factory closure had gone ahead, no bidder had come forward for the plant and equipment, and the pea campaign had not been able to start in the very near future, much of that pea crop—up to 24,000 tonnes, grown over 14,000 or 15,000 acres—would probably have remained in the ground because it would have been uneconomical to harvest.
There was a great deal of national coverage of this issue, but I am afraid that DEFRA was noticeable by its silence on it. There are lessons to be learned here, because
512
there are strategic implications when one crop is controlled by a small number of contractors and totally dependent on one plant, as was the case here. That would have had an impact right across Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. I would have liked to see DEFRA being much more proactive.
I am very pleased to have been able to come to the House for this Adjournment debate with this very good news. There is a huge sense of relief, although I have no illusions about the possible future pitfalls. I shall be particularly pleased if the Minister will be able to talk to other Departments, and to answer some of the specific questions that I have put to him. This has been a very bleak few days for west Norfolk, but a huge cloud has been lifted and we are now much more optimistic, thank goodness.
7.14 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing the debate, and thank him for allowing me to make a necessarily brief contribution to it. I welcome the fact that there is better news from Norfolk for the plants in his constituency.
I want to turn the Minister's attention to the fish division of Fisher Frozen Foods, which consists of the key plants in Fraserburgh and Peterhead in my constituency, as well as some important factories south of the border. It is the largest private sector employer in my constituency: some 700 jobs in a rural community that has experienced a number of closures and setbacks in recent years. The Minister will understand just how vital this subject is for my constituency. We are hopeful that there are buyers for the businesses as going concerns, but no deal has been signed and nothing is guaranteed.
A few weeks ago, when I raised this issue with the Leader of the House, he was kind enough to undertake that Government Departments—presumably the Department for Work and Pensions and the Scottish Executive Departments—would be standing by to ensure that any assistance that could be given would be provided to any new investors in these factories. Have approaches been made, either here or at the Scottish level, and does the undertaking of the Leader of the House still stand good? I hope that the Minister will be able to repeat it now.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) may deal shortly with a receiver's duties and obligations to creditors. As I said, we hope and believe that KPMG is working hard to secure buyers for these plants as going concerns. However, a difficulty may sometimes occur when the receiver's duties are narrowly drawn, so that it has a duty only to creditors as opposed to a wider duty that encompasses the work force, the public interest in terms of the public purse, and the key communities. Will the Minister reflect on that?
I want to make it clear that I make no criticism of KPMG, because I hope and believe that it is as anxious as I and other hon. Members are to ensure that the factories are sold as going concerns. There may be a constraint in its fiduciary duties. Will the Minister make some observation on that, because it is in the interests of everyone, especially the wider social and economic interests of my constituency, that the factories are sold as going concerns and not for their break-up value?
7.17 pm
Norman Lamb: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing this debate. It is good news that the plant has been rescued. We all thank the various parties who have played a part in making that possible. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, other Norfolk Members and I have worked together on a cross-party basis to facilitate a solution to the big threat that has hung over that part of Norfolk in the past couple of weeks. KPMG, the workers, the trade unions, the buyer and Anglian Water have all played their part in making this possible, and our thanks go to all of them. It is important for the economy of this part of Norfolk that the plant survives. This evening, we face the future with more hope than we did last week.
As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, the duty on the receiver is very narrow: it is a duty to the creditors. The combination of that duty and the practical application of the TUPE regulations means that the interests of the employees and the wider community are not properly taken into account.
There is a problem with the TUPE regulations. Although they are designed to protect the rights of employees, when a company is in receivership they often work perversely in the opposite direction. They encourage potential buyers to hold back and allow the plant to close so that they may be able to buy plant and equipment without taking on responsibility for employees. My reading of the legal position is that, with the plant reopening so soon, it is almost inevitable that the receiver will get legal advice that it is selling the plant as a going concern and that the TUPE regulations should apply. If that is the case, there will be no redundancies and the redundancy pay that those workers are expecting will not be paid.
I should be grateful if the Minister would take away from the debate a plea for the redundancy payments office to make an urgent decision and communicate it to the workers. As I am sure he understands, there is a lot of concern among people who have made applications and are due to receive an invitation to return to work, but do not know whether they will lose payment, in particular for the period between the plant closure and the date on which they returned to work. Reassurance and certainty for those workers is clearly important, but at the moment they are receiving conflicting messages. The legal situation in such circumstances is often complex, as I am sure that the Minister knows, but we need certainty as soon as possible.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak and thank the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk for giving me the chance to contribute. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to my concerns.
7.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing a debate on an issue which is important not only for his own constituency but for those of other hon. Members. I listened carefully to the points that he and other Members have made. Inevitably, I may need to return to some of the more detailed points in writing, or ministerial colleagues may have to respond.
Obviously, we now have better news about the situation in Norfolk, which will be welcomed by the people and communities directly affected. Not many days ago,
514
however, things looked much gloomier. Since the news broke of possible redundancies at the Fisher Foods processing plant in King's Lynn, our local Jobcentre Plus staff have been working closely with the receiver KPMG, the company itself and the regional development agency. Following the announcement of 350 redundancies on 10 June, open days were organised at a local conference centre on 12 and 13 June, which were attended by our Jobcentre Plus staff, local training providers and 18 local employers, as well as about 300 of the people who were made redundant.
The local Jobcentre Plus office reports that the local labour market is buoyant, and it is advertising a large number of vacancies, particularly for people with food-processing skills. Our staff felt that anyone affected by the possible closure of the plant would soon return to the labour market. Indeed, the eastern region has a working-age employment rate well above the United Kingdom average. For example, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of North-West Norfolk, unemployment has fallen by 57 per cent. and long-term unemployment has fallen by more than 80 per cent.. Moreover, since 1997, every region has experienced falling unemployment and rising employment.
In the past few days, our Jobcentre Plus staff have helped 50 people from the plant to find alternative work, and 50 more people have had job interviews arranged for them, obviously before we had had the better news. However, that shows how quickly our agency could swing into action. Fifty more people are believed to have begun arranging alternative employment themselves, and the remaining employees continue to receive advice and support from Jobcentre Plus.
We acknowledge that the farming industry is going through difficult times. The loss of an important processing outlet would have led to substantial repercussions for local farmers and the economy of which they are part, especially in frozen pea production, where a particularly close relationship between growers and processors is essential. I therefore welcome the announcement by KPMG today that it has succeeded in concluding the sale of that site.
I recognise that there are some remaining uncertainties, which were articulated by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members on behalf of their constituents. However, growers now have the assurance that the crop that is about to be harvested can be processed. The future market for peas grown in Norfolk lies in the hands of new owners. We wish them success in securing continuing markets for the product. The important and complex issues surrounding TUPE are not matters for my Department but for the Department of Trade and Industry. However, I will draw the remarks of the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my ministerial colleagues.
Mr. Bellingham: The problem that the TGWU senior steward has is that many people are saying to him that they would want to go back to the factory today, tomorrow or the next day to help on the pea campaign, but they do not know whether they can afford to do so if they are going to lose redundancy, so we need a decision on the matter tomorrow if possible, and advice from the DTI.
Malcolm Wicks: I will draw those remarks to the attention of the Department tonight and stress the urgency of clarification on what I know to be an important issue.

515
When it comes to entitlement to social security benefits, particularly the jobseeker's allowance, the fact that my colleagues in Jobcentre Plus are already engaged will enable advice about entitlement, should it still apply—it is a complex period—to be forthcoming from my colleagues.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) raised important points about his constituency. Unfortunately, I did not know that he was going to speak in the debate, so I am not briefed on those issues, but the assurance given to him by the Leader of the House still applies. I will endeavour to ensure that colleagues in different Departments are apprised of the situation and that any help that can be forthcoming—I can give no guarantees of that—will be forthcoming. We all understand that it is always best in these situations if concerns can be solved as ongoing concerns, if at all possible, but obviously that is not a matter for me.
I understand the importance of the points made by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) about the complexity that may now surround the issue of redundancy payments. We will obviously want to give that due consideration too.
In such cases where redundancies are large, potentially large, or will have a major impact, we have what we call our rapid response service, which was introduced recently. The service helps the whole community to cope with the impact of significant redundancy by looking at the total picture rather than just at those being made redundant.
The service works closely with key partners such as the regional development agencies, the still fairly new local learning and skills councils—there can be a retraining issue—local authorities and trade unions to co-ordinate an effective response to redundancy.
The exact nature of the help is always tailored to the needs of the individual, the employer, the local economy and the labour market concerned. From April this year,
516
the service has received nationally an additional £6 million over the next two years, in order to strengthen its work.
In the case of the Albert Fisher business, as we have been saying, it now appears that at the King's Lynn site there has been a successful outcome; we certainly hope that that is the case. I also understand that the receivers have had a number of offers for the eight remaining sites of the business and are conducting detailed discussions with all potential buyers.
The successful conclusion of the sale of the King's Lynn plant is in no small part due to the co-operation and co-ordination of the efforts of all parties involved, including the strong interest of local Members of Parliament—hence this debate. In situations such as this, Government Departments are very willing to assist in any way that is valuable or relevant to find alternative buyers or an alternative future for the employees. I acknowledge the work of my colleagues at Jobcentre Plus, who clearly moved quickly and had already found outcomes for employees before we heard the news affecting the plant.
It is important that we do all we can to ensure that firms continue in production if at all possible. In the first instance, that is a matter for the private sector, but we stand ready to assist companies or the work force in any way that we can, should they face redundancy and loss of employment.
In welcoming this debate on an important issue—perhaps nothing is more important for families than the future of work in such areas—I acknowledge that, for various reasons, I have been unable to answer all the detailed questions put by concerned Members. The issue cuts across different UK Departments, and also affects the Government in Scotland. I understand the urgency of these matters, and I will do my best to draw them to the attention of ministerial colleagues as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Armed Forces
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
2.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): No one could be more delighted than I am that we have this opportunity for a full debate on equal opportunities in the armed forces. It is a matter to which the Government and the armed forces attach great importance. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for the armed forces announced in the House last week in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), a new diversity policy has recently been agreed for the armed forces. That policy seeks to define diversity in a military context and to articulate the benefits that diversity will bring to the current and future operational capability of the armed forces. It will build on, rather than replace, the services' existing equal opportunities policies and practices.
The armed forces recognise that in order to continue to operate successfully in increasingly complex, high-technology and unpredictable environments, they need fit, capable, resourceful and highly motivated men and women from all sections of society. To recruit and retain such people, the services must provide a working environment and organisational culture that respect and value individuals from diverse backgrounds.
At the same time, it is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that the armed forces have a unique and highly demanding role, and that the need to preserve combat effectiveness must remain our overriding concern. In practical terms, that means having fully fit, trained and disciplined personnel ready and willing to deploy worldwide at a moment's notice, and to perform many difficult tasks not found in civilian employment. It also means that individual soldiers, sailors and airmen and airwomen must often be prepared to subordinate their own individual needs for the greater good and to abide by certain core values and standards of behaviour that are generally more demanding than those of society at large.
In a military environment, diversity is about valuing individual difference and harnessing the ideas, talents and skills of all personnel, with the aim of maintaining and enhancing team cohesion and performance and thus operational effectiveness. There are, however, limits to recognising individual differences, and it must not be pursued at the expense of team cohesion or allowed to place operational effectiveness at risk. That brings me to the topic on which I would like to focus in opening this debate today: my announcement on 22 May that women would continue to be excluded from serving in close-combat units in the armed forces. I would like to take this opportunity to explain the rationale for that decision a little more fully.
136WH
First, as I made clear in my announcement and as was underlined strongly by the Chief of the Defence Staff, women play a vital role in our armed forces. Since the early 1990s, women have taken on an increasingly wide range of roles and tasks, including front-line positions, with great success. They are able to serve as pilots and navigators in attack helicopters and fast jets, and in all roles on board surface warships. They also serve in many parts of the Army including, since 1998, the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers. Demanding roles in support of 3 Commando Brigade of the Royal Marines are also open to women. I am sure that hon. Members will have read about the recent success of Captain Tattersall, the first woman to complete the all-arms commando course successfully and thus qualify for one of those roles.
Some 62 ships have women on board, and more than 900 women currently at sea have served on or are serving on operations. Four women have now commanded P2000 fast training boats and one has qualified as a principal warfare officer and is serving as the executive officer of a type 23 frigate. A female Army officer holds a senior media ops appointment in the international security assistance force in Kabul and, elsewhere in Afghanistan, female Chinook pilots bear heavy operational responsibilities. A female squadron leader has been appointed as the first commander of an operational flying squadron, flying Wessex helicopters in Cyprus, and another female Royal Air Force officer in the UK commands the operations wing on a busy Harrier base.
The great majority of posts within the armed forces are open to women, and their contribution to the combat effectiveness of the armed forces is absolutely essential. In total, they may serve in 73 per cent. of posts in the naval service, 70 per cent. of posts in the Army, and 96 per cent. of posts in the Royal Air Force. More than 10 per cent. of recruits to the enlisted ranks, and almost 20 per cent. of officer recruits, are women. Female personnel may make up more than 8 per cent. of the strength of the regular armed forces. I am determined to see the figures increase, and to see more women take advantage of the wide range of opportunities that a career in the armed forces offers. Further work will be undertaken to consider how that can be achieved.
The only posts closed to women for reasons of combat effectiveness are those that engage in ground close combat, such as those in the Royal Marines general service, the infantry, the Household Cavalry, the Royal Armoured Corps and the Royal Air Force Regiment. The ground close-combat forces operate in small, usually four-man, fire teams. As part of their primary function, they may be required deliberately to close with, and kill, the enemy face to face. That requirement poses extraordinary demands on individuals and, in such extreme circumstances, success, failure, even survival, depends on the cohesion of the team. Even small failures may lead to loss of life, or to the failure of the team to meet its objectives. It is therefore critical that such teams perform to the highest possible standards.
After the last review in 1998, which led to a large number of Army roles opening to women, the Ministry of Defence undertook a detailed study into the performance and suitability of women in close-combat

137WH
roles. That work is reflected in the report "Women in the Armed Forces", which has been placed in the Library with a summary paper. The study considered existing data and new research on the physical performance of men and women in a military context, the psychological differences that impact on performance in close combat, the dynamics of mixed and single-sex teams, and the legal and ethical issues surrounding equality and diversity in the armed forces. It identified physical differences between the sexes that mean that, in general, men are better suited to the physical demands of high-intensity close combat. Few women would be able to meet the required entry standards for these roles, but there can be no doubt that some could.
I want to make it clear that the physical differences were not considered to be a sufficient reason to exclude women from ground combat. The deciding factor in retaining the exclusion was not whether women could physically or otherwise do the job of a soldier or a royal marine, but was based on the military judgment of whether including them would have an adverse impact on the combat effectiveness of close-combat teams in the extreme conditions of the battlefield. Our armed forces are, and will continue to be, raised, structured and equipped principally for combat. We are rightly proud of their ability to engage in high-intensity warfare, and to intervene effectively at short notice in any conflict. That has served us well and has earned us a worldwide reputation for our ability to engage successfully across the full spectrum of operations. A high level of cohesion in small fire teams or tank crews in those units is a vital component in sustaining the combat effectiveness that underpins that capability. The survival of our forces could depend on team cohesion. We will do nothing to risk impairing that.
The study found evidence that including small numbers of women in teams adds to the difficulty of creating the necessary degree of cohesion. The attitudes of group members, especially positive and negative attitudes to gender and gender stereotypes, can affect group dynamics and ultimately group effectiveness. The findings suggest that under normal conditions, and given proper management and training, the presence of women in small units need not affect performance detrimentally. However, the close-combat environment is anything but normal. We do not know whether the findings remain true under the extreme conditions of high-intensity close combat.
None of the evidence available was based on combat situations and, unless we send experimental mixed-gender teams into combat, we have no way of knowing whether they can function as well as all-male teams. Given the lack of direct evidence, the expertise of the service chiefs of staff was critical, and I concluded that military judgment would have to form the basis of any decision. The chiefs of staff view was that under the conditions of high-intensity close quarter battle, group cohesion becomes of much greater significance to team performance. In such an environment, the consequences of failure can be far reaching and grave. To admit women would therefore involve a risk with no possibility of gain in combat effectiveness to offset it.
138WH
I am keen however to ensure that women have the opportunity to progress to the highest ranks in the armed forces. Some 168 service women currently hold the rank of lieutenant-colonel or higher, or its equivalent in the other services. I hope that more women will come through to even more senior positions in the future. I am delighted that more women are now successfully combining a career in the armed forces with family life and other commitments. Initiatives are under way to establish what additional support systems are needed to allow more women to achieve that difficult balance. The armed forces are examining ways to introduce more flexible working where that can be done without implications for operational capability.
The Ministry of Defence and the armed forces will continue to work closely with the Equal Opportunities Commission and will share with it the results of further work to examine these and other issues raised by the study on women in close-combat roles. I look forward to seeing that work come to fruition.
We should not forget that the position of women in the armed forces has been transformed in a way that would have been inconceivable 20 years ago when women served in separate women's services, and could not go to sea or fly aircraft. At the same time, there has been an equally dramatic change in other aspects of equal opportunities. The armed forces have made significant progress in several areas. The robust equal opportunities regime introduced in the late 1990s is starting to bear fruit, with evidence of real and lasting change. Indeed, I would like to congratulate the Army, which today has been named the top public sector employer by Business in the Community's race for opportunity scheme. That recognises a significant and welcome culture change in the Army in recent years.
I want to place on the record my recognition of how much all three services are doing to make themselves more representative of our richly diverse society and to engender a culture that truly welcomes and values individuals with talent, skills and commitment from all walks of life. However, much remains to be done and we cannot afford to sit back.
Recruitment of ethnic minorities is one area in which there has been an overall year-on-year improvement but, despite vigorous efforts, results across all three services have fallen short of the challenging recruitment goals we have set ourselves, which culminated in last year's goal of 5 per cent. In the case of the Army, there are already encouraging signs. Although we do not yet have audited figures for 2001–02, the indications are that the proportion of recruits from the British ethnic minorities joining the Army last year exceeded the 5 per cent. goal for the first time.
For the coming year, we have set a goal for each of the services to achieve an increase of 1 per cent. in their outturn for 2001–02. If we are to increase ethnic minority recruitment further and meet the targets, we need to build on the work of recent years and endeavour to attract applicants from all sections of the population, including those where we have in the past had comparatively little success. That means building bridges with the ethnic minority communities to increase their awareness of what a career in the services has to offer. I am delighted that all three services are working hard to build strong relationships with ethnic minority communities throughout the country, to raise

139WH
their public perception and profile and to encourage young people from those communities to consider a career in the armed forces.
Each of the three services has diversity recruiting and action teams in areas with large ethnic minority communities, which forge partnerships with secondary schools, local boroughs, councils, and community and religious organisations. They are engaged in numerous initiatives aimed specifically at people from ethnic minority backgrounds. For example, there are open days at service establishments, graduate recruitment seminars, mentoring schemes and personal development courses for schools and community groups with high numbers of ethnic minorities. In addition to the continuation of recruiting activities nationwide, the services plan a higher concentration of initiatives in Greater London, an area that holds the richest source of ethnic minority recruits. All those initiatives will help to build common ground and a mutual understanding between the armed forces and the diverse communities from which they are drawn, and which they are there to serve.
Increasing recruitment of ethnic minorities is vital, but it will fail if we do not at the same time make sure that we do everything we can to make full use of the individual skills, talents and experiences of all those who join, whatever their race, ethnic origin, religion, gender, social background or sexual orientation. It is paramount that we build on a solid framework provided by our robust equal opportunities regime. Much has been done in recent years to root out racism, sexism and other forms of unacceptable behaviour and to create an environment free from unlawful discrimination and harassment.
Mr. James Gray: What is the attitude to equal opportunity for the disabled in the armed services?
Mr. Hoon: That poses a significantly more difficult problem. The test of combat effectiveness runs through all that I have set out, and it would be less than honest for us to change as far as the disabled are concerned. It would be wrong to say that we had opened up positions to disabled groups if we had also set a test that we knew from the outset they would not satisfy because of their disabilities. We have sought to identify areas of disablement that could allow individuals to satisfy the combat effectiveness test, but it is better to proceed honestly and openly.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I cannot remember where it was, but I visited a military establishment where I was shown, rather ruefully, facilities for the disabled that had had to be installed, even though the probability of disabled people using them was nil because of the qualifications for being an active member of the armed forces. Does the Minister think that there is a case for a legal reform to prevent such a waste of resources?
Mr. Hoon: Obviously, I do not know that example but I suspect—I have seen such facilities—that the armed forces concerned were complying with public legislation that affects visitors rather than the armed forces.
Mr. Paul Keetch: Regardless of whether disabled people are serving in a unit or in any place of employment, such facilities exist for visitors—including the relatives of staff at that place of employment. It is right that such facilities should exist.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the fact that disabled people work for the civil service who need access to military establishments and bases, and therefore need the same access to facilities as any other employee.
Initiatives include setting up confidential advice, support helplines and a network of equal opportunities advisers at every unit and formation. I welcome all the initiatives and look forward to seeing them bear fruit. I also particularly welcome the challenge presented by the amended Race Relations Acts to review the full range of our activities to ensure that in all we do we recognise the importance of eliminating unlawful discrimination and of promoting equal opportunities and good relations between people from all ethnic groups. I am delighted that the Ministry of Defence's race equality scheme was published on 31 May. In the case of the armed forces, that builds on the successful five-year partnership agreement with the Commission for Racial Equality that has been in place since 1998.
It is fundamental to the long-term success of our armed forces that they rise to the challenge of diversity. That means doing everything that they can to reach out to, and engage with, as wide a pool of potential applicants as possible, and to ensure that they take full advantage of all the talent and experience that already exist within the armed forces.
2.47 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I disagree with nothing that the Secretary of State has said—I should say virtually nothing, so that I am not caught out later. I thoroughly endorsed the objectives that he set out of maximising opportunities in the armed forces for women, ethnic minorities and, where possible, the disabled, although I fully concur with his fundamental caveat that combat effectiveness must be key. I do not know whether a modern fast jet could cope with a Douglas Bader, who was a paraplegic, but I leave that to technicians; I regard it as a technical rather than a moral issue.
Let no one say that we are not as committed as any other political party to opportunities for all wherever possible. Indeed, I listened with pride to the Secretary of State describing how the major initiatives, particularly for women in the armed forces, were taken in the early 1990s under the Conservative Government. I am sure that he would not begrudge us that. I wish to deal only with his decision on equal opportunities for women in the armed forces. He has not taken a wrong decision: in view of his personal commitment to equal opportunities throughout his political career and the expectations of some in his own party for a different decision, it was right and courageous.
My starting point, however, is a quote from Lord Guthrie who, as Chief of the Defence Staff addressing the Royal United Services Institute on 20 December 2000, said:
"Taking part in battle is not like going to the office."

141WH
I would add my own viewpoint that the British armed forces exist to defend democracy, not to embody it in its policies and procedures. The advice that really counts is that of the chiefs of staff and we have always maintained that the Government should accept their advice. We have been perplexed since 1997 because the chiefs of staff gave straightforward advice, yet the Government went through the rigmarole of assessing the possibility of extending opportunities for women to enter front-line infantry regiments, the Royal Marines and so forth.
Mr. Hoon: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the requirements of EU law, under which not rigmarole but a regular review of procedures is necessary?
Mr. Jenkin: That is the point. I defer to the Secretary of State's legal expertise on these matters: he is a professional and I am a mere amateur, but I hope that he will be gentle and not tie me up too much in legal knots. I hasten to add that I have taken the opinion of Queen's Counsel and come reasonably well armed.
This is the nub of the matter. When the Government defended the Sirdar case, which was eventually heard on 27 October 1999 and did not start under the present Administration, the argument then—and it was wrong—was that matters of national security were somehow outside the scope of the equal treatment directive and the treaty. The judgment in Sirdar v. Army Board rejected the submissions of France and the United Kingdom that matters concerning the conduct and discipline of members of the armed forces that were relevant to national security fell outside the scope of the treaty of Rome. That subsequently led the Government to attempt to justify sex discrimination in the armed forces on grounds of combat effectiveness.
I am concerned about the grounds adopted by the Government to sustain the policy judgment delivered today. The Secretary of State made it clear in a letter dated 22 May—the day on which he made the announcement—that in themselves physical and psychological differences cannot be a justification for discrimination. The Secretary of State referred this afternoon to cohesion among team members, which he described in his letter as
"a vital component in sustaining combat effectiveness. There is some evidence in the report that the inclusion of a small number of women adds to the difficulty of creating the necessary degree of cohesion."
He then uses a phrase in the letter that he did not use this afternoon:
"It found that the attitudes of group members, particularly positive and negative attitudes to gender and gender stereotypes, could affect group dynamics and ultimately group effectiveness."
If I was not listening properly, I will defer to the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] He did say that; I stand corrected. That is the basis for concluding:
"There is no way of knowing whether mixed gender teams can function as well as all-male teams in a combat environment."
My belief and concern is that in time there will be another legal challenge and perhaps a number of challenges. The problem is that the court has already reserved its options for future revisions of its attitude in the Sirdar judgment.
142WH
In the Kreil case—I wade into this with some trepidation—which was a sex equality case involving a German woman who wanted to serve in the German tank service, the European Court of Justice said:
"as a derogation from an individual right laid down in the Directive, that provision must be interpreted strictly".
Referring to the need for proportionality in the application of the derogation, it states that that
"requires the principle of equal treatment to be reconciled as far as possible with the requirements of public security which determine the context in which the activities in question are to be performed."
The problem with relying on proportionality lies in article 9.2 of the directive to which the Kreil judgment refers. In a nutshell, that article provides that these judgments must be made
"in the light of social developments".
I put it to the Secretary of State that the whole purpose of sex equality legislation is not to prosecute people who practise discrimination, but to change social attitudes, and there is widespread evidence that the changing social attitudes that led to sex equality legislation are in turn changing attitudes. Therefore, those positive and negative attitudes to gender and gender stereotypes are not a stable basis on which to sustain a legal position. As has happened in the past, it is likely that, as the court revisits the issue, it will reassess the social context in which the judgments are to be made. The time could come, perhaps quite soon, when the Secretary of State will not be able to sustain the advice that the chiefs of staff have given him, because he will lose a case in the ECJ.
Mr. Hoon: I hope that that largely sound legal advice did not cost the hon. Gentleman a great deal of money. He has criticised the basis on which the case was conducted before the ECJ, and I am not necessarily quibbling with the basis of that or of the court's conclusion. However, to sustain his argument, he should say what should have been the basis either of the argument advanced on the Government's behalf or of the court's decision. Clearly, we were successful in arguing the case before the court—we were vindicated by its ultimate decision.
The hon. Gentleman may be uncomfortable with the decision, but he has to admit that there has been significant social development on equality and that that will continue. I can see that there is some logic to the line that he is pursuing, but for me to be able to deal with it, he must say what should have been the basis of the court's decision, and so far he has not done so.
Mr. Jenkin: If the Secretary of State, who understands these matters, had been in at the start, there would have been no case, because he would have known that he would be up against it. I think that the previous Government started the case because they were trying to prove something that they did not want to accept, which is that the equal treatment directive has jurisdiction over this matter. I was criticising not the way in which the case was presented, but the basis set out in his letter and comments this afternoon. The basis of a future case will be that particular positive and negative attitudes to gender and gender stereotypes could affect group

143WH
dynamics and ultimately group effectiveness. That is what he will use to justify continued discrimination in any future court case.
Mr. Hoon: Any case that arises in the future—I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will not look for a case or encourage it to be brought to court—will have to be argued on the basis of the existing law, which is the reason for my original intervention. It is not as if we can choose the grounds of the argument. The grounds are chosen for us according to law laid down by the European Court of Justice.
Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman is usefully making my case for me. He will not be able to choose the law, but he has already chosen the grounds on which he will defend the case. That is why we have gone through this rigmarole of the report and him writing to me and setting out the arguments in Parliament. He is preparing to prove, in the event of another case, that he has considered all the arguments and that the discrimination is justified.
My difficulty with that phrase is that it is similar to what was used by the previous Government—I admit, mistakenly, both morally and legally—to try to deny the rights of homosexuals in the armed forces. That case went to the Strasbourg court, which dismissed an argument based on the views of members of the armed forces canvassed in the "Report of the Homosexual Policy Assessment Team" by categorising the views of the heterosexual majority effectively as equivalent to prejudice against women or racial minorities, which should not be the basis of policy. To talk about positive and negative attitudes to gender and gender stereotyping suggests that the right hon. Gentleman is basing his policy on the prejudice of the armed service men concerned.
Mr. Hoon: I emphasise categorically that the decision was not based on any kind of attitudinal view or stereotyping. The case was fought on the basis of our lawyers' understanding of what was likely to be successful, given a much more difficult equal opportunities legal basis, at the European Court of Justice or the Strasbourg court. That legal advice was vindicated because the case was won, but it was won subject to the existing law, and I repeat my earlier observation. The hon. Gentleman cannot criticise the basis on which that case was won without providing an alternative basis on which it might have been fought ultimately successfully.
Mr. Jenkin: I am probably not being 100 per cent. clear, but I am not criticising the way in which the case was handled. The Secretary of State is setting out his current case for justified discrimination. My point is that that case, which he has set out to the House, the public at large and me in his letter, will not be a sound basis for sustaining the policy that he has chosen to accept. As I said, it is wrong to rely on the known prejudices of service men—I am using the wrong words, as that sounds derogatory. It would be more correct to talk about positive and negative attitudes to gender and gender stereotyping, which I submit will be taken to be prejudices by a court at some time in the future. Moreover, because the Strasbourg court has already
144WH
dismissed such reasoning in the case of homosexuality and the European Court of Justice tends to follow its lead in human rights issues, it will be increasingly difficult to defend the policy that the Secretary of State has chosen to adopt on those grounds.
Mr. Hoon: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I may have read out my observations too quickly. I was referring to research on group dynamics, the findings of which included the fact that, whether positive or negative, the attitudes of group members to gender and gender stereotypes can affect the group's dynamic and ultimately its effectiveness. I said that the report concluded that the presence of women in small units need not affect performance detrimentally and I went on to say that, although it could not be considered a scientific assessment of group performance, in one case the mixed group performed more effectively than any single-sex group.
Experience suggests that mixed groups have a more sophisticated understanding of problems, which is drawn from the diversity of the group's background. I said that that is fine in normal circumstances and with effective management but that those circumstances do not apply in close-combat operations. I went on to say that the very different circumstances in close-combat operations meant that I could not rely upon the results of the assessments of group dynamics in reaching the difficult decision that I had to take. It was to avoid the risk that findings that applied in normal circumstances might not be applicable in close-combat, high-intensity warfare, that I reached the conclusion that I did.
Mr. Jenkin: I wonder whether the Secretary of State is beginning to dig a grave for his policy. By suggesting that group dynamics are sometimes better than single-sex groups, and by accepting that today's gender stereotyping is likely to diminish as society becomes more equal, the fundamental basis for his argument—that we do not know how the groups will function in close combat—rather begins to diminish. It may only be a matter of time before the court takes a different view.
It is very easy. All that the Secretary of State has to do—I shall give way to him again in a moment—is give me an assurance that if the legal situation begins to change, he will address it either directly in negotiations with our European partners or, if necessary, with regard to our adherence to the European convention on human rights. In the past, we made a strong case that our armed forces, like those of other nations, should not be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights; that sex equality legislation should not apply directly to the armed forces.
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the armed forces have an exemplary attitude to equality of the sexes and to race equality. They have yet to achieve what we want on that front, but the policies are in place and legislation is not needed to improve behaviour in the armed forces. Indeed, the ethos of the armed forces is that what counts is the discipline of the chain of command, not legal sanction.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. At the risk of encouraging him further, I repeat that the Government are bound by existing law and by case law. I listened carefully to his

145WH
enunciation of what I take to be modern Conservative policy, but I wonder how he proposes to change the existing legal position to be able to deliver those policies.
Mr. Jenkin: The Secretary of State is going down an even darker alley. He says that if circumstances change, the armed forces will have had it; they will have to accept whatever ruling comes from the European Court of Justice. It would be better if the Government looked to the future, to ensure that we can protect the armed forces' combat effectiveness, and that we are not subject to a court that may not have their best interests at heart.
Mr. Hoon: I have always recognised the hon. Gentleman as being at the revolutionary end of the Conservative tendency, but he should think carefully about what he has just said. It appears that if he were in government, he would not accept judgments by the European court or, indeed, any court if he were unhappy with them.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Change the law.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman says that we should change the law. Perhaps he needs to think a little harder about the treaty of Rome and the way in which European Union law might change. No doubt he and, I suspect. the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who speaks for the Conservative party on defence matters, retain the logic of their previous position, and would leave the European Union.
Mr. Jenkin: I will not be drawn further on that matter, because that is not our policy. The right hon. Gentleman has, however, underlined the difficulties that we may face if the law develops in the way that it is likely to, even if he hopes that it does not. The Government have no policy to deal with that eventuality.
3.11 pm
Mr. Eric Joyce: We have had two learned and effective speeches. I did not agree with everything that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, but he seemed to have an idea about what he was saying, and he has done a great deal of research.
I should apologise at the start, because I have an appointment and will not be here for the winding-up speeches. None the less, I wanted to take part in this important debate.
I want briefly to comment on two of the points raised by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) raised the interesting issue of disability. I did not intend to refer to it, but the hon. Member for North Essex followed up with a reference to Douglas Bader. That was not particularly helpful; indeed, it was entirely misleading.
I am not an expert, and I may be wrong, but I suspect that there are disability issues relating to serving disabled soldiers. The Disability Rights Commission occasionally refers to the issue, and the Ministry of Defence will have to respond, because it keeps soldiers on where it can in non-combatant roles. The commission occasionally lobbies the Secretary of State
146WH
for Defence, and I suspect that any discussions are rather a long way off. If and when they happen, they will probably deal with fairly marginal employments, and there might be arguments about asthma and about whether people have to leave. However, the reference to Douglas Bader was not particularly pertinent.
Mr. Gray: I had a particular constituency case in mind when I raised the issue of disability. A constituent was turned down by the Army because of a mild nut allergy, which seems absurd. I hope that the Secretary of State will enlarge a little on his policy so that I can give my constituent some hope.
Mr. Joyce: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I do not know a great deal about nut allergies, although the Secretary of State may well refer to them at the end of the debate. My instinct, however, is that there was a sensible reason for what happened.
I noticed that there was a frisson of excitement among Opposition Members at the mention of Europe. It is not for me to counsel them, but they should not let their judgment about the effectiveness of the armed forces be clouded by their assumptions about Europe and about all the evil that they think it brings.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, operational effectiveness is paramount in the organisation and running of our armed forces. The unique demands that we place on them mean that their norms will deviate from time to time from those in wider society. In that context, the role of equal opportunities can be misperceived, unless we are very clear about it. Several sketches in The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph earlier this week were quite funny, but they suffered from exactly such a misperception.
Equal opportunities are important to the armed services, not at the symbolic level, but at the practical level, in that the services need to recruit the best people that they can. That means not putting people out of consideration for irrational reasons, but removing impediments that might have existed historically across our society in terms of race and gender. Those are the two most relevant factors. A successful equal opportunities regime in the armed forces is ultimately needed to ensure their fighting effectiveness, as well as their ability to carry out the wide range of tasks that we have become used to them fulfilling in recent years.
What I say on gender may be fairly similar to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, but I have arrived at it through my own reasoning. I suspect that there will be an element of difference, so I shall not simply replicate what he said, although I might back it up in some respects. At face value, the decision not to allow women to serve in teeth arms units seems sensible, based on the risk that extends from the lack of hard evidence about how mixed-gender teams perform in combat.
The Ministry of Defence clearly intends to monitor the policy and, if appropriate, to revisit it. I welcome that pragmatic approach, which does not necessarily shut the door to women in close-combat roles for ever. By chance, it reflects residual concern about wider society and combat. I say that having spoken to many of my constituents about it. I have had quite a few letters on the subject. It is not the issue on which I have had the

147WH
most letters, but I do receive letters about it fairly regularly. It might be considered marginal but it is not as marginal as one might imagine. Most people would be against the idea of women serving in combat roles.
Interestingly, the full study carried out by the MOD refuted many traditional arguments often used by previous Governments against the wider employment of women. It agreed that there was an element of gender overlap up to and including the most arduous of activities. We have seen that personified recently in Captain Pip Tattersall, now the proud owner of a Royal Marine Commando green beret.
The study also considered psychological factors and decided that, although there might be gender differences, that would probably not prevent women from serving in combat roles. The document from the director of service personnel on the outcome of the study was published in May, and the part of it that struck me most was about psychological factors. It stated:
"The report found that few of the psychological differences between men and women could be said to have a significant bearing on their respective suitability for close combat roles. Their capacity for aggression, however, was generally lower for women, who required more provocation and were more likely to fear the consequences of aggressive behaviour."
The last line caught my eye, as it read:
"There was evidence though that this gap could be closed given sufficient social licence and provocation."
I wondered what the experimental methodology was. I had an image in mind of white-coated scientists taking a bunch of women down town for 15 pints and then poking them with a stick. How else would one give them
"sufficient social licence and provocation"?
The outcome of the study orients around psychology and teamwork. In that respect, it is interesting to note that, in some teeth arms units that had been studied in the early days of gender studies, it was not uncommon or at least unknown for male soldiers to be physically unable to carry out some of the tasks, especially when they involved heavy lifting. I am thinking especially of moving artillery and high explosive shells in relation to the AS90. Essentially, such tasks could be completed by the team because the team apportioned tasks according to who was the strongest in the unit. That was an interesting early aspect of the studies that have led to what we know now.
The policy will not have enormously significant implications for manning—personning, or whatever one says—as there is little gender overlap in relation to physical capacity. Some women could pass the most stringent physical tests, but because the percentage is pretty small, it would not make up a significant part of any shortfall that might exist. In that sense, the decision not to allow women to serve in the teeth arms is probably marginal.
Whatever the current evidence tells us, however, it will be important that senior officers keep an open mind on the subject, in case new evidence comes to light. The literature survey mentioned in the report seems to represent a fairly modest form of scientific evidence. I am not an expert, but I am not aware of a huge amount of literature on the subject resulting from scientific study. Perhaps a wider survey, future studies or the experience of other countries may flag up some significant new evidence. Broadly speaking, however,
148WH
the policy seems sensible, although it might be revisited in due course. I urge members of the armed services to keep their minds open about the possibility of change in the long term, should some of the other changes that have already been alluded to come to fruition. My mind is not closed on these issues.
The Ministry of Defence and the Army have clearly made enormous efforts in respect of race over the past five years. There is a welter of evidence to that effect, including several awards and warm comments from the Commission for Racial Equality. For five years, there has been year-on-year improvement in the proportion of non-white recruits, although there is still a considerable way to go. There is a great deal of documentary evidence, including reams of policy statements, the Race Equality Scheme 2002, initiatives on mainstreaming, and the Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy—AFOPS. Significantly, the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 is referred to in more detail in Ministry of Defence documentation than in any other Government Department's personnel documents that I have seen. The fact that the MOD can take a new policy such as this in its stride is a clear sign that its personnel systems have come a long way in the past five or six years. On the proportion of non-white soldiers and air and naval personnel, it seems that the recent events of 11 September and thereafter created a much more difficult climate in which to reach the ambitious targets already referred to by the Secretary of State.
There is clearly a relationship between people's sense of identity, even national identity, and their preparedness to join the armed services of any particular country. In the past week, The Guardian has been carrying extensive reports and surveys on that subject. I noticed that it said that Muslims in Britain who come from the Indian sub-continent were more likely to refer to themselves as British or British Muslims than as anything else, which is probably encouraging in respect of their likelihood of wanting to join the armed services, and that there is a substantial increase in the number of people who describe themselves as such. That may indicate that, in spite of the events of the past few months, since 11 September, people will be more likely to join the armed forces. That is a significant factor.
I worked at the CRE for a short time, yet I still do not detect quite the enthusiasm that I would like to see from all the leaders of ethnic minority communities in encouraging their young men and women to join the services. Women from ethnic minority communities may be less likely to join the armed forces because of cultural variables, but as women make up a small minority in the Army, that probably does not affect the overall intake. If women make up 7 or 8 per cent., that proportion of the overall ethnic minority intake would be fairly small. The significant factor seems to be the extent to which community leaders and young men and women inform themselves about the significance and benefits to not only themselves, but the country, of joining the armed services.
It is a two-way street. The Government are tackling under-representation relatively successfully and as effectively as they can. The armed services are doing so in an exemplary way, as the CRE says. However, it is a two-way street and the other side have to play their part as well. Although, to an extent, they have done so recently, more could be done in that respect.

149WH
Effective equal opportunities is not about making symbolic statements but about making organisations more effective by giving people as many choices as possible. We must ensure that we maximise the chances of those who work for the organisation to make that organisation effective and so that they benefit from that effectiveness themselves.
I remain unconvinced that Opposition Members perceive the matter in that way. The hon. Member for North Essex referred provocatively to Douglas Bader. If he approaches the matter from that point of view, it suggests that he may not be instinctually sympathetic to equal opportunities. A good, sensible and pragmatic equal opportunities policy will invariably help the armed forces to be more effective. That is precisely the direction that the Government are taking.
3.26 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch: It is gratifying that you should be in the Chair, Mrs. Roe, as I remember the 12 months that you and I spent assigned to the Royal Navy as part of the parliamentary armed forces scheme. We found that particular role invaluable in understanding the armed forces of today. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who is involved in the Royal Navy scheme as you and I were, is also hoping to catch your eye and participate in the debate.[Interruption.] She is with the Army, in fact. She should be with the Navy—it is far better.
It is apposite that we are holding the debate this afternoon, given the Secretary of State's announcement a couple of hours ago that some of our forces are returning from Afghanistan. All of us who have an interest in the subject through our portfolio or who served as members of the armed forces are struck by the extraordinary efforts that our armed forces invest in their work and the high esteem in which they are held throughout the world. That has been the case in Afghanistan and is the case wherever they go.
Most of us are aware of the invaluable role that our armed forces play in peacekeeping as well as war fighting. I remember that when my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) returned from Sierra Leone, she glowed with the praise she had heard for the work that she had seen our armed forces doing and the genuine difference that the British had made. Recently, we saw the excellent elections that followed those efforts.
Whether in peacekeeping or war fighting, our forces perform a wide range of tasks with remarkable skill. Because they have such a remarkable role, the forces should be made up of a wide range of members of society and continue to change in an ever-changing world. One lesson that we learned from the terrible events of 11 September was that if we had had intelligence and security forces to infiltrate al-Qaeda more effectively, we might have understood that organisation better. That is another reason why our recruitment in security services should not be done in the style of James Bond films; we should recruit from members of ethnic groups in our society. That may be an extreme example of why ethnic diversity is important in our security and armed forces, but it at least highlights the need for the armed forces to reflect on the nature of our society while recruiting.
150WH
Today, the Secretary of State announced some good news about the Army. Despite measures such as the equal opportunities directives and action plans and the corporate equal opportunities goals and principles, which are worthy ideas, ethnic minorities still make up a small percentage of the armed forces. The Government figures for 2001–02 show that ethnic minority recruitment rose to 6.2 per cent. of all intake. That is a promising figure, but it includes elements of Commonwealth recruitment, which often make up a substantial part of ethnic recruitment figures. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether those figures include Commonwealth recruitment? Will he tell us what the ethnic recruitment figures for the United Kingdom are?
The Government are to be praised for improvements in the level of recruitment. It has been a rocky road. I recall commenting in 2000 on the Government's failure to meet ethnic minority recruitment targets. If they are doing so now, I will be the first to congratulate them, but the House should be regularly brought up to date on the matter. The Ministry of Defence has made some impact, but more could be done. I suggest to the Secretary of State that we consider in particular ethnic minority recruitment into the cadet forces, because that could be a good way to bring more people from our ethnic communities into our armed forces.
Turning briefly to the role of women in the armed forces, the publication of the MOD's recent document on that subject is welcome and it is right that we are debating its conclusions today. I have stated my opinion on the matter before and I shall do so again. I believe that no post in the armed forces should necessarily be closed to either male or female personnel, provided that they can meet the mental and physical requirements of the task. The Department's document made some valid points. The Liberal Democrats do not want to compromise in any way operational effectiveness or group cohesion. We understand that the demands of front-line combat are severe and we should never compromise on them, because to do so could cost lives. However, as the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) said, those issues should be kept under constant review.
The Secretary of State mentioned Captain Pip Tattersall, who completed the all arms course at Commando Training Centre Royal Marines in Lympstone and I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who served with such distinction in 40 and 42 Commando, is sitting next to me. I am glad that Captain Tattersall is pleased that she has performed that task. It goes to show how far women have come in our armed forces. Nevertheless, we still have far too few women in our armed forces. The latest figures suggest that they make up just 8.2 per cent. of personnel. Figures also suggest that there is a distinct correlation between the number of roles open to women in an individual service and the number of women who serve in that service. For example, 96 per cent. of posts in the Royal Air Force are available to women and that force has the highest proportion of women in service—10.6 per cent. The Navy, with 73 per cent. of its posts open to women, has only 8.5 per cent. and the Army, with only 70 per cent. of its posts available, has the lowest figure at 7.2 per cent. Those figures are unsurprising, but the point is clear—the more posts available to women in a service, the more women will join, and rightly so.

151WH
I want to say something about disability rights, because they were mentioned by the Conservative spokesman and we have had a debate on them. Disability is not always visible. People can be disabled in many ways—although I do not quite understand why a nut allergy should stop a person from serving—and we should not consider disability as solely concerning those who are unable to perform physical tasks. Simply being disabled should not be a bar in any way to serving in the armed forces.
There was a great discussion earlier between the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), about various court cases. In the past, the MOD has been in court or has been threatened with court on cases of basic civil liberties. That is because equal opportunities go hand in hand with equal rights.
Mr. John Burnett: On the matter of physical disabilities do I take it that my hon. Friend is not resiling from his earlier point that military efficiency and fighting effectiveness are paramount?
Mr. Keetch: That is absolutely right. I am glad to repeat that nothing should in any way detract from the ability of our armed forces to do the job that they have to do. There may be some roles in our armed forces that people with some disabilities could fulfil. I do not want to go down the Douglas Bader route, but other members of the armed forces—there are some in my constituency—have returned from action disabled, some of them recently, and are considering ways in which they can continue to play a role in the armed forces. Those people are very valuable to our armed forces and we should encourage them to stay.
There have been cases of pregnant women being wrongly dismissed and of unmarried partners threatening to claim their pension rights, and recently threats have been made by the Gurkhas—at least some of them—that they will claim pension rights. Those cases have landed some bad publicity for the Ministry of Defence. I greatly appreciate the civil servants who work in the MOD and I am happy to repeat that today, but I believe that the Ministry is under incredible financial constraints imposed by the Treasury. Sometimes I suspect that those constraints lead to such cases being brought. The instances in which the Ministry of Defence is seen as, perhaps, too conservative do nothing to help our recruitment initiatives. The MOD has made an excellent effort to become an employer offering equal opportunities and equal rights not just to the serving members of our armed forces but, as the Secretary of State said, to the 100,000 or so civil servants involved in the Ministry's work.
I conclude by offering some suggestions to the Secretary of State which might help all members of our armed forces—men and women—from every ethnic background. The service family taskforce, which we supported, should have its remit extended, to allow it to look after the rights of service personnel even more closely. We must ensure that our soldiers, sailors and airmen are afforded full and equal rights within the armed forces and within the disciplinary procedures of those forces. The zero tolerance approach to bullying and harassment must be enforced and backed up with effective family services. As I have suggested in the past, there should be a family officer on every base.
152WH
If we can offer equal opportunities and equal rights to our forces, we can surely go some way towards addressing the problems of recruitment and retention that affect our—
Patrick Mercer: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's understanding of the matter, but I was under the impression that every unit already had a family officer.
Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman, too, has excellent knowledge of these matters, but I do not believe that that is the case. Perhaps the Secretary of State can confirm that to both of us, either today or later in writing.
Equal opportunities and equal rights for our forces should be a matter of course. We should be able to assume it and not have to debate it. Nevertheless, I am glad that we are having this debate, because our service men and women are the most important asset that our armed forces possess. If we neglect them, we neglect our own protection.
3.36 pm
Patrick Mercer: I am sorry that I missed the early part of the debate and I apologise to those on both Front Benches. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for having brought the subject to our attention. I should like to throw some light on the comments of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) about disability. I assume, and he will put me right if I am wrong, that he is talking about one or two of his constituents or near constituents serving in the Special Air Services in Hereford.
That particular regiment has a different role, in that it is one of the few Army units that has a fixed base. He is right that a number of soldiers from the Special Air Services are allowed to serve on, despite, in many cases, hideous wounds and disabilities, because the base is fixed. Those troops will never deploy—they physically cannot do so—but I urge him to look at both battalions of the Light Infantry of his county regiment. I do not think that he will find anybody with severe disabilities serving in those battalions. If a ship or a battalion has to move at short notice, every person who deploys has to be operationally capable. It is slightly different in the Royal Air Force and there may be certain military exemptions. While I echo the words about making military bases available and accessible and the jobs thereon available to civil servants with disabilities, and trying to be as accommodating as possible, the matter of disability is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman might make it seem.
Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman knows my constituency well—he used to live close to it. I was not referring to that regiment; I am always careful about referring to it and to its exact location. Of the constituents concerned, one was a member of the Royal Navy and the other a member of the Royal Air Force. They were going to stay in training establishments. They happened to be constituents, but they wanted to stay in training. They wanted to stay on because they could offer valuable experience to other officers who followed them. I see no reason why people who might have been

153WH
injured should not continue to play their valuable roles. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that we want to keep them in the armed forces.
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlining my point. Such people can, rightly, serve in certain elements—fixed units in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and, indeed, inside the Army.
In my battalion, a Corporal Clark had his thumb shot off in Crossmaglen in the 1980s. He was able to continue to serve up to a specific rank. We kept him for as long as possible, but he could not continue to serve in a rifle section or platoon because he could not handle a firearm effectively. He eventually had to be discharged because his promotion possibilities ran out. None the less, I endorse the point about being as flexible as possible. However, it is one thing to keep under arms a soldier, sailor or airman who has bled for his or her country, and ensure that they can rightly gather their pensions. It is a different matter to recruit a service man with a disability, who will always have a restricted ability to serve in different theatres with different units. I ask for the application of a large dose of common sense to that problem.
On the comments of the hon. and gallant Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) about open-mindedness, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I restrict my comments to the Army, which I know best. The Army has been remarkably open-minded, especially about employing women. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the many tours that he conducted in Northern Ireland and ask him to consider the way in which the intelligence effort in battalions such as his and mine went from being a largely male domain in the 1970s to a largely female domain in the early 1980s.
In 1982, I took over as intelligence officer in west Belfast and, to my surprise, inherited a platoon of what was then called the Women's Royal Naval Service. It consisted of first-class intelligence operatives, with minds that were better attuned to retention and the analytical aspects of intelligence than those of their male equivalents. I appreciate that I am generalising and being deeply sexist.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider one or two anomalies that may have escaped his attention. The first involves females serving in the Territorial Army infantry. Several years ago, I was sufficiently lucky to be chief instructor of the platoon commander's course. I had a course for Territorial Army platoon commanders, two of whom were women. They served in units in the north and I was a little surprised when the ladies turned up; as we have heard, infantry units do not generally have women in combat roles. I checked whether the ladies should have been on the course and I found that they were platoon commanders with TA infantry battalions. There was no legislation that stated whether they should do the course.
Although both ladies were more than capable of the technical elements of being infantry platoon commanders, they could not cope with the physical difficulties of carrying an infantryman's load. Anyone who doubts those difficulties and strictures can ask the hon. Member for Falkirk, West. Those two ladies
154WH
simply could not deal with them. In every other way. they were equal and sometimes superior to their male equivalents. However, they could not command infantry platoons and I therefore endorse the Secretary of State's policy, with all the provisos that have been mentioned.
I shall underline another anomaly. Although women are encouraged to serve in more roles throughout the combat arms, female recruiting faces difficulties. The Nottinghamshire Regiment and the Royal Horse Artillery are the only two units that have come to my constituency, which the Secretary of State knows well, to recruit. Neither unit is accompanied by an arm that can and will accept females. Why not? Why does not the Worcester and Sherwood Foresters Regiment have an Adjutant-General's Corps female representative or an Army Air Corps female representative to mop up the pool of ready female recruits who come forward? Young ladies always mob the soldiers who turn up in Newark. Many would make excellent soldiers. However, the lack of flexibility in the recruiting system means that the regular Army is heavily under-recruited, and many potential recruits—male and female—are often missed. I commend that to the Secretary of State's attention.
Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend referred to anomalies. I believe that an infantry battalion in the Royal Irish Regiment takes women. Will he explain how that fits into what he was saying, or is it another anomaly?
Patrick Mercer: I do not believe that it is an anomaly. The Royal Irish Regiment has several battalions of home-service force soldiers; in other words, battalions that are restricted to serving in Northern Ireland under that regimental cap badge. The old phrase for female soldiers serving there used to be "Greenfinches", and their conditions of service were entirely different from those of what used to be called the Women's Royal Army Corps. They were serving soldiers with a commitment to serve only at home in what used to be the Ulster Defence Regiment and is now the Royal Irish Regiment. The first battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, which is a general service infantry battalion that is committed around the world, does not allow lady soldiers to serve in combat roles. There is a clear distinction between the two that is eminently workable.
I may be at odds with my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, but I believe that homosexuality in the armed forces has been heavily mishandled. Others who have served may disagree with me, but in my 25 years as an infantry officer—I must measure my words carefully—I came across homosexuality several times, although I would not say that it was widespread. It did not seem to cause a problem or threaten discipline. Of course, it is different with the more overt and aggressive forms of homosexuality that are so often thrust in our faces on television. Those forms that I saw in the armed forces never gave me cause for concern in my service. What gave me cause for concern was the way in which the armed forces dealt with it. They created a problem where none existed. I would have preferred them to take a more open-minded and flexible approach to

155WH
homosexuality and say, "Fine, if that's the way it is, so be it. We will not stand in the way on this, because it does not undermine our operational effectiveness."
Mr. Burnett: What would be the hon. Gentleman's approach if that activity alone, in one individual or others, was undermining military efficiency?
Patrick Mercer: That is a pertinent question. The answer is simple: in his time with the Royal Marine Corps, the hon. Gentleman will have come across difficult sexual relationships springing up between officers and female soldiers.
Mr. Burnett: To be honest, I did not, but there we are.
Patrick Mercer: I am surprised. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must have come across infidelity in the case of married soldiers.
Mr. Burnett: Yes.
Patrick Mercer: The commanding officer's firm and stringent hand dealt with any heterosexual relationships that caused a problem. If homosexual relationships cause a problem, the commanding officer would deal with it in the same way.
I take much the same approach on racism. The Secretary of State will understand the mixed racial nature of the county of Nottinghamshire. The Nottinghamshire Regiment in which I served reflected that. In the 1970s, my battalion had a large number of racial minorities, Englishmen all, who served without any difficulty. During my brief period in command of my battalion, I was delighted that all five of my company sergeant majors were black. That did not cause a problem.
I commend the work of the ethnic recruiting team that has put so much work into, and has had so much success in, recruiting ethnic minorities to certain parts of the Army where ethnic recruitment is difficult. It is not necessarily because of prejudice, but it is difficult. I point to some highland regiments where ethnic recruits are simply thin on the ground. I also point to the Brigade of Guards where, rightly or wrongly, there has been a perception that there is ingrained racism.
Mr. Joyce: In pictures of the Royal Scots marching through Edinburgh about a month ago, there was a striking number of non-white faces among them. There has been a substantial advance, although I would not call the Royal Scots a highland regiment.
Patrick Mercer: I will come to the point about recruiting in a moment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is absolutely right. There have been some extremely flexible and far-reaching approaches to recruiting. I would applaud the way that, despite the highly prejudicial and distasteful question at Prime Minister's questions on Wednesday, our regiments of foot guards and household cavalry now show a considerable number of coloured faces among their ranks—and quite right too. I look forward to seeing many more coloured faces in their officers' messes. That has already happened and it will doubtless continue.
156WH
Clearly, the first battalion of the Royal Scots has fully embraced the idea of recruiting from the Commonwealth, due to its huge recruiting difficulties in the past. Anyone in this Chamber who goes to a passing out parade anywhere in the British Isles will see a number of ethnic recruits from the Commonwealth. In many cases, English is not their first language, but all the young men and women I have seen have been absolutely first class. I endorse that and I praise the work of the recruiting group, for once, for having achieved it.
I have one question: if we approach the recruitment of Commonwealth members in that way, why do we not try to make up the 8,000 or so shortfall in our Army from members of the Ghurkha regiments? They are Nepalese people who are clearly not necessarily Commonwealth members but they are ready, willing and able. There is no prejudice against them: on the contrary, their reputation stands high. If some military salaries went back to Nepal, it would help not only this country; it would considerably help Nepal in its current difficulties.
In conclusion, I welcome the policy that the Secretary of State for Defence has put forward. I have my reservations about it and I believe that it contains some anomalies. I should be grateful for any answers that he can give me. I would be chary, however, about calling the forces narrow-minded. With their customary flexibility, they have approached the problems that I have described with great energy. For the most part, they have conquered them or are in the process of doing so. They have my warm congratulations and, as ever, my admiration.
3.53 pm
Sandra Gidley: My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) has outlined the party position, but I hope that the Chamber will be indulgent if I present a much more personal view. I do not claim to be an expert on gender in the armed forces, but I thought that it might be useful if I described how my opinions have changed since I took part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I was delighted to do that with the Army because it is a wonderful organisation. I do not like boats, which is why I did not choose the Navy. Before I recount my experiences I should like to say how impressed I was by the document "Women in the Armed Forces". It laid out the facts in an analytical way, which showed how much work had gone into examining the issues and how much care had been taken to present a range of them.
At the beginning of the year my starting premise was a bit feminist: "Anything you can do, I can do better" or at least "I can do it just as well as you, if you are male." I have a reputation in some quarters as a bit of a women's libber, so it is not surprising that I started with the attitude that women should be able to do everything. The armed forces parliamentary scheme has modified my views. I hope that people will not say, "Jolly good thing, that scheme, if it gets the girls to come to their senses." I hope that that attitude is not prevalent today.

157WH
It might be helpful if I describe some of my recent personal experiences, which may put my comments into perspective. Early in the scheme, I visited the Army training school at Winchester and saw recruits undergoing their 12-week training. I was surprised when the Minister said that only 20 per cent. of recruits are female, as the gender balance on the course that I followed was about 50 per cent. I realised that I was working with the Adjutant-General's Corps, which employs a large number of women in clerical and administrative roles. It was clear to the average observer that, in general—one always has to be general in these cases—the men were coping much better with the physical demands of assault courses, for example. It also struck me powerfully that a lot of team building was going on; people were supporting the weaker members who, in some cases, although not invariably, were women, because they realised that ultimately it was a team effort.
I will sidetrack slightly and say that throughout my two days with the course, I was accompanied by a female captain who impressed on me her view that, during her time in the Army, she had not been subjected to discrimination. She was a mother, and was married to another soldier. She said that the Army ensured that in such families there would never be a time when both parents would be separated from the child on an unaccompanied posting. That may be unofficial, and I am not sure that I am supposed to have said it, but if that is the practice, I wholeheartedly support it because it means that the Army is reacting realistically to the practicalities of life.
Another key factor at the start of the scheme was that from day one the Army left us in no doubt about one thing. It used one word a lot, which I have since learnt underpins everything that it does. The word was "win", which should be blindingly obvious, but it takes a while to get to grips with the culture. I realised that this was serious stuff. When face to face with the enemy, people have to win, they must have that mentality and it must underpin everything that they do. There can be no failures, and the Army is highly trained and highly motivated to achieve that aim.
I am a services daughter, so I thought that I knew a reasonable amount about the Army, but the modern Army has changed completely. Twenty years ago, a soldier could enlist and it was feasible that, like my father, he could spend 24 years in the armed forces and never see any action, even in a support role. That is no longer so.
I did not change my views very much until I spent some time with the Second Royal Tank Regiment in Fallingbostel. It was great fun; they let the MPs lose and we were allowed to drive Challenger 2s and fire them. I wondered about the wisdom of it before I did it. Some of the chaps on the scheme got rather excited and talked about boys' toys and I thought, "They could be girls' toys too; let us not have any of this." The reality is that it is easy to drive a tank and incredibly easy to fire it and hit the target, so I have no truck with the argument that women cannot take on those roles.
Patrick Mercer: Did the hon. Lady get a chance to live for 48 hours closed down inside a Challenger tank?
Sandra Gidley: I am coming to that.
I asked the tank crews how long they would expect to be cooped up in one of those things and they said that eight to 12 hours was the longest that they had ever experienced, but that it could be longer in a war situation. It was rather unpleasant and stuffy, but I have no doubt that I could put up with the conditions by myself or with a group of women. We women are made of tough stuff. However, I am not sure that I would like to be in a Challenger 2 tank with three men for that length of time. That would present problems. I do not intend to go into the fine details: people can use their imagination.
I do not want to dwell on the issue because I shall return to the physical aspects of war, but the key factor is that, although a woman can easily fire and drive a tank, any member of a tank team must be capable of taking on any of the other roles, which include loading ammunition—possibly over prolonged periods—and replacing the parts of a tank track. Such tasks are physically demanding. A minority of women could meet the physical demands, but I was struck by the statement in the report "Women in the Armed Forces" that
"A review of female recruits entering the Army in 1999 showed that if current selection standards were applied retrospectively, only 0.1% of those applying would have reached the standard for entry to the Infantry or RAC. Of trained female soldiers, 1% would reach the standard."
We are talking about a small proportion of women.
For the reasons I highlighted earlier, mixed tank crews are a non-starter. I even considered the possibility of all-female tank crews—if one could find women with the physical strength and stamina to perform all the roles—but that is pie in the sky if one thinks things through to their logical conclusion. It is unlikely in a war that one would have a neat number of women to fit into a tank and, in any case, one does not want to be thinking about such issues in such situations. I have therefore decided, reluctantly, that the practicalities militate against women being used in that way, even though I fundamentally agree with equal opportunities and believe that there should be no barriers as long as women can meet the physical and mental requirements.
That brings me to the question of attitudes, which ultimately leads to the thorny problem of group cohesion, which many hon. Members have touched on today. Before people misunderstand my remarks, I should emphasise that the vast majority of people I encountered on the scheme were open, keen to discuss the issue and unfailingly generous in spirit. The Army seems the last bastion of old-fashioned gentlemanly manners; I have never come across so many well-mannered men in my life.
When I was discussing the matter—mainly with men but sometimes with women—three lines of argument were often advanced. The first argument was that women would not be able to put up with the physical conditions. I think that some could. However, I was very struck in that regard by a piece written by the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) about her time with the armed forces parliamentary scheme—it seems to be a trend. She had asked to join the Royal Marines and

159WH
they arranged for her to accompany them on an exercise in the jungle in Belize. She describes how physically close everybody was and how there was no escape from the group; she painted a vivid picture. She went on to say:
"This was an exercise, but the reality of combat can be far worse. With a real enemy in close proximity, troops must live as inconspicuously as possible. The space they occupy may be only a few feet square, yet it is their space. Space to live, to observe, to eat and to do what nature requires. They must understand and respect their fellows. In such cramped spaces, they are even taught how to hold a bag while another defecates into it. They must have no qualms at all. This is man at his most raw and most primitive. But that is war."
She goes into more detail and says at the end:
"Women, frankly, cannot be part of that when it is at its most intense and raw."
Despite what we say in a politically correct manner, I concur wholeheartedly with the conclusion of the hon. Member for Watford.
Mr. Burnett: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because she is making as powerful a case as the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) made in her admirable article. My only operational experience was in the far and middle east, and although no one held a bag for me, the levels of intimacy were such that it would make life impossible to have mixed front-line troops deployed in such circumstances. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Sandra Gidley: I do agree. Those who know me well will know how much it has pained me to come to these conclusions.
The second argument, which has been put forward on occasion, but by no means universally, was something that people have often preferred to ignore. It was put to me on several occasions that women in a minority can become a focus for the attention of men and can be distracting. That seems to be problematic, as it would have an impact on group cohesion. It reminded me of when I was at school. I attended an old-fashioned all-girls school, which did not think that girls should do physics. It arranged for me to go to the boys school down the road to take A-level physics. One girl among 600 testosterone-fuelled boys creates quite a stir, and I was a focus for attention. However, in an average comprehensive where boys and girls work side by side, they do not take a blind bit of notice of each other. Is not part of the problem the fact that women are still a rarity in such situations? If the imbalances are addressed, that factor will disappear.
The third argument, which is commonly held, is that when it comes to it, we do not know if women will be able to kill. I could answer flippantly that there are plenty of women in jail for murder, but that is not the issue. We are talking about a war situation and must think carefully about whether, when push comes to shove, they are up to it. I repeat what was said earlier. The "Women in the Armed Forces" report stated that
"given social licence and enough provocation, the gap between male and female aggression could be closed."
I was also struck by the fact that the Minister said that the results of the group dynamic studies could not be extrapolated. Why was that? In the 21st century, with all the techniques that we have at our disposal, we must be able to find the answer.
Patrick Mercer: As a matter of curiosity, what is the hon. Lady's view about the all-female Russian sniper units that operated during the second world war, especially give that the highest scoring Russian sniper at the siege of Sebastopol was a lady?
Sandra Gidley: I do not have a great knowledge of that incident. As I said, I am a bit of a beginner in this field, but it is proven that women have the skills. The report says that the skills exist and that mixed groups perform well. However, before we move ahead, we must answer to our satisfaction the fundamental question of how mixed groups will work in a mixed Army.
Mr. Burnett: My hon. Friend is hitting on the solution. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) spoke about Russian troops in the second world war. Some Russian tank regiments were not mixed, but female only, and they proved to be brave, distinguished and effective.
Sandra Gidley: I have to agree. I would love to know how well mixed groups perform under pressure, but evidence suggests that all-female groups—occasionally they are not practical as I explained earlier—can perform well. Will the Minister investigate further what ultimately will happen in the group situation and reflect on whether all-female units can be used, as long as all their members comply with the full range of physical and mental requirements?
4.11 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: We have had an interesting debate this afternoon and I hope that it receives wider coverage than the depleted ranks, particularly on the Secretary of State's side of the Chamber, might suggest—
Mr. Hoon: It is three-all.
Mr. Howarth: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has three times the number of infantry in his party that we do. Clearly, there are signs of defence cuts on his side of the Chamber.
As I said, our debate was useful and we heard some well-informed contributions. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) who serves, like my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and I, on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, remarked that the Army is the last bastion of old-fashioned manners. I hope that the Army will take that as she intended-as a profound compliment at a time when manners are in short supply elsewhere. Some of the old-fashioned values under threat should be enduring values. They certainly contribute to the professionalism and superb skill of our armed forces, to which the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex and the whole Chamber paid tribute this afternoon. Results in Afghanistan were no accident: they were brought about by the adherence of Her Majesty's armed forces to a set of standards and values that are enduring but, I fear, under threat.
Sandra Gidley: I want it put on record that my comment was intended as a compliment. Occasionally,

161WH
good manners can seem patronising, but I have encountered many gentlemen who have retained good manners and have the highest respect for women. I often wish that more men in other walks of life would follow their example.
Mr. Howarth: I am glad that the hon. Lady has put that on the record. I had understood from the outset that she intended her remark to be a compliment.
I shall not rehearse the speeches of other contributors to the debate. However, I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) say that the Army should not contain many James Bonds. I have always thought that James Bond was, in some respects, a good role model for the armed forces. That sort of derring-do military enterprise has a valuable role to play in our armed forces.
Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman will see in tomorrow's Hansard that I was talking about the security forces, especially their ability to infiltrate organisations such as al-Qaeda in response to 11 September. I am sure that he will agree that James Bond might not have been the best operative to send to infiltrate al-Qaeda.
Mr. Howarth: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's original remark was right. All I can say is that those who are stationed not a million miles from his constituency have made a significant contribution to the battle to win hearts and minds.
The essence of the debate this afternoon has centred on ethnic minority recruiting and the role of women in our armed forces. The ethnic minorities recruiting unit for the Army is based in my constituency of Aldershot. I have met its representatives and pay tribute to their work. It has an important role to play, but I hope, equally, that we are careful to ensure that we are not completely obsessed by targets to the detriment of what the Secretary of State set out as our key objective, which is to ensure the combat effectiveness of our armed forces. That must be the guiding principle and the priority, and other things must be tailored to meet it.
The Secretary of State's announcement on the role of women in our armed forces, and the documentation that he released on 22 May, inspired today's debate. It is important to make the point that women have always played a key role in our armed forces. The idea that the role of women in our armed forces is new is simply not true. Along with countless thousands of other women during the second world war, my mother served in various capacities in uniform, not least in the operations room of RAF Coltishall as a plotter—one of those ladies pushing billiard-type cues across a map of the North sea. That was a valuable role that my mother and others like her played during the war. She was also a mechanic. Thank God she did not get too near important components of aeroplanes to do much damage, although women were also involved in physical activity in aircraft engineering during the second world war.
A distinguished constituent of mine was in Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps—a QA, for short. She played an important role on D-day plus six
162WH
during the D-day landings. She was in the front line, but she was not armed with a bayonet, commanding or serving in a tank: she was a nurse. Another constituent is a modern-day QA who served in the Falklands conflict. She told me that the first casualties were treated by male nurses, but the morale of the troops shot up when the female nurses arrived. Women have a role to play as nurses in our armed forces that should not be underestimated. In our drive to try to make the armed forces reflect society, it is dangerous to ignore the roles that men and women play in different aspects of the armed services.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex made clear at the outset, we welcome the Secretary of State's decision most warmly. However, I remind the Chamber that, in an interview with The Times on 2 October 2000, the Secretary of State said:
"Women must be treated as equals at every level … Women are already serving in frontline jobs in the Armed Forces, with artillery units, as fighter pilots and in warships, which means they are just as likely to be in a position to kill people in combat as men are. That would be the same if they had an infantry role."
Greater joy is there in heaven over the one sinner that repenteth. I do not suggest that the Secretary of State is a sinner, but he has clearly heard the arguments of the chiefs of staff that the hon. Member for Romsey articulated. We welcome that change of heart. However, he could have acknowledged at the outset that military judgment had to form the basis of his ultimate decision. Why spend so much time and money and distract military planners in dealing with the issue when he concludes that military judgment was right all along? The Chief of the Defence Staff said that to have made any other decision would have resulted in an irresponsible experiment. The common-sense view has prevailed, and I welcome that—it is important to ensure that common sense prevails.
As the hon. Member for Romsey mentioned, there are physical aspects to serving in the armed forces. I see young girls and older women involved with the Royal Engineers at Gibraltar barracks in my constituency. Sometimes I marvel at their ability to lift large ammunition boxes and huge girders and I wonder what that is doing to their physical health. Interestingly, in his letter, the Secretary of State made the point that each of the services has in place
"demanding, gender-free, task related physical tests for the roles in question. The study identified that approximately 1 per cent. of serving female soldiers and 0.1 per cent. of female Army applicants could nevertheless be expected to reach the required standards."
In other words, a very tiny minority. We should not be obsessed with sex equality at the expense of combat effectiveness, as the Secretary of State has said.
I shall now turn to an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex dealt with at length. I shall not do that, but will simply reinforce the point that he made about the judgment that caused him to review the position. As he says,
"The Sex Discrimination Act (1975),"
which was passed by a Labour Government,
"allows the Armed forces to exclude women from those posts where the military judgement is that the employment of women would undermine and degrade combat effectiveness."

163WH
That was the position of the Labour Government of the day, and the policy was upheld by the European Court of Justice. However, that ignores the developments that have taken place since 1975. The British Government had a policy that determined how we should treat our armed forces—a key issue of national security. Originally, those questions of national security and defence were regarded as being far removed from the treaty of Rome, which related to trade and economic matters. However, as the scope of European Community law has expanded, so the extent of its intrusion into the functions of the armed forces and national security matters has increased. The court rejected not only our submissions, but those of the French Government, suggesting that matters concerning the conduct and discipline of members of the armed forces relevant to national security were outside the scope of the treaty of Rome.
Sovereign Governments are now subject to the will of the European Court of Justice on essential matters of national security. It will decide whether our essential national security is at stake, not the Secretary of State. That is dangerous. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex pressed the Secretary of State to say how far he could resist if there were a challenge. Essentially, the Secretary of State acknowledged that under EC law we had no defence whatever. We basically have to roll over and accept it.
As others have pointed out, the manner in which the Secretary of State accepted the policy of the chiefs of staff opened the door to a further challenge. Immediately after he announced his policy, the Equal Opportunities Commission announced that it might challenge it. Indeed, the report that I read suggests that
"a new legal challenge is widely expected".
In a sideswipe at the EOC, I want to say that that reaction is ludicrous. Its deputy chairman, Jenny Watson, said that the EOC still believed that
"automatically excluding women from armed combat posts is not the right approach and that mixed units would not have a negative impact on operational effectiveness".
I hope that she gets a copy of the debate. If the Secretary of State does not send her one, I might do so, so that she is aware that hon. Members throughout the House do not agree with the policy and do not expect a challenge.
I am bound to have a swipe at the hon. Member for Hereford who, like the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce), wants to have it both ways. He is reported to have said that the rigorous standards required for front-line roles should not be compromised,
"But as a matter of principle, no post should be closed to male or female personnel provided they can meet physical and mental requirements of the task."
Perhaps he was wrongly quoted. Today, he said that we did not want to compromise our armed forces and that the matter should be under review, but recognised that that could put them at risk. Either a policy is right and changing it would put our troops at risk, or it is wrong; he wants it both ways. He should not try to placate his Army constituents, and also he nice and cuddly with the feminist vote. Sitting on the fence ain't going to work. Our armed forces will expect only an uncompromising stand from all of us in the House.
Mr. Keetch: In what has been a good-natured and well-balanced debate, it is sad that the hon. Gentleman cannot resist petty sideswipes at the Opposition party that has a higher percentage of its Back Benchers present than the official Opposition do. My party's policy is clear. As a matter of principle, we believe that no post should be closed to male or female applicants. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) rightly pointed out, there should be no diminution in the standards required. That is not sitting on the fence, but accepting the facts and understanding them.
As for keeping that position under review, I would have thought that the Conservative party more than any other ought to recognise that policies sometimes need to be reviewed and brought up to date. If it does not understand that, Conservative Members will be on the Opposition Benches for ever.
Mr. Howarth: Of course I intended to provoke the hon. Gentleman, but he has condemned himself out of his own mouth. He said that he wanted to have it both ways. He should go and have a cup of tea with the hon. Member for Romsey. She will put him right, as she clearly has a grasp of the matter. All his time in the armed forces parliamentary scheme has not done him as much good as the hon. Lady's time has done her. It has been a good-natured debate. I am not being ill-natured by saying that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. For goodness' sake, this is Parliament; we are entitled to differences of view, and I am expressing mine. I think that the hon. Gentleman is dangerously wrong. He seems to want to have his cake and eat it.
Time marches on and I know that we are anxious not to delay the Secretary of State. I understand that he has been in Bulgaria, and I hope that he had as good a visit as I did when I went there with the Defence Select Committee. Perhaps we can have a word after our debate on that country's prospects for NATO membership.
I conclude as I started by casting a note of caution. Today, on the Floor of the House, we paid tribute to our armed forces for their professionalism in Afghanistan. I do not apologise for repeating it, but that professionalism, that happy outcome, in which they suffered no causalities, was not achieved by accident. It was achieved because our armed forces recognise, as their political masters have tended to recognise, that they are not a microcosm of society. They are not supposed to be a reflection of society. It is their job to protect society, and in doing so they may need to be treated differently from other organisations.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) knows only too well, the armed forces operate to very high standards. Indeed, the recently produced document entitled "Values and Standards of the British Army" sets them out; they include selfless commitment, courage, discipline, integrity, loyalty and respect for others. Those qualities are not universally to be seen in organisations in our country, whether in the public or the private sectors, but they are to be seen every day of the week in our armed forces.

165WH
If the ethos of our armed forces were to be attacked—because people did not like the way that they dress, because they did not like the division between officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks, or because they did not like the way in which certain roles were retained only for men—it would do huge damage. As The Daily Telegraph said:
"once institutional cultures are undermined, they can almost never be replaced.
We play with this issue at our peril. We should recognise that the combat effectiveness of our armed forces is the key determining factor. In close-quarters combat, the bonding between a group of men is something very special; it is a unique element in the task that we give to our armed forces, who risk making the ultimate sacrifice for the job that they undertake every day of the week. If we lose those values and that culture, we shall no longer have armed forces of whom the Secretary of State will be able speak as he did today at the Dispatch Box, when he paid them such a fulsome and richly deserved tribute.
4.33 pm
Mr. Hoon: We have had an interesting and valuable debate, which has understandably concentrated on women in close-combat roles, and their role in the services generally. We have also touched on efforts to increase recruitment from ethnic minority communities.
We heard a number of thoughtful speeches. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce), who apologises for his absence for the winding-up speeches, made a thoughtful and thorough speech, drawing on his experience. So, in a sense, did the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley). From their respective experiences, both hon. Members came to the same conclusions. The hon. Member for Romsey asked whether it would be possible to conduct further investigations into the impact of group dynamics and the role of mixed groups and I see no difficulty with that. Indeed, I expect that such investigations will be necessary given the legal requirement to conduct further reviews, and I shall mention the legal background in more detail in a moment. I certainly see the need to discuss further investigations along the same lines with the Equal Opportunities Commission.
The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) made some excellent points about recruitment and brought his usual common sense to bear in seeking to ensure that our approach is as wide as possible. The Government are committed to improving recruitment from all walks of life, and I will ensure that his suggestions are followed up.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Territorial Army. Notwithstanding the potential anomalies to which he referred, the essential policy is that a woman will not be selected to fill a battlefield role in which she cannot serve as a member of the regular armed forces. The historical background to that was largely exposed in the exchange between the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. It is important that we are consistent in our treatment of reserves in close-combat front-line positions and in non-close combat activities.
166WH
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) made several points about ethnic minority recruitment, and I should emphasise that, with one important qualification, our figures do not include Commonwealth recruits. They include Commonwealth citizens who travel to the United Kingdom by their own means and who are recruited here. They do not, for example, include Fijians—they are often used to illustrate this point—who are enlisted in a deliberate recruiting effort in Fiji. The real test is whether people are part of the British labour market when they are recruited or whether, as in my example, they are recruited abroad.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about families officers, and I can confirm that not all services have dedicated officers. The Royal Navy has no one with that title, but there are dedicated trained people with similar roles among naval personnel. The Royal Air Force has full-time community workers and social workers with equivalent responsibilities. Only the Army has dedicated families officers with that title. Most units have officers who are dedicated to that role, although it may be combined with other duties in some smaller units. Nevertheless, the function is carried out.
I shall risk provoking Opposition Front-Bench Members on matters European by setting out the legal background to the European Court decision, because they both raised it. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) largely set out the position in his concluding speech. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 allows the armed forces to exclude women from posts when the military judgment is that employing them would undermine and degrade combat effectiveness. That was considered in the European Court of Justice judgment in the case of Sirdar v. the Army Board and the Secretary of State. Relevant European Community law upheld the position that the equal treatment directive did not preclude the exclusion of women from certain posts, where such exclusions were necessary and appropriate to ensure operational effectiveness. That was, however, subject to a legal requirement periodically to assess the position to decide whether a derogation from the general scheme of the directive could be maintained in the light of social developments. The directive places the onus on member states to keep such derogations under review. It would be for the Government, not the European Court of Justice, to decide when such a review should take place. Clearly, however, there is a legal obligation on the Government and any future Government of any other political persuasion to conduct such a review.
At the risk of further provoking Opposition Front-Bench Members, the difficulty for them is that we have a legal regime to deal with, which successive Governments have signed up to, accepted and, I assume, agreed with, and which they would have to apply in those circumstances. Although both Conservative Front-Bench Members have huffed and puffed about it, they will have to accept the law as applied by the European Court of Justice. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but it was a Conservative Government who signed up to that.
Mr. Jenkin: I am not disagreeing with the right hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely correct. In fact, he is reinforcing the point. It is not up to the Government to review the situation. It will be up to the Government to defend the next case that someone brings, which will be funded by the taxpayer and the Equal Opportunities Commission. That is the irony of the situation.
I remember the Barber judgment, which threatened to wreak havoc with our pensions industry. The result was an intergovernmental agreement, agreed with the Council of Ministers, and an amendment to the law, so that the effects of the Barber judgment were limited. If we head towards losing a case on sex equality in the armed forces, I would expect the Government to go to the Council of Ministers and seek an amendment to the law, at the very least.
Mr. Hoon: Let us hope that we do not get into that situation. In a flourish criticising the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Aldershot said that we had the freedom to express our views in Parliament. No one can argue with that, but it is the working assumption of Parliament that Her Majesty's Opposition seek to replace Her Majesty's Government, so commenting on policy is not enough. The Opposition must be able to form policies that they would be able to implement in the, admittedly unlikely, event of them being elected to government. I have heard nothing from Opposition Front-Bench Members that leads me to suspect that they have a policy on this subject. I accept the force of some of their criticisms, but there is a real difference between making informed criticisms and having a policy that could, one day, be implemented, however remote a possibility that may be.
Mr. Keetch: Does the Secretary of State recall the detailed policy paper on defence that I sent him from the Liberal Democrats? He may not have agreed with our paper, but has he received a policy paper on defence from the Conservative party since the previous general election?
Mr. Hoon: If I have, I do not remember it. I know that there are difficulties on matters European for the Opposition Front-Bench Members here today. Having tried hard to confuse themselves over European issues, I do not want to provoke them further, but I am happy to give way, if they are still anxious to pursue their psychological difficulties on European matters.
Mr. Jenkin: The only discovery that we have made this afternoon is that the Secretary of State does not have a policy. Until I mentioned the Barber judgment, he had no idea what he would do if he got into legal difficulties on this matter.
168WH
The contribution of the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) was extremely effective. Her arguments about combat effectiveness were stronger than the somewhat technical arguments about gender stereotyping.
Mr. Hoon: That, of course, formed the basis of my decision, so we all agree on that at least.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hoon: I had not realised that only one of the Opposition Front-Bench Members had spoken.
Mr. Howarth: Obviously my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has dealt with the fundamental principle of the Sirdar case. However, the intrusion of the European Court into our arrangements has forced us to take a different view. My hon. Friend has offered the Secretary of State a way out in the event of another challenge.
Given that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that he has a legal obligation to review, how does he intend to fulfil that obligation? Does he intend that the periodic review will be annual, bi-annual or quinquennial? Perhaps, as a lawyer, he can tell us whether the European Court itself has the power to check up on what reviews he is undertaking. We cannot simply leave it hanging in the air that there is a liability to review without the Secretary of State telling us how he intends to meet that liability.
Mr. Hoon: I made it clear that the obligation to conduct a review and the timing is a matter for the Government and not for the European Court of Justice. We have just concluded a thorough review, which both Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen criticised because of its cost and the amount of time that it took. However, I hope that they at least accept that it was thorough and presumably, therefore, satisfies our legal obligations in that respect. My judgment is that a further review would be necessary only when appropriate and when the Government of the day had judged that sufficient time had elapsed to make that necessary.
I reaffirm the Government's commitment to making the armed forces more representative of the community that they serve. It is vital that we do this, not just because of the difficulties that we face in achieving full manning in an increasingly competitive market but because it is right that we should do so.
We are committed to rooting out unlawful discrimination of any sort and ensuring that every member of our armed forces, regardless of race, ethnic origin, religion, gender, social background or sexual orientation, has the opportunity that they deserve to make a full success of their career.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Five o'clock.

TREASURY

  Child Care
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps have been taken to reduce the tax contribution for private child care providers. [60348]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Introducing the National Childcare Strategy shows that the Government recognise the importance of good quality affordable child care. We have encouraged and supported private child care provision.

  Public Service Agreements
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish an assessment of the progress made in improving public services through public service agreements. [60349]

  Mr. Boateng
  Departments publish performance against their public service agreement targets in departmental reports.

  Financial Regulation
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new proposals he has to improve the regulation of financial services. [60351]

  Ruth Kelly
  Since the FSA assumed its statutory powers on 1 December last year, it has been the single authority with responsibility for the regulation of the UK financial services industry, with rule-making powers. By 2004, the FSA will also assume responsibility for the regulation of mortgages and general insurance. The FSA has proposed changes to the polarisation rules that should enhance the benefits of competition and improve access to financial advice for many consumers and is working to ensure that information and disclosure to consumers of endowment mortgages and other financial products is improved.

  Bingo
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he will ensure that bingo players benefit from the proposed extension of the betting and pools tax regime. [60352]

  John Healey
  We will do so precisely in the way we did when reforming the betting and pools tax regimes, by working with the bingo companies to produce a new system of taxation which boosts growth, secures duty revenues, and benefits bingo players.

  European Union
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department has analysed the annual fund 448W
  flows into the United Kingdom deriving from membership of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [60353]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury officials continually monitor UK public sector receipts from the EC Budget, and an analysis is published in the annual White Paper on European Community Finances.

  Venture Capital
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Treasury is doing to ensure the availability of venture capital in all parts of the UK. [60354]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to increasing the supply of risk capital for businesses throughout the UK. Backed by up to £80 million of Government support, regional venture capital funds will provide up to £270 million of investment in small businesses with growth potential across England. The devolved Administrations have similar public/private equity schemes. The Government have also invested £20 million in a £40 million community development venture fund focused on the most deprived wards in England.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from small business representatives about taxation. [60356]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have received a number of representations from a variety of organisations.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what bilateral discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding new taxes and regulations imposed on small businesses. [63083]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor meets regularly with Cabinet colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Since 1997 the Government have introduced numerous measures to help small business, including:
  making 40 per cent. first year capital allowances permanent;
  implementing the recommendations of the Carter Review of Payroll Services;
  cutting the small companies' rate of corporation tax from 23 per cent. to just 19 per cent. and reducing the 10 per cent. starting rate to zero;
  introducing a 10p starting rate of income tax; and
  introducing measures to ease the impact of VAT on small business.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that regulations are fair and effective, so that they protect the vulnerable but do not stifle enterprise or productivity. Policy is to regulate only when necessary. Where appropriate the Government have exempted small business from certain regulations. Two examples are, exempting small shops from the new EU unit pricing requirements and exempting employers with 20 or fewer employees from the trade union recognition procedures in the Employment Relations Act.

  Debt Cancellation
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about his policy towards the cancellation of the poorest countries' debts. [60357]

  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on his policy towards the cancellation of debt in the world's poorest countries. [60358]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor argued strongly for the further progress on debt that was made at the G7 meeting in Halifax, Canada, this weekend. The decision to complete the financing of the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) trust fund will allow a further $1 billion (£677 million) of debt to be written off from the poorest countries' balance sheets.

  That will help them adjust to the impact of the world economic slow down following the tragic events of September 11 and the collapse in commodity prices.

  Under its 100 per cent. policy, the UK is already providing total debt relief to all eligible countries under the HIPC initiative and continues to use every opportunity to press other countries to do likewise.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what rate UK manufacturing industry productivity has changed since 1997. [60359]

  John Healey
  UK manufacturing productivity growth has averaged 2.6 per cent. a year since 1997. The Government are aiming to deliver conditions for improved productivity performance over the long term, and to that end have introduced a range of policies to promote competition, and raise investment, innovation and skills.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the impact of the recent slow down in the eurozone economy on manufacturing industry in the south-west of England. [60374]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers regularly meet with manufacturing representatives from all regions and countries of the UK, including the south-west. These discussions cover a wide range of issues and the Government value the insights gained.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the deployment of HM Customs and Excise resources in remote coastal communities. [60360]

  John Healey
  Customs' resources, including its modern cutter fleet, are deployed flexibly around the UK coast on an intelligence-led basis to address smuggling threats. 16 people were sentenced to over 200 years in jail recently for trying to bring cocaine into the UK in yachts.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many customs officers are under suspension; in which regions of the country they are employed; what reasons led to their suspension; and if he will make a statement. [61337]
  450W
  John Healey
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The total number of Customs and Excise officers suspended as at 16 June 2002 is 12. Seven are employed in the north of England, three in London, and two in the south of England. All involve allegations of potential gross misconduct, which if proved may result in dismissal.

  It is Customs and Excise policy that suspension is normally only imposed in the most serious cases, when it is necessary and in the public interest. Suspension is always without prejudice, and does not anticipate any decision about the allegations made.

  Further Education
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Department for Education and Skills on his plans to give financial support to 16 to 18-year-olds in further education. [60361]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers have regular discussions with the Department for Education and Skills.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the climate change levy on those industries unable to qualify for rebates. [60362]

  John Healey
  All of the revenue from the climate change levy is recycled back to business through NICs cuts and support for energy efficiency. While the levy package is broadly revenue neutral to business as a whole, the effects on any specific sector will depend on a number of factors, including:The future energy consumption of firms in the sector and the use they make of levy funded energy efficiency support.
  Employment levels in those sectors and the benefits received from the levy funded national insurance contribution cuts.
  What use firms in that sector make of electricity generated from levy-exempt renewable sources of energy and combined heat and power.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has recently received from business organisations about the climate change levy. [60373]

  John Healey
  As part of the normal process of contact with business, the Chancellor and the Treasury ministerial team have met a variety of business organisations and individual companies, and have heard a variety of representations on climate change levy, and on other matters.

  Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Industries
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the contribution of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries to the national economy. [60363]

  Ruth Kelly
  The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries make a valuable contribution to the UK economy in terms of output, exports, employment and
  451W
  innovation. For example, the UK leads the rest of Europe in the industrial exploitation of biotechnology, and is the world's third largest direct exporter of pharmaceuticals.

  Annuities
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the document "Modernising Annuities", with special reference to his policy on the upper age limit for turning savings into retirement income. [60364]

  Ruth Kelly
  As the consultation document "Modernising Annuities" sets out, there are sound financial reasons for people to annuitise their retirement savings by age 75. So the Government do not propose to abolish the age 75 rule.

  The consultation, which ran until 5 April, was intended to stimulate discussion on annuity issues. The Government are now evaluating the outcome of the consultation before deciding how to proceed.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from interested organisations on annuities. [60368]

  Ruth Kelly
  There were 601 responses to the Government's recent consultation document "Modernising Annuities". The Government are evaluating the outcome of the consultation before deciding how to proceed.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the take-up of the working families tax credit within Staffordshire, Moorlands. [60365]

  Dawn Primarolo
  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.

  World Poverty
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the role of international trade in the reduction of poverty in the poorest countries. [60367]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer given today by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Ms Mallaber),Official Report, column 395.

  Road Fuels
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on rates of duty for(a) biodiesel/bioethanol and (b) fossil gas fuels, LPG and CNG. [60369]

  John Healey
  We shall be introducing a new, lower rate of duty on biodiesel on Royal Assent to the Finance Bill, 20 pence per litre less than the rate for ultra-low sulphur mineral diesel. We have also introduced duty incentives to encourage the production and use of road fuel gases, such as compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and have given a commitment that duty on these fuels will be frozen in real terms until at least 2004.
  452W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration has been given to the(a) chemical marking of and (b) addition of yellow dye to UK petrol and diesel to deter the sale and use of illegal fuel. [62942]

  John Healey
  The Government set out their strategy for tackling the misuse of marked rebated oils as road fuels in "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud", published alongside the 2001 pre-Budget report. Following consultations, action is being taken to tighten fiscal control over the distribution of rebated oils and to introduce an additional European marker for rebated gas oil and rebated kerosene. The Government have seen no evidence that marking legitimate duty paid fuel would constitute a more effective or pragmatic response to the problem.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of cross-border fuel smuggling on the Northern Ireland economy. [62644]

  John Healey
  The Government are committed to tackling fuel duty evasion and its associated problems in Northern Ireland. Further details about road fuels fraud in Northern Ireland and the Government's activities to counter it have been published in the documents "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud" (November 2001) and the Northern Ireland Organised Crime Task Force's "Threat Assessment and Strategy" documents (May 2002). Copies of these documents have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an assessment of the amount of duty lost because of smuggling between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland over the last 12 months. [62936]

  John Healey
  Customs' most recent estimate of the total revenue loss from the use of non-UK duty paid fuels, including legitimate cross-border shopping as well as all types of fraud, is for the calendar year 2000 and is contained in "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud", published in November 2001 as part of the PBR. The Government have undertaken to update those figures annually.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average cost is of a litre of(a) unleaded petrol and (b) diesel fuel in (i) Northern Ireland and (ii) the rest of the United Kingdom; and what proportion of the cost is made up of fuel duty in each case. [62639]

  John Healey
  The Department of Trade and Industry collect information on the average pump prices of unleaded petrol and diesel on a weekly basis across the UK. However, this information is not broken down by geographical region and so it is not possible to provide average costs for Northern Ireland specifically.

  DTI data suggests that, as at 10 June 2002, the UK average pump price of a litre of diesel was 76.1 pence and the UK average pump price of a litre of unleaded petrol was 74.6 pence.

  At those prices, 60.2 per cent. of the price of a litre of diesel and 61.4 per cent. of the price of a litre of petrol is made up from fuel duty.
  453W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many motor vehicles were seized in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom as a result of fuel fraud, in each year since 1995. [62943]

  John Healey
  Customs records of the number of vehicles seized do not disaggregate between the nature of the offences involved in each case. I regret, therefore, that this information is not available.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated annual cost to the Treasury is from illegal use of red diesel. [62938]

  John Healey
  Customs latest estimates of the overall revenue loss from all forms of oils fraud were set out in the document "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud" published in November 2001.

  Customs believe the great majority of fraud on the British mainland involves the misuse of rebated or low tax fuels supplied for non-road use, but a specific estimate of loss from red diesel alone is not available.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the use of illegally produced fuel in the financing of paramilitary organisations. [62945]

  John Healey
  Customs have made no such assessment. However, the Northern Ireland Organised Crime Task Force's Year Two "Threat Assessment", which was published in May 2002, contains further information on the role of serious and organised crime in oils fraud. Copies of this document have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  House Prices
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his assessment is of the impact of house prices on the performance of the UK economy. [60370]

  Ruth Kelly
  The impact of house prices on the UK economy was taken into account in the Government's latest assessment of UK economic developments and prospects, published in Chapter B of the Financial Statement and Budget Report, April 2002.

  Welsh Assembly
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the borrowing powers of the National Assembly for Wales. [60371]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are no plans to extend the borrowing powers of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Unemployment
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the recent 12-month rise in the claimant measure of unemployment in London. [60372]

  Ruth Kelly
  Despite rising over the past 12 months, claimant count unemployment in London has fallen by nearly 120,000 (42 per cent.) since spring 1997 and, as for the UK as a whole, remains close to the lowest levels since the 1970s. Moreover, with employment continuing 454W
  to rise, increasing by 12,000 over the past year, the London labour market is stable and performing well by historical standards.

  The Government's new deal programmes have eased the transition from welfare to work for over 124,000 people in London and the south-east who have moved into sustainable jobs.

  UK Poverty
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made by the Government in meeting their poverty reduction targets for the UK. [60339]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  This Government are committed to reducing child poverty by one quarter by 2004, halving it by 2010 on the road to eradicating child poverty in a generation.

  Central to this is the new child tax credit, which together with child benefit, will ensure that benefits for the poorest families—worth £28 a week for the first child in 1997—will be £54.25 from next April.

  A meeting of the Joint Ministerial Group on Poverty with the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Administrations will take place next month to examine not just benefits but services to children.

  Financial Services Authority
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the annual report of the Financial Services Authority to be published. [63946]

  Ruth Kelly
  The FSA annual report is being published today. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses. The report forms a key part of the accountability mechanism for the FSA under Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and this report is the first to assess the performance of the FSA against its statutory objectives.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [59763]

  Ruth Kelly
  We are awaiting full details of the procurement of timber for the refurbishment of the Treasury building from the contractors concerned, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is made available.

  Self-assessment Tax Returns
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what penalties have been paid under the strategic partnership contract with EDS as a result of recent problems with the facilities for submitting self-assessment tax returns over the internet; and if he will make a statement. [63207]
  455W
  Dawn Primarolo
  No penalties have been paid under the strategic partnership with EDS as a result of recent problems with the facilities for submitting self-assessment tax returns over the internet.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer of 27 February

  Tax Year

  Date

  SA ITRs issued

  SA ITRs received

  SA ITRs processed

  SA ITRs waiting to be processed

  2000–01

  3 March 2002

  9,607,600

  8,729,200

  6.889,791

  1,839,409

  31 March 2002

  9,641,240

  8,803,111

  8,006,918

  796,193

  2001–02

  14 April 2002

  6,354,061

  26,919

  0

  26,919

  5 May 2002

  8,879,206

  283,553

  73,251

  210,302

  2 June 2002

  9,079,836

  751,446

  323,245

  428,201

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer of 19 July 2001,Official Report, column 382W, on the cost of internet tax returns; and if he will make a statement. [63206]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost of providing self-assessment tax returns on the internet is:

  Fixed Cost

  The estimated cost of implementing the internet service for self-assessment for years one to three is about £17 million.

  Marginal Cost

  The on-going support costs, including maintenance, help desk support and on-going improvements to the system is between £3 to £4 million per annum.

  Family Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is for the latest year for which information is available of(a) the percentage of children living in one parent families, (b) the number of live births per 1,000 teenage women and (c) the percentage of children born outside marriage, broken down by (i) social class, (ii) income, (iii) race and (iv) geographic location; and if he will make a statement. [62406]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Laws, dated 20 June 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your request for estimates for the latest year for which information is available of (a) the percentage of children living in one parent families, (b) the number of live births per 1,000 teenage women and (c) the percentage of children born outside marriage, broken down by (i) social class, (ii) income, (iii) race and (iv) geographic location. (62406)
  There is only limited information available for some of these topics. No information is available for lone parents by the divisions requested and no information is available for births by income. The information I am able to provide is found in the attached annexes. Annex A contains information by social class. Annex B contains information by ethnic group and Annex C contains information by geographic location. All data relate to the year 2000, the latest year for which data are available, unless otherwise stated.
  456W
  2002, Official Report, column 1330W, on self-assessment tax returns; and if he will make a statement. [63209]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The statistical data requested are as detailed in the table.

  Annex A—Data by Social Class
  (i) The number of live births to teenage women
  It is not possible to present the number of live births per 1,000 teenage women by social class as population estimates by social class are not available. Also social class is only available in England and Wales and Northern Ireland by father's social class, so it is not possible to derive social class for registrations where only the mother's name is recorded. In England and Wales a 10 per cent. sample of the fathers' occupation and employment status is used to determine social class. For Scotland births within marriage are categorised to social class of the father; social class of the mother is used to categorise births outside marriage.
  The number of live births to teenage women are given in the following tables for 2000, the latest year for which information is available for the United Kingdom. Data for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are presented separately because of differences between the constituent countries in the way social class is allocated (see above). The key for the social classifications is at the end of this annex.

  The number of live births to women aged under 20 by social class of father, England and Wales, 2000

  thousands

  Social class

  Within marriage

  Jointly registered outside marriage

  Sole registrations

  I and II

  0.7

  2.4

  Not available

  IIIN

  0.5

  2.1

  Not available

  IIIM

  1.4

  9.6

  Not available

  IV and V

  1.3

  10.7

  Not available

  Non-manual

  1.3

  4.5

  Not available

  Manual

  2.7

  20.3

  Not available

  Other

  0.8

  3.8

  Not available

  Total

  4.7

  28.6

  12.5

  Source:

  Birth Statistics 2000 FMI No. 29, England and Wales

  The number of live births to women aged under 20, by social class of father if inside marriage and mother if outside marriage, Scotland, 2000

  thousands

  Social class

  Births

  I and II

  0.1

  IIIN

  0.9

  IIIM

  0.4

  IV and V

  0.8

  Non-manual

  1.0

  Manual

  1.2

  Other

  2.4

  Total

  4.6

  Source:

  General Register Office for Scotland

  457W

  The number of live births to women aged under 20, by social class of father, Northern Ireland, 2000

  thousands

  Social class

  Births

  I and II

  0.1

  IIIN

  0.2

  IIIM

  0.6

  IV and V

  0.4

  Non-manual

  0.2

  Manual

  0.9

  Armed forces, inadequately described and sole registrations

  0.5

  The number of live births to women inside and outside marriage by social class of father, England and Wales, 2000

  Social class

  Within marriage (thousands)

  Jointly registered outside marriage (thousands)

  Sole registrations (thousands)

  Percentage outside marriage, where information on father is available

  I and II

  161.5

  44.3

  1—

  22

  IIIN

  37.8

  15.0

  1—

  28

  IIIM

  91.6

  68.3

  1—

  43

  IV and V

  56.7

  53.8

  1—

  49

  Non-manual

  199.3

  59.3

  1—

  23

  Manual

  148.3

  122.1

  1—

  45

  Other

  18.2

  11.4

  1—

  39

  Total

  365.8

  192.8

  45.8

  1—

  239

  1Not available

  2Percentage outside marriage includes sole registrations

  Source:

  Birth Statistics 2000 FMI No. 29, England and Wales

  The number of live births to women inside and outside marriage, by social class of father if inside marriage and mother if outside marriage, Scotland, 2000

  Social class

  Within marriage (thousands)

  Outside marriage (thousands)

  Percentage outside marriage

  I and II

  13.1

  3.3

  20

  IIIN

  3.3

  5.3

  62

  IIIM

  8.1

  1.9

  19

  IV and V

  5.4

  4.4

  4.5

  Non-manual

  16.4

  8.6

  34

  Manual

  13.6

  6.3

  32

  Other

  0.5

  7.7

  94

  Total

  30.5

  22.6

  43

  Source:

  General Register Office for Scotland

  The number of live births inside and outside marriage, by social class of father, Northern Ireland, 2000

  Social class

  Within marriage (thousands)

  Outside marriage (thousands)

  Percentage outside marriage

  I and II

  5.1

  0.7

  12

  IIIN

  2.0

  0.7

  28

  IIIM

  4.9

  2.2

  31

  IV and V

  2.5

  1.8

  42

  Non-manual

  7.0

  1.4

  17

  Manual

  7.4

  4.0

  35

  Armed forces, inadequately described and sole registrations

  0.2

  1.4

  87

  Total

  14.7

  6.8

  32

  Source:

  Registrar General Northern Ireland Annual Report 2000
  458W

  The number of live births to women aged under 20, by social class of father, Northern Ireland, 2000

  thousands

  Social class

  Births

  Total

  1.6

  Source:

  Registrar General Northern Ireland Annual Report 2000

  (ii) The percentage of children born outside marriage

  The numbers and percentages of children born inside and outside marriage by social class are given in the following tables for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland separately. The key for the social classifications is at the end of this annex.

  The key for social classification codes is as follows:

  Non-manual

  I Professional

  II Managerial and technical

  IIIN Skilled occupations (non-manual)

  Manual

  IIIM Skilled occupations (manual)

  IV Partly skilled occupations

  V Unskilled occupations

  Other—Residential groups including the unemployed, armed forces and students and those whose occupation was inadequately described.

  Annex B—Data by Ethnicity

  Information is not collected at registration on ethnicity, only on country of birth of parents. In a recent article in Population Trends1 data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) were used to estimate average fertility rates for births to teenage mothers by ethnic group in Great Britain. Part of Table 3 of that article is presented below, giving data for the period 1990–96. It should be noted that the results are based on very small sample numbers. No information is available from the LFS on marital status at the time of birth so it is not possible to look at ethnic fertility rates inside and outside marriage.

  1Berthoud R. Teenage births to ethnic minority women Population Trends No. 104 TSO(2001) pp 12–17

  Teenage birth rates per 1,000 for the years 1990–96 derived from the Labour Force Survey, Great Britain

  Ethnic group

  Births per 1,000

  White

  31

  Caribbean

  47

  Indian

  7

  Pakistani

  30

  Bangladeshi

  53

  Other

  23

  459W
  Annex C—Data by Geography

  (i) The number of live births per 1,000 teenage women

  Teenage birth rates by geographic location are shown in the following table.

  Teenage birth rates by country and region, United Kingdom, 2000

  Country

  Rate per 1,000

  England

  28.8

  Wales

  35.2

  Scotland

  29.1

  Northern Ireland

  26.1

  Government office regions

  North East

  37.2

  North West

  33.4

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  34.5

  East Midlands

  29.4

  West Midlands

  32.6

  East

  23.9

  London

  27.8

  South East

  22.2

  South West

  23.7

  Sources:

  Birth Statistics 2000 FMI No. 29 England and Wales

  Registrar General for Scotland Annual Report 2000,

  Registrar General Northern Ireland Report 2000

  (ii) The percentage of children born outside marriage

  The percentages of children born outside marriage by geographic location are given in the following table.

  Percentage of births outside marriage by country and region, United Kingdom, 2000

  Country

  Percentage

  England

  39.1

  Wales

  47.2

  Scotland

  42.6

  Northern Ireland

  31.8

  Government office regions

  North East

  50.5

  North West

  46.3

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  42.9

  East Midlands

  41.2

  West Midlands

  39.9

  East

  35.3

  London

  34.5

  South East

  34.1

  South West

  37.8

  Sources:

  Birth Statistics 2000 FMI No. 29, England and Wales

  Registrar General for Scotland Annual Report 2000

  Registrar General Northern Ireland Annual Report 2000

  Euro
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to assist Bank of England officials in making an analysis of whether the five economic tests for euro membership have been met; and if he will make a statement. [63120]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have said that they will complete an assessment of the five tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. It is clear that the assessment will be a Government assessment and that the work will be undertaken by the Treasury. Once the assessment is complete, the Government will publish the conclusions and the report.

  Consultation Exercises
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many consultation exercises the Treasury has launched in each year since 1997. [59403]

  John Healey
  Details of HM Treasury consultation papers released since 2000, including their opening and closing dates, are available on the Treasury's website (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk).

  Since 1997, the Treasury has issued 79 consultations on its website. The totals by year were:

  2002: 7

  2001: 32

  2000: 15

  1999: 15

  1998: 6

  1997: 4.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what public appointments he has made since 7 June 2001. [62188]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor announced on 1 June 2002 that Laurel Powers-Freeling had been appointed to the Court of the Bank of England and that Bridget Blow, Sir Howard Davies, Sir Ian Gibson and Kathleen O'Donovan had been reappointed.

  Earnings
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of full-time workers in(a) Scotland, (b) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (c) Great Britain earned gross pay (i) including and (ii) excluding overtime less than (A) £302.12 per week, (B)£277.24 per week, (C) £203.85 per week and (D) £155.39 per week who were (1) male manual (2) male non-manual, (3) male, (4) female manual, (5) female non-manual, (6) female, (7) manual and (8) non-manual workers; [62914]

  (2) what the average weekly earnings based on gross pay (a) including and (b) excluding overtime were for full-time workers in (1) Scotland, (2) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (3) Great Britain for (A) all manual, (B) all non-manual and (C) all workers in the last 12 months. [62913]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Michael Moore, dated 20 June 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions on weekly earnings for workers in Great Britain, Scotland the unitary authorities in Scotland. (62913 and 62914).
  I am placing in the House of Commons Library, tables showing average weekly earnings, both including and excluding overtime, (Table 1) and the proportion of people earning below the different thresholds you listed, both including overtime (Table 2) and excluding overtime (Table 3).
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) can provide earnings data for small geographical areas. The release of NES data is restricted to figures that are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees, and have an acceptable level of accuracy and I have

  461W
  provided the available data for Scotland, the unitary authorities in Scotland and Great Britain only for those areas where the samples are large enough. These are based on the 2001 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.

  Road Taxes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was collected in taxation from motorists in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [62674]

  John Healey
  Details of revenues collected from excise duties on road fuels, and from vehicle excise duty, are published annually in the Financial Statement and Budget Report (FSBR). A collated series of annual duty receipts from road fuels is included in HM Customs "Hydrocarbon Oils Factsheet", a copy of which is available from the House of Commons Library.

  Details of income tax on benefits in kind relating to company cars and free fuel are given on the Inland Revenue's website.

  Data are not available on the total VAT from the purchase of road fuels, nor on the VAT raised on the purchase of all motor vehicles.

  Information regarding insurance premium tax on motor insurance premiums is not available, as Customs and Excise do not require insurers to identify the specific types of insurance policies on which insurance premium tax is paid.

  VAT
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has asked that products which offer an alternative to natural resources be considered in the 2003 EU review of products qualifying for reduced VAT; and if he will make a statement. [62905]

  John Healey
  The UK intends to play a full and active part in the forthcoming review of the EU's VAT reduced rate provisions. The Government are considering carefully the merits of changes to the existing list of products to which a reduced rate may be applied, and will be making representations, as appropriate, in due course.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce VAT on domestic repair and maintenance. [63051]

  John Healey
  A reduced rate of VAT on domestic repair and maintenance would be a major change to the VAT base. Such a change would require careful consideration of all social, environmental and economic effects.

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 246W, on unpaid advisers, if he will list the steps that were taken to ensure that no conflicts of interest arose as a result of this appointment. [62969]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Prime Minister on 19 June 2002,Official Report, column 332W.

  Tax Credits
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are in receipt of(a) the working families tax credit and (b) the disabled persons tax credit in (i) the Edinburgh, West constituency, (ii) the City of Edinburgh local authority area, (iii) Scotland and (iv) the UK; and what percentage these figures represent of the estimated numbers of the people who are eligible for the credits in these respective areas. [63193]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the numbers in receipt of the tax credits. I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 293W.

  No reliable estimate of the take-up rate of the working families' tax credit can be attempted until the Family Resources Survey for 2000–01 is analysed; and no reliable estimates can be made below the national level, or for the disabled person's tax credit.

  Interest Rates
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the annual savings to the Exchequer which would result from lower debt interest costs if United Kingdom interest rates were(a) 0.5 per cent., (b) 0.75 per cent., (c) 1 per cent., (d) 2 per cent. and (e) 3 per cent. lower across the yield curve for (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03, (iii) 2003–4, (iv) 2004–05, (v) 2005–06 and (vi) 2006–07. [63210]

  Ruth Kelly
  Each percentage point reduction, across all years, in short and long term interest rates, would lead to savings in debt interest payments of approximately £0.6 billion in 2002–03 and £0.8 billion in 2003–04. No projections have been published for years beyond 2003–04.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families are receiving children's tax credit in the London borough of Wandsworth. [63589]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information about the children's tax credit (CTC) is not available by local authority. However, the number of families who are eligible for the CTC in London is estimated to be 475,000.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the children's tax credit on Luton. [60336]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In this tax year families with children in Luton are up to £529 better off, and if they have a new baby, up to £1,049 better off as a result of the children's tax credit.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Visits
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) on how many occasions his(a) Chief of Staff, (b) Director of Communications and Strategy and (c) other members of his office travelled abroad on official business between 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost; [58732]
  463W
  (2) on how many occasions members of the No. 10 Policy Unit travelled abroad on official business between 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [58714]

  The Prime Minister
  In the period 31 March 2001 to 31 March 2002, my Chief of Staff, my Director of Communications and Strategy and other members of my office have travelled overseas on official business, including accompanying me on official visits, on 93 occasions.

  The costs of all officials who accompanied me on overseas visits are included in the detailed list of Cabinet Ministers' visits overseas and information on expenditure by all Ministers on travel overseas. The list for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published as soon as possible.

  The average cost of all other official travel was approximately £1,516 per visit.

  All visits have been made in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Civil Service Management Code. These arrangements follow the practice of successive Administrations.

  Electronic Databases
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), of 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 319W, on electronic databases, if he will list the categories under which information is held in the electronic databases, including the general information database. [61565]

  The Prime Minister
  The parliamentary section database contains the text of oral and written parliamentary questions tabled to the Prime Minister, the answers given, and the name of the MP, their party and constituency taken from the list of Members on the House of Commons website.

  The general information database contains policy briefing, public material which includes the Prime Minister's answers to parliamentary questions, speeches, articles and No. 10 press notices and a virtual Library with links to publicly available electronic reference sources.

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Prime Minister what information is held by his Office 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 information was held in January. [61817]

  The Prime Minister
  My Office has access to published reference sources, as well as to the information about hon. Members made publicly available by the House authorities, for the purpose of parliamentary business.

  Delegations
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes have been made in the composition of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European Union. [63957]

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) has been appointed as a substitute Member in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson).

  Resignation
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Prime Minister on what day the hon. Member for Swindon, North offered his resignation as Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department; and on what day the hon. Member for Swindon, North was appointed Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office. [62421]

  The Prime Minister
  The hon. Member for Swindon, North offered his resignation as Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department on 29 May. He was appointed as an unpaid Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office on 31 May.

  He will be responsible for driving forward progress on delivering efficient and effective IT across the civil and criminal justice systems and identifying and driving forward the reform to business processes and working practices required, alongside IT investment, to deliver a modern and joined-up criminal justice system.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trading Schemes Act
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many prosecutions have been brought under the Trading Schemes Act 1996; and how many have been successful. [62431]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No prosecutions have been brought by the Department under the Trading Schemes Act 1996.

  European Structural Funds
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the estimate of the draw down of European structural funds. [60341]

  £million

  Area

  Committed grant

  Committed grant as percentage of total allocation

  Grant paid

  Grant paid as percentage of total allocation

  Objective 1

  South Yorkshire

  226.35

  31.92

  59.05

  8.33

  Merseyside

  184.5

  21.86

  93.8

  11.11

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  96.3

  30.95

  26.09

  8.39

  West Wales and the Valleys

  320.2

  28.1

  89.0

  7.8

  Objective 2

  North-east

  8.02

  1.8

  0.22

  0.05

  North-west

  212.82

  42.1

  0.55

  0.11

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  63.24

  19.5

  2.66

  0.82

  East England

  3.29

  3.4

  0

  0

  East Midlands

  20.69

  8.8

  0.54

  0.23

  West Midlands

  30.82

  5.8

  0.04

  0.01

  London

  33.24

  20.5

  1.90

  1.17

  South-east

  7.33

  32.8

  0

  0

  South-west

  19.22

  16.2

  2.24

  1.89

  East Wales1,2

  1.70

  3.4

  0.19

  0.38

  East of Scotland

  50.31

  32.9

  5.67

  3.71

  South of Scotland

  218.83

  42.0

  32.54

  5.66

  Western Scotland

  42.13

  14.3

  1.95

  0.66

  1The East Wales figures apply solely to the objective 2 programme and do not include figures from the associated transitional objective 2 and 5b programme.

  2As at 31 March 2002

  3To 31 December 2001

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people aged(a) between 18 and 21 and (b) over 21 years are receiving the national minimum wage; and if she will make a statement. [63369]

  Alan Johnson
  Around 1.5 million low paid workers were entitled to higher minimum rates of pay when the rates were increased to £4.10 an hour for workers aged 22 and over and £3.50 for those aged 18 to 21 on 1 October 2001. Around one in 15 of the beneficiaries are people aged 18 to 21.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many families are in receipt of the national minimum wage in the Portsmouth, South constituency; and if she will make a statement. [63372]

  Alan Johnson
  Estimates for beneficiaries of the national minimum wage by parliamentary constituency are not available.
  466W
  Alan Johnson
  The latest assessment for the core 2000–06 structural funds programmes is set out in the table.

  The objective 1 regions are on course to avoid decommitment. As the first decommitment date for objective 2 regions is 31 December 2003, it is too early to say whether the n+2 targets will be met. However we have instigated a regular monitoring procedure to ensure that there is ample warning of any potential problem.

  Objectives 1 and 2 in Scotland and Wales are matters respectively for the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales. However, I understand that the relevant figures have been provided by these Administrations.

  Around 100,000 people in the south-east stood to benefit from the October 2001 increase in the national minimum wage.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions her Department has had with the Department for International Development about reviewing criterion 8 of the consolidated criteria against which the Government assesses licence applications to export arms and dual-use equipment. [62669]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: As announced by my noble Friend the Lord Sainsbury of Turville on 4 March 2002 in another place, Official Report, column 73, the Cabinet Office is currently leading a discussion on how criterion 8 of the consolidated criteria—the sustainable development criterion—can most effectively be applied in assessing relevant export licence applications.
  467W
  This discussion involves all Government Departments with an interest, not just the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for International Development, and addresses the need for clearer procedures for reaching decisions where sustainable development is an issue, rather than any change in policy with regard to criterion 8 of the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.

  Privatised Utilities
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what responsibility she has for setting Government policy with regard to the independence of the economic regulators of the privatised utilities. [62303]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The composition, role, duties and responsibilities of the sectoral regulators are set out in the relevant primary legislation. The legislation typically ascribes certain duties and functions to the Secretary of State including, for example, the making of appointments to the regulatory bodies. The Department deals with the regulators for the gas, electricity, telecommunications, and postal services sectors.

  UK Online (Disabled People)
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what checks are made to ensure organisations funded through UK online give access to people with a disability. [62307]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have been asked to reply.

  People with disabilities were identified as one of main target groups for UK online centres and disabled access in centres was an important measure in the assessment process. This was carried through in the monitoring checks that the regional Government Offices (GOs) administer to ensure centres comply with contractual and legal obligations. The number of monitoring checks by the GOs will vary in relation to the individual centre.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the need to review the tax system in regard to national insurance contributions lost owing to false self-employment claims on CIS4 tax certificates; and if she will make a statement. [63098]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  I would like to clarify the relationship between the CIS and employment status. The CIS sets out how payments to self-employed sub-contractors should be treated.

  As in all industries, whether a worker is categorised as employed or self-employed depends entirely on the terms and conditions under which they are engaged. The fact that a worker is registered under the CIS and is in possession of a certificate or registration card does not of itself confer self-employed status on that individual. It is entirely possible for workers to be employed on one contract, and self-employed on another.
  468W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are being taken to address organised avoidance of national insurance payments through false claims on CIS4 tax certificates; and if she will make a statement. [63103]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) sets out how payments to self-employed sub-contractors should be treated. It is anti-tax evasion legislation and it has successfully identified workers who had previously not declared their earnings to the Inland Revenue.

  Where a person works as a sub-contractor on a contract to which the CIS applies, they must register with the Inland Revenue. Where a sub-contractor does not qualify for a certificate allowing him/her to be paid gross, they will receive a CIS4 registration card. They will then be paid for work done after a deduction on account of tax and national insurance.

  The tax and national insurance rules, which distinguish the employed from the self-employed, are intended to apply to all workers. As part of its compliance strategy the Inland Revenue's local employer compliance review teams consider employment status issues when undertaking reviews to ensure employers and contractors comply with their tax and national insurance obligations.

  Haulage Industry
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what impact the use of illegally produced fuel is having on competitiveness within the UK haulage industry. [62948]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  As part of Customs' consultation on proposals for tackling oils fraud, the industry was invited to comment upon, and quantify, the impact on competitiveness resulting from the unfair advantage gained by those misusing rebated fuel. Although the responses clearly indicated an impact, no quantification was provided. Copies of the consultation document "Tackling the misuse of rebated fuels: Proposals for an approval scheme for distributors" and the response "Oils Fraud Strategy: Summary of Consultation Responses and Regulatory Impact Assessment" have been placed in the House Libraries.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Specialist Products is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [61716]

  Mr. Morley
  The Advisory Committee on Specialist Products is a consultative committee of the European Commission. Its purpose is to facilitate consultation with
  469W
  social and occupational groups with an interest in the EU regimes for wine-growing, spirit drinks, olives and derived products, beekeeping, hops and tobacco. It is not attended by officials of Her Majesty's Government and does not give rise to costs to the UK public funds.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Arable Crops 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. [61720]

  Mr. Morley
  The Advisory Committee on Arable Crops is a consultative committee of the European Commission. Its purpose is to facilitate consultation with social and occupational groups with an interest in the EU regimes for arable crops. It is not attended by officials of Her Majesty's Government and does not give rise to costs to UK public funds.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Scientific Committee on Plants 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. [61694]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate for the Scientific Committee on Plants is as follows:"Scientific and technical questions relating to plants intended for human or animal consumption, production or processing of non-food products as regards characteristics liable to affect human or animal health or the environment, including the use of pesticides".

  The SCP is particularly concerned with scientific evaluation relating to genetically modified organisms and pesticides.

  The committee has met seven times since the beginning of June 2001.

  Experts from the UK are currently Prof. Anthony R. Hardy (chairman), Central Science Laboratory; Prof. Howard V. Davies, Scottish Crop Research Institute; and Dr. Tom Sherratt (University of Durham). There are also a number of expert working groups under the SCP to which ad hoc experts are invited to contribute as appropriate.

  The UK does not contribute directly to the costs of the SCP. I have no information on the annual cost of the committee to the European Commission.

  The items currently under the SCP's consideration can be viewed on its website at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scp/index-en.html.

  The committee is currently accountable through the European Commission (administered by the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General) through to the European Council and Parliament. Regulation 178/2002 established the European Food Safety Authority and later this year this committee's responsibilities will be transferred to two new panels (the Panel on Plant Health,
  470W
  Plant Production Products and their Residues, and the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms) operating within the authority. Members of the new panels will remain to be appointed in an independent role and for their individual expertise.

  The SCP's agendas and outcome of its discussions (opinions and minutes) are available on its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Fruit, Vegetables and Flowers 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. [61717]

  Mr. Morley
  The Advisory Committee on Fruit, Vegetables and Flowers is a consultative committee of the European Commission. Its purpose is to facilitate consultation with social and occupational groups with an interest in the EU regimes for fruit, vegetables and flowers. It is not attended by officials of Her Majesty's Government and does not give rise to costs to UK public funds.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Scientific Committee on Designations of Origin, Geographical Indications and Certificates of Specific Character 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. [61723]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Scientific Committee Designations of Origin, Geographical Indications and Certificates of Specific Character is set out in Commission Decision 95/53/EEC. The committee exists to provide expert advice to assist the European Commission in its consideration of applications concerning the registration of designations of origin, geographical indications and certificates of specific character.

  There is no UK representation on the Scientific Committee. While one member of the current committee is British, he does not sit as a UK national, but is, like all the members, a qualified expert with a legal or agricultural background. The commission pays the travel and lodging costs of members. The Scientific Committee has met four times over the last 12-month period although in some previous years it has met more frequently than this. Items currently under its consideration are 'Galician mussels', `traditional grass-fed red poll beef' and an Italian milk product from the Apennines.

  Regarding transparency and accountability, 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, including the Scientific Committee. The first

  471W
  report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Com (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be available through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on the Protection of Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes 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. [61706]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Article 22 (3) of European Directive 86/609/EEC (on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes) provides for the commission to establish
  "a permanent consultative committee within which the member states would be represented, which will assist the Commission in organising the exchange of appropriate information, while respecting the requirements of confidentiality, and which will also assist the Commission in the other questions raised by the application of this directive."

  The Commission made a decision on 9 February 1990 (90/67/EEC) for setting up the Advisory Committee on the Protection of Animals for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes under article 22 of the directive, including provision for representation and working methods. However, the committee has never been established. The Commission has recently made a recommendation for the directive to be revised. In its initial comments on what amendments might be considered, the United Kingdom has suggested that the Commission should consider either dispensing with or establishing the Advisory Committee.

  World Food Summit
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reasons she did not attend the World Food Summit in Rome; and if she will make a statement. [62085]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael) represented this Department at the World Food Summit. Although the summit was primarily concerned with international development issues which go beyond DEFRA's responsibilities, my right hon. Friend's attendance reflects the importance we attach to the role of trade and rural development in alleviating poverty and hunger.

  Farming Research (Developing World)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent by her Department on research into(a) all forms of farming and (b) local-based farming initiatives in the developing world in each of the last 10 years. [62084]
  472W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: (a) The Department's total research and development expenditure spent in this area for each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  £million

  Expenditure

  1991–92

  87.7

  1992–93

  95.0

  1993–94

  97.0

  1994–95

  99.2

  1995–96

  102.6

  1996–97

  99.9

  1997–98

  98.8

  1998–99

  101.7

  1999–2000

  97.3

  2000–01

  107.0

  2001–021

  —

  1Figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  (b) Expenditure on farming in the developing world is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, whose Department (DFID) has provided the following information.

  DFID funds agricultural research aimed at the needs of the poor in developing countries who depend for their livelihoods on natural resources. Separate data are not maintained of the sums spent on research for locally based farming initiatives though much of this work is undertaken directly with resource-poor farming communities. Bilateral spending on research in agriculture, forestry and fishing in the last 10 years was:

  £million

  Expenditure

  1991–92

  29.3

  1992–93

  33.7

  1993–94

  32.8

  1994–95

  39.1

  1995–96

  31.0

  1996–97

  26.2

  1997–98

  24.8

  1998–99

  28.3

  1999–2000

  30.8

  2000–01

  32.2

  DFID also made the following multilateral contributions to international agricultural research organisations which contribute to the elimination of hunger and poverty in developing countries:

  £million

  Expenditure

  1991–92

  8.7

  1992–93

  8.7

  1993–94

  7.8

  1994–95

  8.4

  1995–96

  8.5

  1996–97

  7.7

  1997–98

  5.8

  1998–99

  7.8

  1999–2000

  10.1

  2000–01

  10.9

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in
  473W
  the Library a record of the priority scores given to each countryside stewardship scheme approved in the past five years. [62323]

  Mr. Morley
  Details of the scores for each of the approximately 8,500 Countryside Stewardship Scheme applications approved over the last five years could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Bali Conference
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the outcome of the recent ministerial conference in Bali. [61772]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: 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.

  Waste Management
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department's 2000 to 2002 Municipal Waste Management Survey will be published. [62664]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: Provisional results from the Municipal Waste Management Survey for the 2000–01 financial year were published on 16 April 2002. Final results will be published during the late summer of 2002.

  The 2001–02 Municipal Waste Management Survey has not yet been carried out. However, results are expected to be available during 2003, following a timetable similar to that for the 2000–01 survey.

  Seeds (National List of Varieties) Regulations
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Seeds (National List of Varieties) Regulations; and what plans she has to amend them. [62581]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: Changes to the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 2001 will be needed in the near future to amend references
  474W
  to EC seeds marketing directives which are currently being codified by the Council of the European Union, and other minor matters.

  In reply to a parliamentary question on 28 November 2000, the Government also made it clear that the arrangements for requesting a hearing on proposed national list decisions would be reviewed during the Chardon LL hearing, in order to consider whether the current arrangements were satisfactory for all parties. The Chardon LL hearing closed on 13 June and it remains the Government's intention to review how those arrangements have worked. If changes are proposed, all interested parties will be consulted in the normal way.

  Organic Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what investigation is under way in her Department to examine how an organic stewardship scheme might be introduced. [62990]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: The issue of ongoing support for organic farmers is being taken forward as part of the follow up to the report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. This is one of the issues under consideration in the stakeholder group drawing up the organic farming and food action plan.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with her counterparts in New Zealand and Australia on the subject of bovine TB. [62991]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: DEFRA, and its predecessor MAFF, has a long history of collaboration with the animal health departments in New Zealand and Australia. In 1999 the veterinary head of the endemic animal diseases and zoonoses section of the state veterinary service carried out a fact finding visit to New Zealand to investigate the control of bovine tuberculosis there, and our veterinary service has received several visits from veterinarians from New Zealand and Australia. In addition, our tuberculosis vaccine research programme is being carried out by the veterinary laboratory agency which is working in collaboration with researchers from New Zealand.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent research her Department has undertaken into the effect of production announcers given to cattle on the development of bovine tuberculosis. [62813]

  Mr. Morley
  I believe the hon. Member is referring to production enhancers, such as anabolic steroid growth promoters and bovine somatatrophin lactation enhancer, rather than production announcers. As these products are not licensed for use in cattle in the UK, DEFRA has not carried out research into the effects that they might have on the development of bovine tuberculosis.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many confirmed cases of bovine TB have been recorded in(a) Scotland and (b) Dumfries and Galloway region in each of the last 12 months. [62412]
  475W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The information requested is not available in the format requested, in that county figures are not available for 2002. In 2001 there was one herd affected by a new confirmed incident of bovine TB in Scotland. There were none in Dumfriesshire. Raw data for January to April 2002 indicate seven confirmed new TB incidents in Scotland.

  Carcase Disposal
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will derogate from the EC directive on carcase disposal in respect of farms in Dumfries and Galloway. [62411]

  Mr. Morley
  No. The EU animal by-products regulation will permit member states to derogate from the regulation to permit the burial or burning of fallen stock in defined remote areas. Although this is a matter for Scottish Ministers in Scotland, all agriculture Ministers in the UK consider the Highlands and Islands of Scotland to be the only areas which can be considered to be remote within the terms of the regulation.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change the rules for farmers disposing of fallen stock. [61500]

  Mr. Morley
  New EU rules (the Animal By-Products Regulation) will prohibit the routine burning or burial of fallen stock, except in defined remote areas, and will specify standards for incinerators which are used to dispose of fallen stock.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the EC Animal By-Products Regulation 2000/0259 to be implemented. [61494]

  Mr. Morley
  We expect the EU Animal By-Products Regulation to be adopted in September 2002 and to apply in member states seven to eight months later.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department will conclude its examination of the potential benefits of using X-ray equipment to scan for illegal meat imports. [61586]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: We are still in the process of assessing the X-ray equipment already in use by HMCE and will be discussing with other countries their experiences with particular technologies.

  Flood Insurance
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will take steps to assist householders to find insurance cover for properties affected by flooding; [62333]

  (2) what recent discussions she has held with the Association of British Insurers regarding insurance cover for those affected by flooding; [62335]
  476W
  (3) what estimate her Department has made of the impact on householders of the withdrawal of flood insurance cover. [62334]

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what agreement exists for the present year with the Association of British Insurers about maintaining insurance cover for households in areas at risk of flooding; [62602]

  (2) what representations she has received about the decision by Esure to stop providing flood insurance for households in areas at risk of flooding; and if she will discuss this with Esure. [62603]

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations the Government made to the insurance industry during and following the serious floods in 2000 to ensure that property insurance would continue to be available to owners and tenants of residential and commercial premises in areas at risk of flooding; what undertakings the insurance industry gave at that time; if she will respond to Esure's statement that insurers have decided to deny home insurance cover to prospective new clients in the 10 per cent. of postcodes most susceptible to flooding; and if she will make a statement about what steps the Government intend to take to ensure that property insurance remains available to all at a reasonable cost. [63439]

  Mr. Morley
  There is an agreement in place with the Association of British Insurers member companies that during 2002, other than in exceptional circumstances, they will continue to provide flood cover for domestic properties and small businesses which they currently insure. Cases where there is an alleged breach of this agreement will be investigated by the ABI.

  The insurance industry is a competitive one. Government have no plans to intervene in the market either generally or with individual companies. While recognising concern about the recent announcement by Esure, I understand their position to be that they will not provide cover to new clients in areas at risk of flooding. This decision is not a breach of the ABI agreement which relates only to renewal of existing policies. It is also my understanding that as a relatively newly formed company, Esure have few existing clients in the floodplain.

  While no formal assessment has been made, I am aware that there could be a significant impact if insurers were to withdraw cover for households and businesses at risk of flooding. The Government are therefore working hard with the industry to try to ensure the continued, widespread availability of affordable flood cover beyond the end of 2002. There have been regular meetings with the insurance industry, at both ministerial and official level, to consider their calls for increased investment in flood and coastal defence, controls on development in areas at risk of flooding, simplified arrangements for implementing flood defences and better information on real flood risk. I expect to meet again with the industry later in the summer.

  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of insurance payouts made as a result of the floods of autumn 2000. [62331]
  477W
  Mr. Morley
  The Association of British Insurers (ABI) estimate that total insurance losses from weather-related damage in autumn 2000 were some £1.3 billion. This includes damages from both storms and flooding; the ABI do not have separate figures for flooding alone.

  Flooding
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many properties in England are at risk from a 1 in 50 year flood event. [62332]

  Mr. Morley
  The information sought is not systematically collected in a consistent form though the Environment Agency have estimated that some 130,000 properties are at risk from a 1 in 50 year event. This is from a total of 1.8 million properties in the floodplain in England.

  The agency is currently preparing a strategy on future needs for data across flood defence, which will help inform its programme of floodplain mapping and risk assessment.

  Fisheries
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many occasions in the past year(a) UK fisheries enforcement officers have visited and inspected the enforcement regime of another EU fishing nation and (b) enforcement officials from other EU fishing nations have visited the UK to inspect the enforcement regime in the UK. [62624]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The fisheries enforcement authorities in the UK, including the Royal Navy, have frequent contact with their counterparts in other member states on a wide range of monitoring, control and surveillance matters. Comprehensive records of such contacts are not maintained but in the year ending 31 March 2002 there were at least nine occasions when inspectors from the UK visited other member states and three occasions when inspectors from other member states visited the UK with the purpose of discussing or observing enforcement activity.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the expected cut in the United Kingdom fishing fleet following the publication of the indicative figures contained within the European Commission's monthly published road map for the future reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. [62595]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The Commission have made clear that they do not seek to impose cuts in fleet capacity on member states. Their figures, which detail fleet cuts by member states, are to be taken as purely illustrative. The scale of decommissioning in any individual member state will depend on the decisions taken by the council on measures to reduce fishing effort and on the decisions by fishermen in the light of the impact of these measures.

  Foot and Mouth
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her 478W
  Department is taking to prevent the import of foot and mouth disease from South Korea; and if she will make a statement. [59629]

  Mr. Morley
  Korea is not authorised to export meat or animals to the European Union. DEFRA official veterinary advice is that there is no significant risk of travellers bringing foot and mouth disease back from Korea, provided rules on personal imports of animal products are observed.

  In relation to the World cup, the games are played a long distance from the outbreaks and we have issued advice to fans via the Football Association website to keep away from farms and to avoid bringing back animal products.

  The British consulate in Korea have placed similar advice on their website. Enforcement agencies were notified of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Korea and advised to be vigilant of passengers travelling back from Korea.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural affairs what discussions her officials have had with their South Korean counterparts about the spread of foot and mouth disease in that country; and if she will make a statement. [59628]

  Mr. Morley
  We have received timely, detailed information from Korea on their disease situation through the EU, the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) and direct from the Korean authorities. The foot and mouth disease outbreak in Korea was discussed at a recent bilateral meeting at the OIE General Assembly in Paris.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department will finalise the analysis of the questionnaires completed by foreign veterinary surgeons who assisted in the eradication of foot and mouth disease; and if she will place the analysis in the Library. [62007]

  Mr. Morley
  Due to other priorities, it has not yet proved possible to finalise the analysis of the questionnaires completed by those foreign veterinary surgeons who assisted in the eradication of foot and mouth disease.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list, on a county basis, the weekly laboratory test results for foot and mouth disease on infected premises, broken down by(a) negative, (b) antibody positive and (c) virus positive results; and how many infected premises in each county were not the subject of laboratory tests. [62259]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is given in tables which have been placed in the Library.

  For the samples that returned positive and negative results, premises have been attributed to the week in which samples were received at the laboratory.

  Information regarding whether a result was antibody positive or virus positive cannot easily be obtained. Therefore the figures simply report that a positive result returned.

  Source:

  DEFRA's Disease Control System (DCS) database as at 11 June 2002. Data may be subject to revision as more information becomes available and as the data within DCS is validated.
  479W
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to reduce the possibility of a further outbreak of foot and mouth disease; and if she will make a statement. [62157]

  Mr. Morley
  We are taking a number of steps to reduce the possibility of a further outbreak of foot and mouth disease through initiatives covering prevention; disease surveillance and contingency planning.

  On 28 March the Government launched an action plan to reduce the risk of plant and animal disease entering the country illegally and threatening our agricultural and horticultural industries. A copy of the action plan can be found in the House Libraries. As recommended by the Policy Commission on Food and Farming, the action plan commits the Government to undertake a risk assessment of the threat posed by contaminated illegal meat imports. This is well under way and due to report in the autumn. The information provided by the risk assessment will help inform decisions about the nature of risks from imports so that resources can be efficiently targeted. Along side the risk assessment, work is being carried out to improve publicity and raise awareness of the risks posed by personal imports. Other work is concerned with improving detection and a pilot detector dog scheme will be operational later in the year.

  We attach great importance to veterinary surveillance for the early detection of new or exotic diseases/ infections, including foot and mouth disease. Work on a strategy to enhance veterinary surveillance was curtailed last year because of the foot and mouth epidemic. This work has resumed and a strategy document is now in early draft form and will be issued for public consultation later this year.

  In the event of a future outbreak of foot and mouth disease our ability to quickly contain and eradicate the disease will be vital. DEFRA has already published an interim operational contingency plan to support the European Union approved strategic plan, veterinary instructions and local plans that already existed. This draws extensively on experience of the 2001 outbreak and DEFRA will develop this further to achieve better emergency preparedness, taking full account of the recommendations of the independent inquiries.

  Additionally, preventive measures introduced during the 2001 outbreak remain in force, for example the ban on feeding pigswill to livestock and the 20 day standstill on the movement of livestock.

  WTO Agreement
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of introducing a development box into the World Trade Organisation agreement on agriculture; and if she will make a statement. [62537]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The creation of a development box would be one way of giving effect to the important Declaration made at Doha last year that special and differential treatment for developing countries must be an integral part of all elements of the WTO agriculture negotiations. Current proposals for such a box contain several elements, including provision for developing countries to reduce
  480W
  tariffs more slowly, extension of the safeguard mechanism and maintaining the flexibilities agreed in the Uruguay Round. We will actively consider these ideas in the negotiations.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the contribution made by the average UK family to the CAP by(a) contributions made through tax, (b) increases in prices and (c) other means in the last 12 months. [62535]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: Individuals in the UK contribute to the CAP as consumers through higher food prices and as taxpayers through CAP direct support payments.

  We estimate that, in 2000, a notional UK family of four paid £4–£5 per week in higher food prices as a result of the CAP. UK taxpayers do not contribute specifically to the CAP; rather they contribute to the EU budget as a whole. Total EU payments in 2000 were approximately £51 billion (euro 83 billion), of which around £25 billion (euro 40.5 billion) was spent under the CAP. The UK currently provides around 13.5 per cent. of total budgetary contributions.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much subsidy was received in the last 12 months per head of UK dairy cattle through the CAP. [62533]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: Market price support in the UK dairy sector was equivalent to around £900 million in 2000, the latest year for which data is available. In addition the dairy sector will have received a substantial share of the £260 million paid to livestock producers through the Over Thirty Month Scheme. The agricultural census undertaken in June 2000 records 2.3 million dairy cows in the UK.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of common agricultural policy funding went to UK farmers broken down by(a) under eight European size units, (b) eight to 39 ESUs, (c) 40 to 99 ESUs, (d) 100 to 199 ESUs and (e) 200 and over ESUs in the last 12 months. [62536]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: Exact data on payments under the CAP in the UK cannot be stratified according to the size of farm, e.g. in terms of European size units. The farm business survey provides estimates of direct subsidy receipts for the average farm in England. The latest estimates are given in the following table.

  All direct grants and subsidies1, England 2000–01

  £per farm

  All form types

  8–39 ESU

  10,200

  40–99 ESU

  19,900

  100 and above ESU

  46,300

  1Average per farm

  The farm business survey excludes farms smaller than eight ESUs. These estimates include all grants and

  481W
  subsidies received, including some nationally funded schemes. They represent only direct payments to farmers. They do not include the additional support that farmers receive from the consumer, through CAP market support policies.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assistance she plans to give farmers converting to organic farming in 2003–04. [61613]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the England Rural Development Programme £22 million is budgeted for supporting organic conversion in 2003–04.

  National Scrapie Plan
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the total costs under phase one of the national scrapie plan of(a) the identification and registration of rams, (b) the registration of farms, (c) the collection of blood samples and their dispatch to the laboratory, (d) the laboratory testing of blood samples to establish genotypes, and (e) certification. [61534]

  Mr. Morley
  Information is not available in the format requested. A major part of the costs under(a), (c) and (e) relates to the administrative costs of the state veterinary service, and a breakdown of the service's costs by those categories is not available. As regards (b), the national scrapie plan does not maintain a specific and separate register of farms.

  Expenditure on the genotyping schemes for both the registered and non-registered sectors which have already been launched under the national scrapie plan will depend on levels of uptake under what are voluntary schemes. Estimated annual expenditure is given in the table for different levels of assumed uptake. The figures exclude the administrative costs of the state veterinary service and IT costs.

  £ million

  Assuming 40 per cent uptake

  Assuming 60 per cent. uptake

  Assuming 80 per cent. uptake

  Ram genotyping registered

  4

  6

  8

  Ram genotyping non-registered

  7

  10

  13

  Total

  11

  16

  21

  Of which:

  Laboratory genotyping costs

  4.4

  6.6

  8.8

  Animal identification costs

  1.5

  2.2

  2.9

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she intends to consult farmers about phases 2 and 3 of the national scrapie plan; [61532]

  (2) if she will make a statement on her proposals for the second and third phases of the national scrapie plan. [61535]

  Mr. Morley
  Action under the national scrapie plan is being rolled out in full consultation with the sheep industry and other stakeholders. The first phase of the plan commenced in July 2001 with the launch of the genotyping scheme for purebred registered flocks. A482W
  second genotyping scheme for purebred non-registered flocks was launched in January 2002, extending the national scrapie plan to all purebred sheep flocks. At that time we also announced that any flock that had had scrapie, regardless of whether or not it was a purebred flock, could join the existing plan.

  We are currently working on proposals for a specific scheme under the national scrapie plan to cover flocks that have had scrapie. Informal but detailed discussions on these proposals have already taken place with stakeholder representatives and we expect to publish proposals for formal public consultation later this year. We continue to involve all sheep industry stakeholder organizations—including the breed societies, farming unions and the National Sheep Association—as well as other stakeholders in all stages of our consultations. This will remain the case for any further schemes under the national scrapie plan.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many sheep have so far been tested for scrapie under the sheep abattoir survey that began on 7 January; when she expects to meet her target of 20,000 tests; and if she will make a statement. [61608]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: EU legislation (TSE Regulation 999/2001 as amended) required the UK to test 15,000 sheep aged over 18 months and destined for human consumption from 1 January 2002. In addition to this, a SEAC-recommended scientific survey was run concurrently which added an additional 5,000 animals to the abattoir survey.

  The European Commission extended the testing requirement from 1 April 2002 to 60,000 sheep aged over 18 months and destined for human consumption.

  As at 31 May 2002, 2,134 abattoir sheep had been tested. Results of the testing can be found on the DEFRA website at: http://defraweb/animalhibse/index.html.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many sheep have had to be destroyed since 1 January as a result of injuries sustained during testing for scrapie. [61491]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand the hon. Member is referring to the injuries resulting from the administration to sheep of the ruminal bolus used to identify sheep under the national scrapie plan. Since January 2002 some 93,000 sheep have been tested under the plan. Of these 36 have died or have had to be destroyed following problems with the administration of the bolus. Compensation has been (or is in the process of being) paid to the owners concerned.

  The losses are very regrettable and steps have been taken to address problems which sprang mainly from initial operator inexperience under a new scheme. Training of operators has been refined. As a result, the number of casualties has fallen significantly in recent months.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is towards native breeds of sheep which have a low frequency of the ARR allele. [61549]
  483W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: Through its breeding schemes the national scrapie plan aims to increase genetic resistance to TSEs by increasing the prevalence of the ARR allele. At present participation in the plan is voluntary and it is only rams with the genotypes which are the most susceptible to TSEs (those carrying the VRQ allele) which must be culled or castrated by those farmers who choose to join. Other susceptible genotypes in participating flocks are to be phased out over time. It is clearly in the interest of sheep farmers to convert their flocks to a TSE-resistant basis as quickly as possible and it should be possible for the vast majority, if not all, of them to do so over a planned time scale. If there were any breeds where the existence of the ARR allele is absent or so low as to make this impossible, the Government would of course take that into account. We have initiated, as part of the national scrapie plan, a rare breeds survey to obtain better information on the distribution of genotypes in rare breeds.

  Ram Genotyping Scheme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many breeders have applied to take part in(a) the Ram Genotyping Scheme for Purebred Registered Flocks and (b) the Ram Genotyping Scheme for Purebred Non-Registered Flocks; how many blood sampling visits have taken place so far for each scheme; and if she will make a statement. [61533]

  Mr. Morley
  As at 13 June, a total of 6,491 farmers had completed an expression of interest form in respect of the Ram Genotyping Scheme for Purebred Registered Flocks and 4,366 had applied to join the scheme. As at the same date, a total of 2,153 farmers had completed an expression of interest form in respect of the Ram Genotyping Scheme for Purebred Non-registered Flocks; application forms have not yet been issued under this scheme but that will happen shortly.

  As at 13 June, a total of 2,405 blood sampling visits had been completed in respect of the Ram Genotyping Scheme for Purebred Registered Flocks and a further 520 had been arranged. Sampling visits in respect of the Ram Genotyping Scheme for Purebred Non-registered Flocks will commence once application forms have been received from those who have expressed an interest in the scheme.

  The levels of uptake so far represent an encouraging start to the schemes and the Government are working with the industry to build further on this. The Government attach high importance to the National Scrapie Plan whose objective is to eradicate TSEs from the national sheep flock, thereby helping to ensure that the sheep industry provides a product that meets the high quality standards rightly expected by consumers.

  Regional Offices
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she plans to change the number of her Department's regional offices. [61542]

  Mr. Morley
  The State Veterinary Service (SVS) proposes when resources become available, to realign its animal health divisional office boundaries to coincide with the boundaries of Government offices in order to improve disease emergency response capability. Although 484W
  a bid has been made to allow the possibility of opening an additional regional office, this will be only one of the issues that may be considered in any accompanying review of the hierarchy of the SVS, and no final decisions have yet been taken.

  No other changes to the number of offices in DEFRA's regional structure are planned.

  Shellfish Licensing
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce shellfish licensing. [61543]

  Mr. Morley
  We are committed to introducing shellfish licensing and I am considering the timing and format of a scheme in the light of comments received in response to consultation.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to pay interest to beef producers on beef support scheme payments that the Rural Payments Agency is unable to pay out by 30 June. [61579]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The EU regulations do not provide for compensation where payments are made after the expiry of the regulatory payment window. Nor is it Government policy to make such payments. Notwithstanding that general position, the circumstances leading to the failure in some cases to meet the 30 June deadline for bovine payments is under review to identify whether there are any factors which would justify a departure from this position.

  Hunting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent steps she has taken to solicit views on the Government's proposals on hunting with dogs; and if she will make a statement. [62692]

  Alun Michael
  Following my statement to the House on 21 March I have written to all Members of both Houses of Parliament, to all members of the National Assembly for Wales and to interested organisations and individuals on 10 April and again on 31 May. I have placed these letters on the DEFRA website and sent copies of the letter of 31 May to everyone who responded to that of 10 April. I have also met delegations from the three main umbrella groups and a number of other organisations with a particular interest in the future of hunting. I am also considering other ways of examining evidence and enabling intelligent debate involving those whose views are strongly opposed.

  Goats
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether goats are under the same classification as sheep for the purposes of SI No. 843. [62555]

  Mr. Morley
  TSE measures in relation to sheep and goats are set out in Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001, which came into force across the European Union on 1 July
  485W
  2001. The TSE (England) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 No. 843) provide the administration and enforcement powers needed to give effect to the directly applicable Community requirements in this country. Requirements for ovine and caprine animals—covering, for example, suspected and confirmed scrapie cases, compulsory testing and monitoring programmes and specified risk material—are clearly stated throughout the regulations.

  GEO-3 Report
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evaluation she has made of the relevance of the United Nations Environment Programme's Global Environment Outlook-3 (GEO-3) report to the United Kingdom and overseas territories. [62163]

  Mr. Meacher
  The GEO-3 report provides an authoritative assessment that informs our thinking on global sustainable development. Although it does not single out individual countries, it makes clear that action is required by all countries in the north and the south to reverse environmental degradation. The report is an unequivocal reminder that sustainable development rests on three pillars—economic, social and environmental. It highlights the need for action in key areas, such as biodiversity, climate change, forests and oceans. The UK Government takes the problems identified by the report extremely seriously and is taking appropriate action including;Taking the lead in tackling climate change at the national and international level. Through our Climate Change Programme we aim to increase the amount of energy generated from renewable sources, and work with industries to cut emissions and boost efficiency.
  Taking significant steps to conserve, and sustainable use, biodiversity in the UK and overseas.
  Taking significant steps to achieve sustainable forest management in the UK and assist others to do so abroad.
  Providing extra protection for marine species and habitats under threat. We are promoting the case for marine protected areas on the high seas and are conducting an integrated assessment of the state of our seas.

  The World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) in August-September is a valuable opportunity to address many of these issues and the UK Government is working hard internationally, with partners, to help make the summit a success.

  Contaminated Land
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of(a) the value and (b) the acreage of contaminated land. [61964]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency has estimated that there may be some 300,000 hectares of land in the UK affected to some extent by industrial or natural contamination. However, much of this contamination will be relatively minor. It is not possible to estimate the value of this land because the total is not derived from an assessment of individual sites and value depends on site-specific factors such as land use or planning permissions.486W
  Under Part IIA ("contaminated land") of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authorities are under a statutory duty to inspect their areas to identify contaminated land as defined in the Act. Broadly speaking, this is land which poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment in its current circumstances. This is an ongoing duty, which came into effect in April 2000 in England and more recently in Wales. It involves detailed risk assessments and determinations on a site-specific basis. The regime is described in DETR Circular 02/s2000, "Contaminated Land". The Environment Agency will include data in its periodic State of Contaminated Land reports, the first of which for England is due to be completed this summer. I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  EU LIFE Programme
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the success of the EU LIFE Programme. [61993]

  Mr. Meacher
  The EC LIFE programme provides co-financing for actions both in nature conservation (LIFE-Nature) and in other fields of the environment (LIFE-Environment), as well as specific environmental actions outside the EU (LIFE Third Countries). The European Commission is responsible for implementing the LIFE programme.

  My Department has been fully involved in the assessment currently being carried out by the Court of Auditors on the LIFE programme. The Commission are required (under Article 12 of Regulation EC 1655–2000 of the European Parliament and the Council concerning LIFE) to produce a report on the implementation of the LIFE Regulation, including the programme's contribution to the development of Community environment policy, by 30 September 2003.

  In the UK, the LIFE fund has provided significant financial assistance to a number of projects under both the LIFE-Nature and LIFE-Environment components. Between 1992 and 2000, the UK has secured 92 LIFE-Environment projects, receiving around 49 million co-funding (approximately' £30 million). Over the same period, 30 LIFE-Nature projects have been supported with co-funding amounting to over 30 million (approximately £18.5 million).

  The European Commission has just published the document 'Life after LIFE', which sets out a number of LIFE-Nature project case studies and provides an illustration of some of the longer-term results of LIFE-Nature funding. A copy of this will be placed in the House Library.

  Food Standards Agency
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had regarding the continuation of financial assistance to the Food Standards Agency to enable the agency to reduce meat inspection changes for small and medium meat plants after 31 March 2004; and if she will make a statement. [61878]
  487W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: Responsibility for the MHS, the Executive Agency responsible for the enforcement of meat hygiene legislation, was transferred from MAFF to the Food Standards Agency when the Food Standards Agency was created on 1 April 2000. Funding transfers were made at the same time.

  In 2001 the Government reduced charges to small and medium sized plants, as recommended in the Maclean review. This resulted in a loss of income to the MHS. The then MAFF, and the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, as industry sponsors, contributed towards the cost of this change through baseline funding transfers to the Food Standards Agency.

  Responsibility for this issue has therefore passed to the Food Standards Agency, although DEFRA will continue to be consulted, as industry sponsors, on the FSA's proposed charges for future years. I understand the FSA has not made proposals for future charges beyond the present financial year.

  Certified Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the refurbishment projects that(a) are in progress and (b) will start within the next six months; and what action is being taken to ensure that these will procure certified timber. [59768]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA has the following refurbishment projects valued in excess of £250,000 that:

  (a) are in progress

  9 Millbank—upper floors

  Noble House—print room;

  (b) will start within the next six months Nobel House—upper floors

  3–8 Whitehall Place.

  DEFRA is reviewing these contracts and processes to ensure that it is procuring timber in accordance with the answer given to Mr. Burgon on 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 948W.

  Bank Branch Closures
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect on the rural economy of the closure of rural branches by the major clearing banks. [60366]

  Alun Michael
  Whereas the closure of branches of the major clearing banks in rural areas can sometimes lead to inconvenience for those who cannot easily travel to the nearest town, there are more rural post offices than rural branches of all the banks combined. Post offices are therefore well placed to provide banking services, and access to banking in rural areas is improving as more banks turn to the Post Office to provide their customers with convenient access. The Government are strongly supporting the Post Office in its plans to help reduce financial exclusion through innovative banking schemes and has made clear that it is prepared to provide funding for 'universal banking' on the basis of a robust business case.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent meetings she has had with the Scottish Executive to discuss the common fisheries policy; and if she will make a statement. [58122]

  Mr. Morley
  Officials from here who deal with the common fisheries policy maintain frequent contact with their opposite numbers in the Scottish Executive. My most recent meetings with Ross Finnie, Minister for Environment and Rural Development in the Scottish Executive, to discuss the Commission's proposals for the reform of the CFP were on 6 and 10 June.

  Live Animal Transportation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals were(a) found dead, (b) identified as unfit to continue their journey and (c) removed from vehicles for other reasons at UK ports in each of the last five years; and what species were involved. [61127]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: This information is available only from 1999 for consignments of slaughter and fattening animals through Dover port. The following figures are for sheep only unless otherwise indicated.

  Number dead

  Number unfit

  Number removed for other reasons

  1999

  15

  82

  160

  2000

  123

  29

  97

  2001

  5

  5

  3

  1Figure includes one pig

  Clean Water and Sanitation
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department will make to(a) the US, (b) Australia, (c) Canada and (d)Japan on clean water and sanitation before the UN's World summit on sustainable development in September. [62059]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department will take every opportunity, at both ministerial and official levels, through bilateral and multilateral contacts with these countries to confirm safe water targets and agree sanitation targets for the World summit.

  Nuclear Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role Nirex plays in the management of plutonium as a nuclear waste. [57976]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Nirex provides advice to the producers of radioactive waste on the packaging of any trace plutonium present in intermediate level waste.

  Anderson Report
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she expects to receive the report of Sir lain Anderson's Lessons Learned inquiry; [61604]

  (2) when she expects to receive the report of the Royal Society inquiry into infectious diseases in livestock. [616051

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]:The report of the Royal Society's inquiry into infectious diseases in livestock is currently expected to be published on 16 July, and that of Dr. kin Anderson's Lessons Learned inquiry on 18 July.

  Waste Incineration Directive
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government are taking to implement the Waste Incineration Directive; and if she will make a statement. [64094]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has today published a consultation paper that sets out how the Government intend to implement EC Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste. It is aimed at operators of incineration and co-incineration plant, regulators, waste producers and waste managers, all of whom will be affected by the implementation of that directive. It is also aimed at waste and environmental interest groups who have an interest in environmentally sound regulation.

  The consultation raises a number of issues for consultation and includes a copy of the draft implementing regulations, directions to regulators and an explanatory commentary.

  This consultation is solely about the mechanism to implement the tight controls on emissions from incinerators to which the UK has signed up throughout the passage of the Waste Incineration Directive. These controls embody what was already accepted and largely applied in the UK as good practice. This consultation is not about the place of incineration in waste management strategies. It is about ensuring that incinerators continue to be tightly regulated.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Fire Service
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of firefighting staff were women in each of the last five years, in each fire service. [61853]

  Mr. Raynsford
  All fire services in England and Wales are required to provide annually to Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate statistical information about personnel employed, analysed by gender and ethnic origin. The table provides the percentage of the total number of firefighters in each fire service who are female (whole time and retained services combined), based on the statistical returns for the years 31 March 1997 to 31 March 2001.490W

  Percentage of firefighters in post at 31 March 1997 to 31 March 2001—female

  Per cent.

  19971

  19981

  19991

  20001

  20011

  Avon

  1.04

  1.05

  1.16

  1.16

  1.13

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  2.22

  2.91

  3.14

  2.78

  3.23

  Buckinghamshire

  3.85

  2.40

  1.79

  3.00

  1.83

  Cambridgeshire

  1.98

  1.60

  1.59

  1.91

  1.70

  Cheshire

  0.86

  0.74

  0.62

  0.49

  0.62

  Cleveland

  0.14

  0.00

  0.00

  0.15

  0.00

  Cornwall

  0.34

  0.34

  0.66

  0.83

  0.81

  County Durham and Darlington

  0.53

  0.72

  0.71

  0.54

  1.08

  Cumbria

  0.70

  0.70

  0.97

  1.12

  1.41

  Derbyshire

  1.16

  1.53

  1.56

  1.85

  2.04

  Devon

  0.99

  1.62

  1.88

  1.89

  1.73

  Dorset

  0.47

  0.47

  0.47

  1.11

  1.75

  East Sussex

  1.61

  1.50

  1.61

  1.65

  2.37

  Essex

  0.29

  0.29

  0.36

  0.36

  0.79

  Gloucestershire

  1.57

  1.41

  2.76

  3.09

  3.88

  Greater Manchester2

  0.13

  0.14

  0.09

  0.09

  0.14

  Hampshire

  0.68

  0.81

  0.89

  1.36

  1.59

  Hereford and Worcester

  1.61

  0.58

  1.34

  1.44

  2.25

  Hertfordshire

  0.60

  0.71

  0.73

  1.18

  0.85

  Humberside

  0.70

  0.68

  0.68

  0.88

  1.04

  Isle of Wight

  1.36

  1.34

  1.40

  1.35

  1.85

  Isles of Scilly

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  2.27

  0.00

  Kent

  0.30

  0.41

  0.83

  1.28

  1.52

  Lancashire

  0.81

  0.95

  0.99

  1.07

  1.30

  Leicestershire

  0.70

  0.69

  0.99

  1.11

  1.23

  Lincolnshire

  2.23

  2.98

  1.96

  2.35

  2.23

  London

  1.01

  1.04

  1.14

  1.16

  1.23

  Merseyside

  0.13

  0.27

  0.27

  0.35

  0.37

  Mid and West Wales

  0.78

  1.04

  1.02

  1.01

  1.76

  Norfolk

  0.97

  1.10

  0.82

  1.08

  1.46

  North Wales

  0.96

  0.96

  1.10

  1.90

  1.60

  North Yorkshire

  1.49

  1.38

  2.16

  2.47

  2.61

  Northamptonshire

  1.38

  1.35

  1.36

  1.55

  1.55

  Northumberland

  0.79

  0.77

  1.33

  1.79

  2.28

  Nottinghamshire

  0.65

  0.67

  1.52

  1.41

  1.40

  Oxfordshire

  2.45

  3.16

  3.93

  4.24

  3.94

  Royal Berkshire

  0.85

  1.19

  1.20

  1.05

  0.88

  Shropshire

  1.26

  1.48

  1.04

  1.00

  1.21

  Somerset

  0.37

  0.37

  0.74

  0.73

  1.25

  South Wales

  0.45

  0.50

  0.58

  0.71

  0.70

  South Yorkshire

  0.10

  0.41

  0.62

  1.42

  1.52

  Staffordshire

  1.92

  2.03

  1.65

  1.99

  2.47

  Suffolk

  0.88

  0.90

  1.22

  1.40

  1.99

  Surrey

  1.28

  1.50

  1.94

  2.14

  2.14

  Tyne and Wear

  0.00

  0.10

  0.10

  0.38

  0.68

  Warwickshire

  1.18

  1.44

  1.50

  1.93

  2.77

  West Midlands

  0.39

  0.34

  0.39

  0.54

  1.18

  West Sussex

  1.21

  1.25

  2.14

  2.79

  3.04

  West Yorkshire

  0.36

  0.47

  0.47

  0.49

  0.43

  Wiltshire

  1.13

  1.31

  1.32

  1.50

  1.79

  Average

  0.84

  0.90

  1.04

  1.22

  1.39

  1As at 31 March

  2Two firefighters are excluded from the 31 March 2001 percentage as their gender was not known.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will complete his departmental website; what steps is he taking to meet the Government's e-commerce targets; and what his target is for answering correspondence with ministers. [62554]

  Mr. Leslie
  Following the machinery of government changes, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) has developed an interim website to ensure ongoing access to the Department's material. The website will be developed further over the next few months.

  Our approach to meeting the Government's e-commerce and e-government related objectives is set out in the e-business strategies prepared by the former DTLR and the Cabinet Office, from which the Deputy Prime Minister inherited his responsibilities. The

  491W
  Department is now focusing on delivery of the strategy, a recent example being the planning portal, which will link users of the planning system to a wide range of advice, guidance and services on planning and related topics.

  We have also published for consultation a draft national strategy (e.gov @ local: towards a national strategy for local e-government) that seeks to clarify a common and ambitious vision of local e-government. This includes £350 million (over three years from 2001–02) of investment to promote its delivery in local government.

  On the ODPM' s targets for answering correspondence, the Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on the volume of Members' correspondence received by Departments. For information for 2001, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) on Friday 24 May 2002. Official Report, columns 674–76W.

  Departmental Re-organisation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) when he expects to announce specific ministerial responsibilities within his Department; [61619]

  (2) how many staff are allocated to each of his responsibilities; and how many of these will be newly recruited; [61617]

  (3) if he will list his Office's targets and estimate when he expects each of them to be met; [61620]

  (4) if he will list the (a) special advisers and (b) press officers his Department employs; and how many more he plans to recruit; [61614]

  (5) what the estimated cost is of re-organising his Department, broken down into (a) re-naming, (b) property refurbishment and (c) other matters. [61618]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Mr. Prescott)
  I lead an enlarged Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) at the centre of Government separated off from the Cabinet Office.

  I am supported by: three Ministers of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), and my Noble Friend the right hon. Lord Rooker; two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), and Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). Mavis McDonald CB has been appointed Permanent Secretary.

  As First Secretary of State, I will continue to deputise for the Prime Minister across the range of his responsibilities at home and abroad, and to chair a number of Cabinet committees and sub-committees. I will also continue to carry ministerial responsibility for the British Irish Council and the Joint Ministerial Committee.

  The ODPM already contained the Social Exclusion Unit, the Regional Co-ordination Unit and the Government Offices for the Regions. The Office has now been expanded to include regional policy, local government, local government finance, planning, housing, urban policy, the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, the Fire Service and a number of executive agencies and
  492W
  non-departmental public bodies. Once the refurbishment is completed, the ODPM will be located at Ripley Court, Whitehall and Eland House, Victoria.

  Specific ministerial responsibilities within the ODPM; staff allocated to each responsibility; ODPM targets; lists of special advisers and press officers; and the estimated cost of organising the ODPM, are still being considered.

  Voting Methods
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussion he has had with Herefordshire council regarding(a) electronic voting and (b) all postal vote elections for (i) the next general election and (ii) the 2003 local elections; and if he will make a statement. [62703]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Herefordshire council recently made preliminary inquiries about the likely scope of next year's pilot programme for local elections. As the council was told, it is the Government's intention to issue in September a prospectus giving details about the scope of the 2003 electoral pilots, and how councils will be able to apply for approval to run such pilots.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister further to the reply of the Under-Secretary of 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 572W, if he will announce the outcome of the review of the implications for the National Interest Mapping Service Agreement with the Ordnance Survey of the Ordnance Survey's decision in May 2001 to change to colour photography. [60686]

  Mr. McNulty
  The NIMSA review group comprising officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Ordnance Survey has yet to conclude its review of the impact on National Interest Mapping Service Agreement (NIMSA) payments to Ordnance Survey on the decision to move to aerial colour photography. The result of this review will be reported within NIMSA annual reports.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on cross-subsidy from public funds for the Ordnance Survey imagery layer business. [60687]

  Mr. McNulty
  As a trading fund, Ordnance Survey earns its revenue principally from the licensing of its products and the provision of a small number of services. In addition it earns revenue from the National Interest Mapping Service Agreement (NIMSA) which focuses on the provision of national mapping services that would otherwise be uneconomic.

  The Government, and Ordnance Survey, will ensure that there is no cross-subsidy from public funds to support Ordnance Survey's imagery layer products.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the National Interest Mapping Service Agreement funding makes(a) a direct and (b) an indirect contribution to the commercial activities of Ordnance Survey. [60685]

  Mr. McNulty
  As a trading fund, Ordnance Survey is required to deliver a return on capital employed in its activities. Currently the target is to achieve an average of 9 per cent. return over the first five years of the fund, April 1999 to March 2004.
  493W
  The National Interest Mapping Service Agreement (NIMSA) is an important part of Ordnance Survey's revenue and enables it to undertake uneconomic activities that a purely commercially focused Ordnance Survey could not justify. The NIMSA review group, comprising officials from my Department and from Ordnance Survey takes great care to ensure that NIMSA funds solely support these uneconomic activities.

  Planning
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish his analysis of responses to the Green Paper "Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change". [62851]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library. It will be placed on the ODPM website shortly.

  National Spending Programmes
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action is being taken to ensure that national spending programmes are being effectively delivered regionally. [63102]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are working on several fronts to ensure effective delivery of our regional programmes. The White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" sets out the general context of our regional policies. We are strengthening the Regional Development Agencies, Regional Chambers and Government Offices, so that programmes can better meet the needs of each region and local area. The White Paper sets out our plans to establish elected assemblies, which will provide more effective and accountable regional decision making, in regions which vote for them in a referendum. Also, the 2002 Spending Review is taking into account assessments of regional priorities provided by the Regional Development Agencies and Government Offices in each region.

  Pro-hunting Campaign
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what information he has received from local authorities about(a) incidents of slogans, stickers or posters supporting hunting being applied to roads and other public places and (b) what the annual cost is of repairing the damage caused in these incidents. [63436]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am not aware of any such information having been received.

  British-Irish Council
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Ministers attended the most recent British-Irish Council; and what his role was in connection with the Council. [63192]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Mr. Prescott)
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister led the UK Government's delegation at the British-Irish Council Summit held in Jersey on 14 June. I was present in my capacity as the UK Minister with lead responsibility for the British-Irish Council. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Nrthern Ireland and the Minister for e-Commerce and Competitiveness were also part of the delegation.
  494W

  Congestion Charges (Exemptions)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will discuss with the Secretary of State for Transport exemption for firefighters from London's congestion charges; [63180]

  (2) if he will meet the Mayor of London to discuss exemption for firefighters from London's congestion charges. [63177]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No. The Government's position on national exemptions from congestion charges remains as that set out in our response to the 'Breaking the Logjam' consultation in 1999.

  Congestion charging in London is a matter for the Mayor, not the Government.

  Summit Communiqués
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the communiqu?s that were issued by the Governments of the UK and Ireland following the summit meetings on(a) the environment and (b) drugs policy. [63431]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Mr. Prescott)
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 47W.

  The British-Irish Council met at summit level in Jersey on 14 June 2002 and I have placed the communiqu?é from that summit in the Libraries of the House.

CABINET OFFICE

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60908]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office spend on advertising in 2001–02 was £2,691,000. This includes £2,491,000 incurred by the Office of the e-Envoy for the UK online advertising campaign in November 2001 and January 2002, offering help to people wanting to use the Internet.

  The 2001–02 Resource Account is undergoing final adjustments and awaiting audit. As a result, the figure quoted is subject to change.

  The information requested for planned advertising expenditure for 2002–03 is not currently available. Budgets will be finalised shortly.

WALES

  Training (Aberporth)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to(a) ELWA

  495W
  and (b) QinetiQ about finding new funding for the training scheme at Aberporth; and if he will make a statement. [550621

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I met representatives of ELWA and QinetiQ on 8 April to discuss the future of training provision at Aberporth.

  QinetiQ and ELWA are working together to explore a number of possibilities for continuation of training at the site. These include the possibility of forming partnerships with industry, with other colleges or universities and the use of Objective One funding. I understand that the WDA is developing proposals for an incubator facility at the Aberporth technology park and that WDA and ELWA are considering how this might be integrated with the training facility.

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Wales Office departmental reports were returned and destroyed in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [63107]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Stationery Office does not keep records of the number of copies which were returned and destroyed because it is not cost-effective for them to do so.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Wales Office departmental reports were given away free in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [63108]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In those years the Wales Office received 350, 300 and 300 copies of its departmental reports for use within the Department and distribution to those with an interest in it (for example, Welsh MPs and other Government Departments).

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Wales Office departmental reports were printed in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [63106]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The numbers of Wales Office departmental reports printed in each of those years is a commercial decision for The Stationery Office.

  MPs (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [61830]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Ministers and officials in this Department have access to published reference sources, as well as to the information about hon. Members made publicly available by the House authorities, for the purpose of parliamentary business.

  Broadband
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the benefits of access to broadband services for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [61797]
  496W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government believe that rapid roll-out and adoption of broadband across the UK is important to both their social and economic objectives.

  The Welsh Development Agency commissioned a report on the availability of advanced broadband telecommunications in Wales. The report highlighted the need for widespread access to information and communications technology, as it is becoming increasingly important in today's society, as an essential enabler of economic growth, social inclusion and efficient public sector services.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff were employed by his Department on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 May 2002. [60931]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State (Cabinet Office) on 13 June 2002,Official Report, column 1402W.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Amendment) (No. 7) (Wales) Order; [62725]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Animal By-Products (Amendment) (Wales) Order; [62733]

  (3) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (No. 5) (Wales) Order; [62741]

  (4) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment No. 2) (Wales) Regulations; [62749]

  (5) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) and (Dental Charges) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [62757]

  (6) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Housing (Preservation of Right to Buy) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [62765]

  (7) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Crab Claws (Prohibition of Landing) (Revocation) (Wales) Order; [62721]

  (8) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Miscellaneous Food Additives (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [62729]

  (9) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the National Health Service (Payments by Local Authorities to Health Authorities) (Prescribed Functions) (Wales) Regulations; [62737]

  (10) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the General Teaching Council for Wales (Disciplinary Functions) Regulations; [62745]
  497W
  (11) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) (Amendment) (Wales) Order; [62753]

  (12) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Local government (Best Value Performance Indicators) (Wales) Order; [62761]

  (13) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provisions) (Wales) Order; [62769]

  (14) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Wales) (No. 7) Regulations; [62723]

  (15) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Wales) (No. 6) Order; [62727]

  (16) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [62735]

  (17) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Valuation Tribunals (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [62743]

  (18) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Amendment) (Wales) (No. 5) Order; [62751]

  (19) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Wales) (No. 4) Order; [62759]

  (20) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) (Rate of Discount for 2001–02) (Wales) Regulations; [62767]

  (21) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Education (Nutritional Standards for School Lunches) (Wales) Regulations; [62731]

  (22) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Foot?and-Mouth Disease (Marking of Meat and Meat Products) (Wales) Regulations; [62739]

  (23) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Local Government Act 2000 (Commencement No. 2) (Wales) Order; [62747]

  (24) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Spreadable Fats (Marketing Standards) (Wales) Regulations; [62755]

  (25) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Restriction on Pithing (Wales) Regulations; [62763]
  498W
  (26) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Adoption of Children from Overseas (Wales) Regulations; [62771]

  (27) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Marking of Meat, Meat Products, Minced Meat and Meat Preparations) (Wales) Regulations; [62726]

  (28) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Processed Cereal-based Foods and Baby Foods for Infants and Young Children (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [62734]

  (29) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Coffee Extracts and Chicory Extracts (Wales) Regulations; [62742]

  (30) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the National Assistance (Sums for Personal Requirements) (Wales) Regulations; [62750]

  (31) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Wales) Regulations; [62758]

  (32) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the National Health Service (Penalty Charge) (Wales) Regulations; [62766]

  (33) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Education (Extension of Careers Education) (Wales) Regulations; [62722]

  (34) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Housing (Right to Buy) (Priority of Charges) (Wales) Order; [62730]

  (35) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Foot?and-Mouth Disease (Amendment) (Wales) (No. 6) Order; [62738]

  (36) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) and (General Ophthalmic Services) (Amendment) (No. 2) (Wales) Regulations; [62746]

  (37) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) and (General Ophthalmic Services) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [62754]

  (38) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Slaughter Premium (Wales) Regulations; [62762]

  (39) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Foot?and-Mouth Disease Ascertainment of Value (Wales) (No. 4) Order; [62770]
  499W
  (41) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (No. 6) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations; [62724]

  (42) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Medical Services) (Amendment) (No. 2) (Wales) Regulations; [62728]

  (43) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Products of Animal Origin (Import and Export) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [62736]

  (44) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Ancient Monuments (Applications for Scheduled Monument Consent) (Welsh Forms and Particulars) Regulations; [62744]

  (45) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [62752]

  (46) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the South Wales Sea Fisheries District (Variation) Order; [62760]

  (47) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Disabled Facilities Grants and Home Repair Assistance (Maximum Amounts) (Amendment) (Wales) Order; [62768]

  (48) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Plastic Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [62772]

  (49) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Foot?and-Mouth Disease (Marking of Meat, Minced Meat and Meat Preparation) (Wales) Regulations; [62732]

  (50) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Prescribed Waste (Wales) Regulations; [62740]

  (51) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Commencement No. 2) (Wales) Order; [62748]

  (52) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Beef Labelling (Enforcement) (Wales) Regulations; [62756]

  (53) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations. [62764]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 18 June 2002,Official Report, column 316.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to the letter to him dated 500W
  1 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Abigail Fountain. [61690]

  Maria Eagle
  The reply was sent on 18 June.

  Allerdale Borough Council (Benefit Fraud)
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Allerdale borough council. [64091]

  Malcolm Wicks: The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) report on Allerdale borough council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  This follow up inspection report shows that since the first inspection in October 1999 the council had made substantial progress in most areas of administering benefits. However, further improvements were still needed in counter fraud and overpayment.

  Allerdale had been struggling to bring work backlogs under control but the second inspection found work had been reduced to manageable levels through close management and monitoring of the situation.

  A significant increase in the number of staff in housing benefit administration and the appointment of a senior fraud officer as well as a restructuring of the teams in line with BFI's first recommendations had brought about a major improvement.

  In the fraud team, the long-term absence of a fraud officer had adversely affected the quantity and quality of investigations. BFI noted that the management was addressing the problems during the on-site phase of the inspection.

  The first inspection had also recommended the appointment of an overpayment officer. The council had done this and taken other positive steps to managing overpayment better. The situation has improved but further improvements are necessary to, in particular, improve debt recovery.

  Progress since the first inspection had been positively supported by greater involvement of Members and senior management in housing benefit administration and counter fraud work.

  Allerdale administered some £19 million in housing benefits in 2000–01.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Benefits (Payment Methods)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether agreement has been reached with the banks on the cost to(a) his Department and (b) account holders of payment of benefits through bank accounts. [60844]
  501W
  Malcolm Wicks
  Over 40 per cent. of customers are currently paid directly into their bank accounts. Each payment costs taxpayers one penny as opposed to the overall cost of £1.47 for each girocheque cashed and 68p for each order book foil presented. Banks do not normally charge their customers for making withdrawals from their accounts.

  East Lothian Council (Benefit Fraud)
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he intends to take following the second report, by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate, on the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit in East Lothian council. [64092]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Using the powers available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in section 139D of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, a direction has today been given to East Lothian council following the Benefit Frauds Inspectorate's report on the council's administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  We are disappointed that East Lothian council has been the subject of two critical reports by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate before taking action to remedy their problems with benefit administration. However, we are pleased that the council is now starting to take its responsibilities seriously and improvements are being made in benefit administration.

  We hope the council will look upon the direction as a further stimulus for continuing improvement.

  A copy of the direction has been placed in the Library.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money the Compensation Recovery Unit has reclaimed from those miners who have received compensation owing to ill health. [62552]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Compensation Recovery Unit does not recover money from compensated miners. It recovers its benefit payments from the compensator. It is the responsibility of the compensator—in these cases the DTI—to recover any appropriate benefit from miners' compensation.

  To date the DTI has settled 28,000 claims amounting to £137 million of compensation, of which the total sum recovered from miners is £96,500.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on aid to Afghanistan. [63085]

  Clare Short
  I am in regular contact with my EU counterparts on a number of subjects. We discussed latest developments in Afghanistan, and the continued international support for recovery and reconstruction there, at the Development Council meeting on 31 May.

  Colonial Officials
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to review the pension arrangements of British colonial officials. [62713]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on how many occasions in the last 12 months the requirement to engage in a competitive tendering process has been waived by her Department due to national security obligations under paragraph 6(h) of the supply regulations. [62820]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Official Photographs
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on how many occasions during the last 12 months an official photographer has accompanied(a) her and (b) other Ministers in her Department on official visits (i) overseas and (ii) within the UK; what (A) travel expenses, (B) costs of equipment and processing, (C) staff payment and (D) other costs were incurred on each occasion; what publications official photographs have appeared in during the last 12 months and what terms and conditions were attached to the publication of such photographs; and whether photographs taken on official visits are available for use in non-governmental literature. [628331

  Clare Short
  No official photographer has accompanied me or any junior Minister on any visits.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Stadium
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) when she received a copy of the report by Tropus about the proposed English National Stadium at Wembley; and if she will publish it; [58113]

  (2) if she will list those reports on an English National Stadium received by her Department, stating for each one (a) the date on which it was received, (b) the name of the person, or company responsible for the compilation of the report and (c) the date on which it (i) was published or (ii) will be published; [58112]

  (3) if she will list those reports on an English National Stadium commissioned by her Department, stating for each one (a) the date on which it was commissioned, (b) the date on which it was received and (c) the date on which it (i) was published or (ii) will be published. [58111]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: Over the course of the English National Stadium project's history my Department has received a great deal of information. Since June 2001, the following reports have been received by my Department.
  503W

  Received by DCMS

  Report commissioned by

  Publication date

  19 December 2001

  English National Stadium Review Interim Report—December 2001 by Patrick Carter for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

  HC479 published 19 December 2001 by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Received 15 December 2001 (draft), 18 December 2001 (final)

  David N. James CBE and Benvin Leighton Paisner for Wembley National Stadium Ltd.

  The full report has not been published. With the agreement of WNSL the Culture, Media and Sport committee published an abridged version as a memorandum (HC843) on 21 May 2001.

  Received 11 April 2002

  Office of Government Commerce Gateway Review for Wembley National Stadium Ltd.

  The publication of this report is a matter for WNSL.

  Received 11 April 2002

  Report on Value for Money Analysis by Cyril Sweett Ltd. for Wembley National Stadium Ltd.

  Full report containing commercially confidential information not published. Abridged version published by WNSL and laid in the House of Commons Library on 20 May 2002.

  Received 26 April 2002

  Report of Athletics Provision Analysis by Sports Concepts and Citex for Sport England.

  8 May 2002 by Sport England.

  Received 21 May 2002

  The Tropus Report, commissioned by Tropus Consultancy.

  The publication of this report is a matter for Tropus Consultancy.

  Culture Online
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when Culture Online will be launched; and whether further funding will be available. [63907]

  Tessa Jowell
  I am announcing today the commitment of a further £10 million for Culture Online.

  Together with over £3 million remaining development funding, this new investment will allow Culture Online to develop a range of innovative projects over the next two years. Culture Online will involve partnerships between cultural organisations and the private sector and we will be commissioning proposals for projects later this year. The funding will provide exciting new digital materials to enhance the school curriculum and lifelong learning. These new materials will be available through a Culture Online website and linked to the DfES Curriculum Online portal and the National Grid for Learning. Culture Online will monitor and evaluate projects to ensure the success of the programme.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 had been spent by 31 May; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [61011]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary (Mr. Boateng) on 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 130W.

  Kashmir
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance he has offered to India and Pakistan to help secure the border of Kashmir; what assistance has been requested; and if he will make a statement. [62910]
  504W
  Mr. Hoon
  In the context of the current crisis, I have not offered assistance to either India or Pakistan. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government believe that a verifiable end to cross-border infiltration from Pakistan into India is the first step in resolving the current tensions and have made this clear to the Governments of both countries.

  Afghanistan
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specialist troops Finland, Italy and Sweden have contributed to the ISAF; how long they will remain at ISAF's disposal; and if he will make a statement. [62894]

  Mr. Hoon
  Finland has contributed liaison teams and a civil military co-ordination team. Italy has contributed infantry, including an explosive ordnance disposal team nuclear biological and chemical warfare reconnaissance troops, general support engineers and air transport. Sweden has contributed intelligence troops. How long those countries will leave their troops at ISAF's disposal is a matter for them. We were pleased with the swiftness and generosity with which contributing nations offered troops to ISAF when the UK was planning its leadership, and the large number of countries contributing demonstrates the strength of international commitment to the war against terrorism.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions members of the UK armed forces have entered Pakistan during current operations based in Afghanistan. [62902]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since the United Kingdom element of the International Security Assistance Force was first deployed to Afghanistan, we have used a Forward Mounting Base in Pakistan. As a result, UK armed forces personnel regularly enter Pakistan.

  Service Women
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of women into front line positions in the Royal Navy. [63175]
  505W
  Mr. Ingram
  Women have served in the front line in surface ships since 1 September 1990. Women are currently excluded from serving in submarines and as mine clearance divers for medical safety reasons, but this policy is kept under review.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of women in the Royal Marines. [63174]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 22 May 2002,Official Report, columns 363–64W to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). Women may serve in the Royal Marines Band Service and in units operating in support of 3 Commando Brigade. They are, however, excluded from the Royal Marine General Service. The policy will be kept under periodic review.

  Colchester Garrison
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 37W, on Colchester garrison, on what date his Department's PFI project team and RMPA Services co-located in offices in central London; who owns the premises; who is paying the operating costs of (a) the premises and (b) staff; and how many (i) of his Department's and (ii) RMPA Services staff are engaged. [63458]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: Elements of the Ministry of Defence's Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project team and RMPA Services co-located in offices in central London on 7 February this year. The building is owned by a third party. Sir Robert McAlpine have taken a lease on one floor of the building and have sub-let offices to the MOD and RMPA Services, who are each paying their own costs for both offices and staff. Five members of the MOD Colchester project team (including consultants' staff) have been co-located with nine RMPA Services staff (including members of three partner companies: Sir Robert McAlpine, Sodexho and WS Atkins).

  Red Arrows
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long he expects the Red Arrows' Hawk aeroplanes to remain in service; and what his long-term plans are for their replacement. [633821

  Mr. Ingram
  Current plans assume that the Red Arrows' Hawk aircraft will remain in service until 2010. It has not yet been necessary to make plans for their replacement.

  Defence Attaches
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries in which UK defence attaches were in place in(a) July 1998 and (b) April 2002, stating in each case the number of attaches in post; and if he will make a statement. [51253]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: This information has been placed in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  Lewes Bypass
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the noise levels experienced by residents of Lewes arising from surface noise from the A27 Lewes bypass; if he will make it his policy to secure the early resurfacing of this road; and if he will make a statement. [62312]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 20 June 2002:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, John Spellar, to reply to your recent question about surface noise from the A27 Lewes Bypass.
  The position with regard to noise levels and future resurfacing of the A27 Lewes Bypass remains as set out in John Spellar's letter to you dated 3 January 2002.
  Whilst writing, I would take the opportunity to clarify the information in paragraph 3 of that letter about compensation under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973.
  Compensation is payable under Part I for depreciation of £50 or more in the value of a property caused by physical factors arising from the road in use. Those factors include noise but it is not necessary for the noise levels to reach 68 dB (A).

  Downing Street
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what legal curtailments are in place to prevent the exercise of rights to use the public highway in the case of Downing Street. [62663]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on 7 February 2002, Official Report, column 1094W, and 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 538W.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what mechanisms are available to local authorities to influence the quality, accessibility and coverage of bus services. [62967]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Transport Act 2000 requires local authorities to draw up a local transport plan with policies to promote and encourage safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport services and facilities. Every plan must include a bus strategy containing policies as to how they intend to use their powers to secure the provision of local bus services meeting local needs.

  The Act also provides powers for local authorities to make quality partnership schemes with operators of local bus services, to make ticketing schemes to promote joint or through ticketing between operators, and to make provision for making information about bus services available to the public. The Act also provides for local authorities to make quality contract schemes, involving the tendering of an entire local network, where this is the only practicable way for them to implement the policies set out in their bus strategies.

  Pedestrian Crossings
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of reducing accidents by the construction of(a) pelican, (h) puffin and (c) zebra crossings; and if he will make a statement. [62878]

  Mr. Spellar
  Primarily, pedestrian crossings are installed to help people cross roads without undue delay or danger. The advice that my Department issues on the assessment of pedestrian crossing facilities covers circumstances where accident reduction is an objective, as well as other factors. But the assessment of options, implementation and any subsequent monitoring of new crossings is for the relevant traffic authority and we do not hold centrally information on accident reductions at such sites.

  Taxis and Minicabs
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what residual roles he retains over the administration and licensing of taxis and minicabs in London. [62677]

  Mr. Spellar
  The administration and licensing of London's taxis and private hire vehicles (minicabs) are matters for the licensing authority, Transport for London. However, the Secretary of State retains responsibility for the commencement and transitional provisions for London private hire vehicles and their drivers in accordance with the implementation of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998; statutory instruments will be made to coincide with Transport for London's regulations when they have completed their consultations.

  Prestwick Air Traffic Control Centre
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 762W, on Prestwick, if a threshold level in traffic forecasts has been set for the commission of further work in the building of the air traffic control centre at Prestwick; and how current traffic forecasts compare to this level. [61942]

  Mr. Spellar
  No threshold level in traffic forecasts has been set. Both NATS and the Government remain committed to the new Scottish centre and further work will be commenced once traffic levels make it financially prudent to do so.

  Tram and Light Rail Schemes
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures he applies for considering proposals for tram and light rail schemes. [62803]

  Mr. Spellar
  Proposals for new tram and light rail schemes normally need Transport and Works Act (TWA) powers. If funding from my Department is essential for the project to proceed, promoters should seek a provisional view from my Department on whether the scheme passes the Government's appraisal tests which are used to decide whether a project is eligible for funding before seeking powers. In such cases, if and when such powers are obtained, my Department then reaches a decision on whether funding should be provided for the scheme.
  508W
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria his Department uses to assess proposals for tram and light rail schemes. [62802]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how his Department computes the cost-benefits of tram and light rail systems. [62862]

  Mr. Spellar
  Major schemes in local transport plans, including light rail schemes, are assessed under the New Approach to Appraisal, which takes account of five over-arching objectives: environment, safety, economy, accessibility and integration. More details are contained in "Major Scheme Appraisal in Local Transport Plans—Part 1: Detailed Guidance on Public Transport and Highway Schemes", published in May 2002.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his targets are for the numbers of

  bus journeys and (b) tram and light rail journeys for each year of his Department's current plan's operation. [62775]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department's 10-year plan includes targets for(a) increasing bus use by 10 per cent. and

  (b) doubling light rail use. The base figures for passenger journeys in 2000–01 are (a) 3,761 million and (b) 120 million. The targets for passenger journeys in 2010–11 are therefore (a) 4,137 million and (b) 240 million. No targets have been set for the intervening years.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his assessment is of the benefits to business of tram and light rail schemes in(a) urban and (b) outer-city areas. [62806]

  Mr. Spellar
  Light rail schemes can offer a range of benefits to business, in both urban and outer-city areas, depending on the circumstances of the particular case. They can provide a safe, reliable and efficient mode of transport for employees and customers; they may contribute to reducing congestion by attracting motorists from their cars; and they can increase the attractiveness of an area to potential investors.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has made to the Comprehensive Spending Review on trams and light rail schemes. [62809]

  Mr. Spellar
  We continue to discuss progress towards the targets set out in our 10-Year Plan for Transport, including that for light rail, with colleagues across Government.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the role of tram and light rail schemes in integrated transport strategies. [62807]

  Mr. Spellar
  The potential role of light rail schemes in integrated transport strategies is summarised in paragraphs 107–08 of my Department's Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans, as follows:"107. Light rail, and similar rapid transit systems, can have an important role to play in delivering integrated transport in major conurbations. Experience from existing light rail schemes shows

  509W
  that they can be effective in providing a high quality public transport option in densely used transport corridors and in encouraging motorists to switch from their cars.
  108. However the capital costs of light rail schemes are high, particularly compared to bus priority measures and modest guided bus schemes which may offer a more cost-effective alternative. Therefore if authorities with to develop light rail schemes, they will need to be able to demonstrate that they represent good value for money, form an essential part of a local integrated transport strategy and that the objectives of that strategy cannot be met in better ways. It will also be important to show that a light rail scheme is fully integrated with other public transport modes in the area and that appropriate traffic managements schemes are to be introduced so that light rail has priority over other road space users and that the road decongestion benefits of the light rail scheme are maintained over a long period. We would also expect local authorities to develop public-private partnerships to take forward such schemes where this is necessary to secure Best

  Light rail scheme

  Year of opening

  Gross capital cost at outturn prices (£ million)

  Central Government funding including ERDF (£ million)

  Manchester Metrolink: Bury-Altrincham

  1992

  155

  150

  Manchester Metrolink: Salford Quays-Eccles

  2000

  160

  27

  Sheffield Supertram

  1994

  240

  235

  Midland Metro

  1999

  145

  111

  Tyne and Wear Metro

  1980–84

  284

  200

  Tyne and Wear Metro: Airport extension

  1991

  12

  2

  Tyne and Wear Metro: Sunderland extension

  2002

  100

  50

  Docklands Light Railway: original system, Bank and Beckton extensions

  1987–94

  580

  480

  Docklands Light Railway: Lewisham extension

  1999

  250

  50

  Croydon Tramlink

  2000

  200

  125

  The original cost of the Blackpool tramway is not known. No central Government earmarked funding has been provided for it since the introduction of local transport plans in 1999.

  None of these systems receive revenue subsidy from central Government.

  Stafford Railway Station
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide funding for greater car parking capacity at Stafford railway station. [63162]

  Mr. Spellar
  The provision of car parking facilities at railway stations was not a requirement of the original franchise agreements. Car parking capacity at Stafford station is a matter for the station operator, Virgin West Coast. The Strategic Rail Authority's rail passenger partnership scheme is a potential source of funding.

  Rail Freight
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what(a) statutory rules, (b) guidelines and (c) regulations exist with respect to applications made to Railtrack for new freight connections; [62284]

  (2) how many applications have been made to Railtrack, in each of the last three years, for the construction of new freight connections to the rail network; [62283]
  510W
  Value and to consider private finance arrangements under which the maximum degree of responsibility for constructing, managing and operating the project is taken on by the private sector."

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list existing tram and light railway schemes indicating(a) how much revenue subsidy they have received for each year since they have been in existence and (b) the capital cost in each case. [62804]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (I) if he will list each(a) tram and (b) light rail system operating within the United Kingdom; [62869]

  (2) what criteria he employs, other than financial ones, in assessing and approving proposed tram and light rail systems; [62863]

  (3) how much his Department has spent on each tram and light rail system operation. [62885]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is as follows.

  (3) what (a) statutory rules, (b) guidelines and (c) regulations there are relating to the construction of new freight connections (i) by organisations other than Railtrack and (ii) that are sponsored by organisations other than Railtrack. [62286]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: Agreements between Railtrack and other persons regarding new freight connections to Railtrack's network are subject to the approval or discretion of the rail regulator under section 17 or 18 of the Railways Act 1993. The rail regulator has issued directions to Railtrack under section 18 for 31, six and four new connection agreements with Railtrack in each of the last three calendar years. Any such connection is subject to the Railways Act 1993, Railway Group Standards, the Railways and Other Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant and Equipment) Regulation 1994, the Transport and Works Act 1992, and Part G of the Railtrack Track Access Conditions. Railtrack publishes guidance for anyone seeking to connect to its network in a publication entitled "A Guide to Freight Connections". The latest edition was published in October 1998. Substantially the same regime applies to connections which do not involve Railtrack.

  Rail Track Access Charges
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the change in track access charges paid by each train operating company was from 1 April 2001, resulting from
  511W
  the increase in access charges granted to Railtrack as part of the last periodic review carried out by the ORR; and if he will make a statement. [62296]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The fixed track access charges paid by each franchised train operating company for 2001–02 are shown in the table. In total these charges are 20.5 per cent. lower in real terms than the aggregate fixed track access charges for 2000–01. This reduction takes account of direct grants from the SRA, in the absence of which access charges would need to be higher.

  A directly comparable breakdown of 2000–01 access charges by train operating company is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  £

  Train operating company

  Fixed charge1

  Anglia

  14,315,915

  Cardiff Railway

  5,708,415

  Central Trains

  74,823,111

  Chiltern

  9,801,611

  South Central

  55,990,684

  Connex South Eastern

  100,158,195

  Gatwick Express

  6,643,844

  GNER

  72,589,461

  Great Eastern

  23,781,313

  Great Western Trains

  74,468,341

  C2C (formerly LTS)

  17,613,747

  Merseyrail

  14,731,783

  Midland Mainline

  18,587,481

  North West Trains

  80,071,189

  Northern Spirit

  99,144,817

  Scotrail

  117,818,012

  Silverlink

  56,830,709

  South West Trains

  78,702,527

  Thames Trains

  20,631,385

  Thameslink

  17,617,111

  Virgin Cross Country

  118,321,190

  Virgin West Coast

  239,910,734

  WAGN

  49,987,277

  Wales and West

  38,918,620

  Total

  1,407,167,474

  1 2001–02 prices

  Rail Franchises
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the guarantees within the franchise agreements to the train operating companies with regard to the Rail Regulator; [62299]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the protection within franchise agreements for the train operating companies with regard to (a) discriminatory changes in law and (b) Railtrack non-performance; and whose responsibility it is to enforce such protection. [62300]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her on 15 April 2002, Official Report, column 742W. In replacement franchises there is a similar provision in relation to changes of law. There are no generic provisions relating to Railtrack's performance.

  Responsibility for awarding and managing franchises rests with the Strategic Rail Authority.
  512W

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many speed restrictions there were on the(a) east coast and (b) west coast main lines (i) in 1999 and (ii) at the latest available date. [62056]

  Mr. Spellar
  Railtrack inform me that on 10 June there were 47 temporary speed restrictions (TSRs) on the east coast main line and 100 on the west coast main line. Similar information was not collected by Railtrack in 1999.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 13 May 2002,Official Report, column 508, if he will make a statement on progress on Lord Cullen's recommendations on rail safety reported by the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission; if he will place copies of correspondence received in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [61482]

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

  The Secretary of State asked the HSC for a further progress report on the reasons for the delay in implementing those recommendations associated with the management of contractors. The HSC published that report on 10 June when copies were also placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Network Rail
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) on what date he applied for state aid approval for the payment of £300 million to Network Rail to provide compensation for shareholders of Rail Track Group; [61269]

  (2) when he applied to the European Commission for state aid approval in relation to the underwriting of funding for Network Rail; and if he will make a statement. [61268]

  Mr. Spellar
  The financial support package which the Government have agreed to make available to Network Rail if it is successful in acquiring Railtrack plc was notified to the European Commission on 31 May 2002. That includes the £300 million which is being made available to Network Rail in recognition of the benefits which would be delivered by an early end to Railtrack's administration.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there is an agreed work programme of track renewal for the first year of Network Rail's trading. [61298]

  Mr. Spellar
  Any bidder to succeed Railtrack as the rail network operator—including Network Rail—would need to have in place a programme of track renewal to enable it to fulfil its licence condition, to maintain the rail network, in accordance with best practice and in a timely, economic and efficient manner.
  513W
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much money he estimates will be raised from(a) Government and (b) private sector sources to finance Network Rail; [61251]

  (2) how much money he estimates the SRA will need in (a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04 to finance Network Rail; [61253]

  (3) what adjustments to the forecasts for transport spending under the 10-year plan he is proposing to accommodate the financing of Network Rail; [61300]

  (4) what his estimate is of the expenditure needed in the next three years to bring the rail network up to acceptable standard; [61252]

  (5) whether the additional grant and guarantees needed by Network Rail compared with the plans for Railtrack in the 10-year plan represent additional public funding above the 10-year plan levels. [61299]

  Mr. Spellar
  Network Rail will have improved management focus, lower financing costs and no dividends to pay. Negotiations are continuing with Network Rail over its support requirements. The Government expect that any support offered to Network Rail could be found within the 10-year transport plan funding levels.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (I) whether the Government stand behind any guarantees offered by the SRA on behalf of Network Rail; [61279]

  (2) how much capital Network Rail will have on its balance sheet on its first day of trading after the transfer to it of Railtrack assets. [61280]

  Mr. Spellar
  Negotiations between Network Rail and Railtrack Group plc are continuing on a commercial confidential basis.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guarantees about the state of the rail network(a) the Government and (b) the SRA will offer to Network Rail. [61297]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 777W.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Government guarantee the borrowings of the SRA. [61278]

  Mr. Spellar
  Paragraph 10 of schedule 14 to the Transport Act 2000 gives the Secretary of State the power to guarantee the repayment of any sums borrowed by the SRA temporarily, by way of overdraft or otherwise, from another person. The SRA has not exercised its powers to borrow money.

  Commuters
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average time was spent commuting(a) predominantly by rail and (b) predominantly by road, in minutes per person, in each of the last six years in each nation and region. [61285]
  514W
  Mr. Spellar
  The average time spent travelling to work is available from the Labour Forces Survey. The table shows the average time (in minutes) for trips to work(a) by predominantly rail and (b) by predominantly road for the autumn of the last six years by region of workplace.

  Average time travelling to work by Government office region and country of workplace

  Minutes per trip

  Autumn

  1996

  1997

  1998 1999

  2000

  2001

  By rail

  North East

  37

  42

  43

  42

  45

  40

  North West

  48

  44

  49

  50

  55

  50

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  56

  60

  53

  54

  56

  58

  East Midlands

  62

  73

  44

  57

  61

  63

  West Midlands

  62

  58

  53

  56

  58

  60

  East of England

  54

  51

  57

  57

  60

  51

  London

  59

  60

  59

  59

  61

  61

  South East

  52

  59

  58

  58

  60

  56

  South West

  76

  58

  58

  73

  69

  65

  England

  58

  59

  58

  59

  60

  59

  Wales

  50

  49

  50

  52

  38

  43

  Scotland

  58

  42

  55

  53

  52

  48

  Great Britain

  58

  58

  58

  58

  59

  59

  By road

  North East

  21

  21

  21

  21

  22

  22

  North West

  22

  23

  23

  23

  24

  24

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  23

  23

  23

  22

  23

  24

  East Midlands

  21

  22

  21

  21

  21

  22

  West Midlands

  23

  23

  23

  23

  24

  24

  East of England

  22

  22

  22

  22

  23

  23

  London

  34

  34

  35

  35

  36

  35

  South East

  23

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  South West

  21

  21

  21

  22

  22

  22

  England

  23

  24

  24

  24

  25

  25

  Wales

  20

  21

  20

  21

  21

  20

  Scotland

  23

  24

  23

  23

  24

  24

  Great Britain

  23

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Ordnance Survey Contracts
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what restrictions are placed on EU, but non-UK companies in subcontracting Ordnance Survey contracts to non-EU companies. [63155]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This matter is commercially
  confidential.

  Meetings
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which Ministers and officials had meetings with representatives of(a) the Confederation of British Industry, (b) the Engineering Employees Federation, and (c) the Engineering Marine Training Authority during the last year; who they met; and what the subjects and outcomes of their discussions were. [62207]

  Mr. Spellar
  Ministers and civil servants have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals as part of the process of policy development and analysis.

  As with previous Administrations it is not this Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance to Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists.

  Departmental Restructuring
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) timetable and (b) terms of reference are for the review of the appropriate institutional structure and departmental responsibilities for transport safety and other health and safety at work issues deemed necessary as a result of departmental restructuring; and if he will make a statement. [61266]

  Mr. Darling
  Further details will be announced shortly.

  Illegal Fuel
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many roadside tests were carried out on motor vehicles to test for illegal petrol and diesel in each year since 1995. [62947]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  Roadside checks do not include risk-targeted checks made at premises. They are therefore only part of Customs activity to test for illegal petrol and diesel.

  The decline in the number of tests made reflects a move to more risk assessed challenges. This makes better use of Customs' resources and results in a greater hit rate than for fully random testing. Figures for 2000 show hit rates of approximately 4.5 per cent. for random tests and 45 per cent. for risk-assessed challenges.

  Customs figures for roadside checks do not go back as far as 1995. However, the table shows the number of roadside checks carried out from financial year 1996–97.

  Year

  Number

  1996–97

  39,087

  1997–98

  35,603

  1998–99

  34,963

  1999–2000

  30,405

  2000–01

  17,158

  2001–02

  11,012

  Red Diesel
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what restrictions exist on the use of red diesel in the United Kingdom; and whether these regulations were changed following shortages in fuel supplies in September 2000. [62939]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  Restrictions on the use of red diesel and other 'rebated oils' are contained in the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979, and published in Customs and Excise Public Notice 75 "Fuel for Diesel Vehicles".

  This legislation was not changed after the shortages in fuel supplies that occurred in September 2000, though for a brief period at the time motorists were permitted to use red diesel, provided that duty at the full, road fuel, rate was paid.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Youth Services
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the average amount spent on youth services is by local authorities per 13 to 19-year-old per year in each of the last three years; [57595]

  (2) if she will list by local authority the amount spent on youth services per 13 to 19-year-old for (a) the last year for which figures are available and (b) the preceding three years. [57596]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is contained in the following tables:

  NCE per head of population, real terms (2000–01) prices

  Unit costs per head of population (£)

  LEA name

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  City of London

  380

  400

  960

  260

  Camden

  140

  150

  180

  240

  Greenwich

  100

  110

  130

  130

  Hackney

  80

  70

  100

  —

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  150

  110

  160

  150

  Islington

  310

  240

  400

  300

  Kensington and Chelsea

  350

  240

  350

  350

  Lambeth

  100

  90

  90

  120

  Lewisham

  100

  100

  110

  130

  Southwark

  220

  230

  140

  170

  Tower Hamlets

  230

  210

  200

  210

  Wandsworth

  190

  190

  190

  180

  Westminster

  200

  150

  130

  110

  Barking and Dagenham

  100

  100

  80

  70

  Barnet

  60

  70

  90

  60

  Bexley

  70

  80

  90

  90

  Brent

  120

  120

  100

  110

  Bromley

  40

  50

  50

  50

  Croydon

  70

  70

  80

  110

  Ealing

  40

  40

  50

  70

  Enfield

  40

  50

  50

  50

  Haringey

  70

  90

  80

  100

  Harrow

  40

  40

  40

  40

  Havering

  60

  70

  70

  80

  Hillingdon

  80

  80

  70

  70

  Hounslow

  60

  70

  50

  50

  Kingston upon Thames

  60

  50

  60

  60

  Merton

  40

  40

  50

  50

  Newham

  110

  80

  80

  80

  Redbridge

  60

  70

  70

  90

  Richmond upon Thames

  70

  70

  50

  60

  Sutton

  90

  90

  90

  80

  Waltham Forest

  110

  130

  110

  120

  Birmingham

  80

  90

  90

  40

  Coventry

  90

  70

  80

  80

  Dudley

  50

  50

  60

  70

  Sandwell

  50

  50

  60

  60

  Solihull

  40

  40

  40

  40

  Walsall

  60

  60

  90

  50

  Wolverhampton

  140

  130

  140

  160

  Knowsley

  —

  30

  10

  10

  Liverpool

  160

  160

  140

  130

  St. Helens

  60

  60

  70

  70

  Sefton

  70

  70

  70

  70

  Wirral

  70

  70

  80

  70

  Bolton

  60

  60

  60

  60

  Bury

  50

  50

  80

  80

  Manchester

  60

  70

  70

  70

  Oldham

  120

  130

  80

  70

  Rochdale

  80

  70

  60

  70

  Salford

  60

  60

  60

  80

  Stockport

  60

  60

  70

  70

  Tameside

  100

  90

  70

  120

  Trafford

  60

  80

  80

  70

  Wigan

  50

  50

  50

  50

  Barnsley

  80

  90

  100

  90

  Doncaster

  70

  80

  70

  70

  Rotherham

  130

  160

  160

  170

  Sheffield

  100

  100

  90

  100

  Bradford

  90

  90

  100

  80

  517W

  NCE per head of population, real terms (2000–01) prices

  Unit costs per head of population (£)

  LEA name

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Calderdale

  140

  120

  120

  130

  Kirklees

  40

  40

  40

  50

  Leeds

  90

  200

  100

  120

  Wakefield

  70

  60

  60

  70

  Gateshead

  60

  70

  70

  70

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  110

  120

  —

  150

  North Tyneside

  20

  20

  30

  50

  South Tyneside

  80

  70

  50

  110

  Sunderland

  20

  40

  60

  60

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  10

  10

  20

  Bath and North East Somerset

  90

  100

  90

  90

  City of Bristol

  80

  80

  80

  80

  North Somerset

  60

  60

  60

  50

  South Gloucestershire

  50

  50

  60

  50

  Hartlepool

  110

  110

  100

  100

  Middlesbrough

  20

  40

  80

  80

  Redcar and Cleveland

  90

  90

  90

  100

  Stockton-on-Tees

  70

  60

  60

  60

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  100

  100

  100

  100

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  50

  50

  60

  50

  North East Lincolnshire

  50

  50

  70

  80

  North Lincolnshire

  80

  90

  80

  80

  North Yorkshire

  40

  30

  40

  30

  York

  60

  70

  70

  70

  Bedfordshire

  50

  40

  50

  40

  Luton

  70

  60

  50

  70

  Buckinghamshire

  60

  50

  60

  60

  Milton Keynes

  80

  80

  80

  80

  Derbyshire

  80

  80

  70

  60

  Derby

  60

  70

  60

  80

  Dorset

  70

  70

  70

  70

  Poole

  70

  60

  70

  70

  Bournemouth

  90

  90

  100

  110

  Durham

  90

  90

  70

  40

  Darl ington

  70

  70

  50

  50

  East Sussex

  50

  40

  50

  50

  Brighton and Hove

  40

  60

  40

  40

  Hampshire

  30

  30

  30

  40

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southampton

  40

  50

  40

  40

  Leicestershire

  60

  70

  70

  60

  Leicester

  90

  90

  80

  70

  Rutland

  40

  60

  60

  50

  Staffordshire

  100

  90

  80

  80

  Stoke on Trent

  50

  40

  70

  80

  Wiltshire

  80

  50

  60

  50

  Swindon

  90

  70

  80

  80

  Pre LGR Berkshire

  80

  Bracknell Forest

  80

  90

  90

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  50

  50

  50

  West Berkshire

  50

  50

  60

  Reading

  180

  90

  100

  Slough

  90

  100

  100

  Wokingham

  40

  50

  10

  Pre LGR Cambridgeshire

  50

  Cambridgeshire

  50

  40

  40

  Peterborough

  10

  40

  70

  Pre LGR Cheshire

  50

  Cheshire

  50

  50

  50

  Halton

  70

  80

  70

  Warrington

  50

  50

  50

  Pre LGR Devon

  40

  Devon

  40

  40

  40

  Plymouth

  10

  50

  50

  Torbay

  40

  40

  40

  Pre LGR Essex

  70

  Essex

  60

  60

  60

  Southend

  60

  50

  60

  Thurrock

  100

  80

  100

  Hereford and Worcester

  40

  Herefordshire

  40

  40

  60

  Worcestershire

  40

  40

  40

  Pre LGR Kent

  40

  Kent

  40

  40

  50

  Rochester and Gillingham

  40

  40

  50

  Pre LGR Lancashire

  90

  Lancashire

  70

  70

  70

  Blackburn

  80

  80

  90

  Blackpool

  60

  60

  60

  518W

  NCE per head of population, real terms (2000–01) prices

  Unit costs per head of population (£)

  LEA name

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Pre LGR Nottinghamshire

  90

  Nottinghamshire

  80

  80

  90

  Nottingham City

  120

  120

  120

  Pre LGR Shropshire

  70

  Shropshire

  60

  70

  60

  The Wrekin

  90

  90

  90

  Cornwall

  56

  50

  50

  70

  Cumbria

  42

  40

  40

  40

  Gloucestershire

  68

  60

  60

  60

  Hertfordshire

  70

  60

  60

  70

  Isle of Wight

  109

  100

  90

  90

  Lincolnshire

  47

  50

  40

  50

  Norfolk

  55

  50

  40

  40

  Northamptonshire

  58

  60

  60

  50

  Northumberland

  51

  40

  50

  50

  Oxfordshire

  52

  50

  40

  50

  Somerset

  61

  60

  60

  70

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  40

  50

  Surrey

  57

  60

  60

  70

  Warwickshire

  24

  30

  30

  50

  West Sussex

  62

  60

  60

  60

  England

  71

  70

  70

  70

  Min.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Max.

  380

  400

  960

  350

  Median

  70

  70

  70

  70

  25 per cent. LEAs

  90

  90

  90

  90

  75 per cent. LEAs

  50

  50

  50

  50

  Notes:

  All figures are in £s, rounded to the nearest £10.

  All figures are in real terms (2000–01) prices based on GDP deflators published on 18 April 2002.

  Unit costs are calculated using net current expenditure after recharges.

  Expenditure data for 1999–2000 is taken from section 52 outturn statements completed by local education authorities and returned to DIES.

  Data for previous years is taken from DTLR's revenue outtum returns.

  Population data relate to ages 13 to 19 and are estimates produced by the DIES, using data from the ONS and Government Actuaries Department (GAD).

  Education Standards
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) boys and (b) girls from ethnic minority backgrounds reached the required standards of (i) English and (ii) Maths at Key Stages (A) 1, (B) 2, (C) 3 and (D) 4 in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [57713]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not available centrally at present. The new Pupil Level Annual Schools' Census that my Department introduced in January 2002 will enable for the first time linkage between the characteristics of individual pupils to their Key Stage and GCSE/GNVQ achievements. Statistical analyses from these linkages will be published in the autumn.

  Equal Treatment
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by her Department since August 1997. [58338]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 22 May 20021: Statistics published by the Department routinely include breakdowns by gender and age, except (in the latter

  519W
  case) where they relate to programmes for children or young people of a specific age (for example national curriculum assessments).

  In the early years and child care field, a number of survey series have been introduced since 1997. The topics covered include parents of three and four-year-old children and their use of early years services, parents' demand for child care, and the child care work force. The data collected include gender, age, ethnicity and disability, and analyses are published accordingly where sample sizes allow.

  Since 1997 the Department has developed and implemented a "Pupil Level Annual Schools Census" (PLASC) collecting far more detailed data than hitherto from maintained schools. Data were collected for all maintained school pupils for the first time in January 2002, and are being linked with their Key Stage and examination achievements as they occur. These data will allow far more detailed investigation of the impact of gender, ethnicity, special educational needs and other factors on the experiences and achievements of school pupils, and new analyses or series will be published from this source in due course.

  Since 1997 the Department has introduced several new statistical series on young people and adults embarking on Government supported training, their qualification achievements and subsequent destinations. These include breakdowns by some or all of gender, ethnicity, disability and literacy/numeracy need.

  In 2000 a new series was introduced on the level of highest qualification held by young people and adults of working age, including breakdowns by gender, age and ethnicity. This was a new analysis of data from the long-standing Labour Force Survey.

  The Department, in collaboration with the Office for National Statistics and the Department for Work and Pensions, introduced the English Local Labour Force Survey in 2000, a new annual exercise expanding on the Labour Force Survey. First results from the enlarged survey were published in 2001, including a wide range of qualifications and labour market analyses with breakdowns by gender, age, ethnicity and disability.

  In addition to new data series, since 1997 the Department has commissioned, conducted itself or contributed to a wide range of one-off or time limited exercises, yielding information including gender, age, ethnicity or disability (or special educational need) dimensions:
  Effective Provision of Pre-School Education—a longitudinal study of children;
  the Millennium Cohort, a new longitudinal study led by the Economic and Social Research Council and co-funded by DfES and other Departments, which surveyed 20,000 babies born between July 2000 and June 2001, and will (for example) provide vital information for the evaluation of Sure Start;
  17 published research reports, plus two more in preparation, on topics related to special educational needs, including the evaluation of provision for different kinds of special need, the development of good practice in special needs provision, and the achievements of special needs pupils;
  three published research reports on topics related to ethnicity (teaching and learning strategies in successful multi-ethnic schools; minority ethnic participation and achievements in education, training and the labour market; Black Caribbean young men's experiences of education and employment), plus three more
  520W
  in preparation (on exclusions of minority ethnic pupils, minority ethnic pupils in mainly White schools, and the experiences of minority ethnic students in higher education and their transition into the labour market);
  evaluation of the Department's "Excellence in Cities" initiatives, and their impact for pupils of different gender, age and ethnicity;
  evaluation of the impact of Educational Maintenance Allowances on participation and achievement in post-16 education;
  the "Excellence Challenge" to increase and widen participation in higher education, the evaluation of which will assess the aspirations of minority ethnic and female students, their achievements at ages 14–18 and progression into higher education;
  the National Survey of Adult Basic Skills Needs (scheduled for completion in 2003), plus a longitudinal study of the impact of basic skills learning (scheduled for completion in 2005);
  the National Adult Learning Survey—a special survey in 1999 for adults from ethnic minorities, and a boosted sample in 2000 to capture information for adults with disabilities;
  an on-going study of the impact of gender, ethnicity, age and disability on teachers' career patterns (scheduled for completion in 2003);
  an on-going survey of the use of and attitudes towards ICT by people from ethnic minorities compared with White people;
  the "Young people and ICT" survey published in 2002. looking at use of, attitudes to and expenditure on ICT by children and their parents, plus a repeat survey to be published in 2003, which will examine variations by ethnic group in greater depth;
  a study of the position of women in IT, electronic and communication courses and careers (conducted jointly with the Department of Trade and Industry and Cabinet Office).

  School Expenditure
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of UK GDP was spent on(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each of the last three years. [60346]

  Mr. Miliband
  Data are not recorded to indicate how funding is split between secondary schools and primary schools in the United Kingdom. The following table provides details of the proportion of gross domestic product spent on schools in the United Kingdom in the last three years. Some under fives are educated in primary schools and therefore funding for this group is also shown.

  Percentage

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Schools

  2.7

  2.8

  3.0

  Under Fives

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  Total Schools and Under Fives

  2.9

  3.0

  3.3

  In England, approximately 46 per cent. of recurrent spending on schools is targeted for funding primary schools and educating the under-fives. Some 44 per cent. is directed into secondary schools and sixth form colleges. The remaining funding supports other services such as school transport, school meals, teacher development and child guidance.

  Information on schools spending by the devolved Assemblies is a matter for them and not for my Department.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many computers were replaced
  521W
  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. [60738]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number of computers replaced in each of the past three years by the Department for Education and Employment (until June 2001) and the Department for Education and Skills (from June 2001 onwards) was:

  Date

  Number

  April 1999–March 2000

  1,250

  April 2000–March 2001

  3,155

  April 2001–March 2002

  2,542

  The Department's policy is to give suitable computer equipment to non-profit organisations active in education, training and employment and to dispose of other computer equipment by auction. Over the three years 3,500 computers were provided to schools and other non-profit making organisations.

  Two companies, London Computer Auctions (until July 2000) and Northern Realisations, have handled the transfer to non-profit organisations, making a small charge to cover their costs. They have also handled the auction sales.

  The cost to the Department over the three years was about £30,000.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what has been the(a) cost and (b) saving from the pursuit of the Department's public service agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61039]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department's public service agreement set out the key outcomes it is committed to deliver with the resources provided, and its service delivery agreement sets out the key steps towards delivery of those targets. Every year the Department publishes performance against its targets—including on value for money—and the resources it has used, in its departmental report.

  Home Education
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what support and guidance is provided by her Department for parents educating their children at home; and what guidance has been given to education authorities about support for the education of children at home. [61369]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government fully recognise and support the right of any parent who wishes to educate their child at home, a right established under Section 7 of the Education Act 1996.

  Parents choose to educate their children at home for a variety of reasons and the Department encourages LEAs to be sympathetic to these and endeavour to enter in to a discussion with home-educators. They should not seek to prevent parents from opting for home education, but must assure themselves that the education is appropriate to their child's age, ability and aptitude, and to any special
  522W
  educational needs they may have (Section 7 of the Education Act 1996). In addition, the local education authority must satisfy itself that the child is receiving suitable education (Section 19 of the Education Act 1996), and the Department suggests that parents should provide sufficient information for the local education authority to be able to do this.

  The Department has compiled a fact sheet regarding home education which is available to parents and local education authorities on request or can be downloaded from the Department's website at: www.dfes.gov.uk/parents/learning/home.

  Bullying
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 16 October 2001,Official Report, column 1189W, on bullying, what measures have been (a) drawn up and (b) implemented to prevent bullying, with special reference to racist and homophobic bullying in schools and colleges; and if she will make a statement. [61529]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  We are determined to help all schools prevent homophobic or racist bullying, and other forms of bullying, among pupils. Our anti-bullying pack contains specific advice on tackling bullying because of race or sexual orientation, and we have also provided a foreword to "Safe for All: a best practice guide to prevent homophobic bullying in secondary schools" published by Stonewall.

  We are funding new research by ChildLine to obtain young people's views on schools' anti-bullying policies. In addition, external researchers are evaluating the use of our anti-bullying pack and video by schools. We have taken steps to publicise further the pack's availability, and plan to re-launch the document later this year. In addition, our guidance on the Safer Schools Partnerships (covering the areas of highest crime) mentions that the police and schools need to be essential partners in the prevention of bullying and antisocial behaviour.

  We are not directly responsible for further education colleges as they are independent institutions. I understand that the further education sector has developed guidance regarding positive duties on promoting race relations in colleges; these might be helpful in creating an appropriately supportive environment.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 1189W, on bullying, what review has taken place to assess the anti-bullying strategy; what plans she has to introduce legislation to prevent bullying and harassment in further education colleges; and if she will make a statement. [61530]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  We have not carried out a review of this strategy. However, external researchers are evaluating the use of our anti-bullying pack and video by schools; the results should be available early next year.

  We have no plans to require further education colleges to draw up anti-bullying policies, as they are independent institutions. However, we would encourage any college to draw up such a policy if they believe that one is needed.
  523W

  Qualifications
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the parity of esteem between general academic, vocational and work-based qualifications for young people is to be funded; to what extent; from what sources; and over what time scale. [62461]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: The arrangements for the relative funding levels of different qualifications are a matter for the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). I have therefore asked John Harwood, the council's chief executive, to write to my hon. Friend providing the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  The Government are committed to bringing up the funding for colleges towards that of schools in time and as resources allow. This will help the LSC to ensure that qualification funding levels are equitable across different learning sectors.

  Truancy
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many primary schools and how many secondary schools reported zero per cent. for unauthorised absence in her Department's absence tables in academic year 2000–01. [62659]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  There were 3,675 primary schools, which represents 20 per cent. of all maintained primary schools, and 29 secondary schools, which represents almost 1 per cent. of all maintained secondary schools, that reported zero per cent. for unauthorised absence in 2000–01.

  Edexcel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many errors have been found in examination papers set by Edexcel for examinations in the current year. [62795]

  Community schools closed to amalgamate with voluntary aided schools

  LEA

  Previous school names

  New VA school name

  Religious character

  Date of change

  Grant-aided purchase cost

  Liverpool

  Kirkdale Primary School (Community) and St. Lawrence's Primary School (VA)

  Kirkdale St. Lawrence CofE Primary School

  Church of England

  1 September 2000

  0

  Barnsley

  Dodworth CofE Infant School (VA) and Dodworth Junior School (Community)

  Dodworth CofE (VA) Primary School

  Church of England

  1 September 2001

  0

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Elm Tree Community Infant School and St. Marks CE VA Junior School

  St. Marks Elm Tree Primary Schoo

  Church of England

  1 September 2001

  1—

  Sheffield

  Pye Bank Community Infant School and Pye Bank Trinity CE VA Junior School

  Pye Bank Trinity CofE Primary School

  Church of England

  1 September 2001

  0

  Gateshead

  Derwent Infant School (Community) and St Cuthberts VA Junior School

  St. Aidens Church of England Primary School

  Church of England

  1 September 2000

  0

  1 Expected to be £8,000 but not yet finalised

  524W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Seven errors have been found in Edexcel examination papers during 2002, consisting of five in the January series of examinations and two in the May/June series.

  Community Schools
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the community schools that in each of the last five years have become voluntary aided schools, with any resulting religious affiliation, and stating in each case the(a) estimated value of the land and buildings transferred from public ownership and (b) amount paid by the voluntary organisation for those assets. [62841]

  Mr. Miliband
  Community schools were introduced by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 with effect from 1 September 1999. Since that time the Department has been informed that proposals have been approved for the community schools in the tables to close and re-open as a voluntary aided school with a religious character, or to close and amalgamate with other voluntary aided schools with a religious character.

  The Department is not routinely told of the value of the school assets transferred by an LEA to school trustees in connection with such proposals. Details are, however, provided of the purchase price agreed between the LEA and trustees where voluntary aided school grant has been agreed to assist trustees with a purchase.

  Community schools closed to become new voluntary aided schools

  Details

  LEA

  Hartlepool

  Community school name

  Henry Smith School

  VA school name

  St. Hild's CofE VA School

  Religious character

  Church of England

  Date of change

  1 September 2001

  Grant aided purchase cost (£)

  700,000

  525W

  Parenting
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the role parents of school age children can play in helping improve children's academic performance at home. [62858]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Parents have an important role to play in supporting their children's learning at home to improve their academic performance. At a general level, for example, parents can discuss the school day with their child so they can praise and encourage them for good results and help them through any academic or other problems they might have. Parents can provide support with homework set by the school where it is appropriate; indeed our national homework guidelines for schools, published in 1998, emphasise, among other things, that schools should ensure they work closely with parents and ensure that they are given guidance about how best to help their children. A survey my Department published this April found that 76 per cent. of parents believe helping their children with homework is extremely important.

  A great deal of work has been carried out by my Department to help parents become more involved, based on the strategy for involving parents which was first described in the 1997 White Paper "Excellence in Schools". This strategy comprised three strands: providing information to parents, giving parents a more effective voice, and encouraging families to learn together. Resources which have been produced for parents as part of this strategy include the Parents' Centre website, the Learning Journey parents' guides to the curriculum, and the "Parents + Schools" magazine, as well as several hints and tips booklets produced as part of publicity campaigns including the National Year of Reading, Maths Year 2000, and the Dads and Sons campaign.

  Of course there are also many specific activities that parents can carry out: for younger children, reading with them and to them, playing number games or helping them with spellings; for older children, giving advice on how to organise their time, giving them support with using the internet, and encouraging children to engage in activities of general educational benefit, such as reading, and visiting museums and galleries. Underlying all these and many other activities is the idea that parents have a responsibility to show children that they believe in the value of education and learning, both for their own sake and as a means to achieving greater success in later life.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 28 February 2002,Official Report, column 1542W, if she will provide details of the (a) destination and (b) purpose of the overseas trip undertaken by a special adviser in her Department between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001; and if she will provide a breakdown of the costs incurred on the stated trip, including (i) travel, (ii) accommodation and (iii) subsistence allowance. [62959]

  Estelle Morris
  A special adviser from my Department accompanied the then Secretary of State, David Blunkett to China in June 2000. The purpose of the visit was to consolidate and develop bilateral relations between China and the UK.
  526W
  For the costs incurred on the above trip I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 28 February.

  Specialist Schools
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the criteria used to select specialist schools. [63079]

  Mr. Miliband
  The assessment criteria for specialist school applications are set out in published guidance. This is available to schools on request and can also be downloaded from the specialist schools website at www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/specialistschools. Copies of latest edition of the guidance against which schools will make applications in October 2002 and March 2003 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  European Languages Day
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps her Department is taking to mark European Languages Day on 26 September. [608821

  Mr. Miliband
  This Department, through the Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (CILT), will be raising awareness of the day with the help of all the partners involved in last year's European Year of Languages. CILT are forming a working group to take this work forward. An award ceremony will take place on the day that will recognise about 12 innovative projects, ranging from primary school projects to adult education projects.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals against refusal of entry clearance were outstanding at the end of each(a) month since June 2001 and (b) June since 1997. [608301

  Beverley Hughes
  Historical figures on the numbers of outstanding entry clearance appeals are not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dungavel Detention Centre
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the only people who have been detained in Dungavel Detention Centre are those who(a) are subject to removal, (b) have committed an offence and (c) are regular absconders. [62699]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: The detention of those held in Dungavel House Removal Centre will have been considered in line with the published criteria referred to in the Government's 1998 White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer". The criteria is as follows:

  (a) where there is a reasonable belief that the individual will fail to keep the terms of temporary admission or temporary release; (b) initially to clarify a person's identity and the basis of their claim; or (c) where removal is imminent.

  Accommodation/Removal Centres
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the successful examples of the contracting out of the running of accommodation and removal centres referred to by him during the report stage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, 11 June 2002,Official Report, column 767. [62702]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: Five removal centres have been contracted out successfully. These are Tinsley House to Wackenhut UK Ltd.; Dungavel to Premier Detention Services; Harmondsworth to Harmondsworth Detention Services Ltd.; Yarl's Wood to Group 4 Amey Immigration Ltd. and Campsfield to Group 4 Falk UK Global Solutions Ltd.

  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has also successfully entered into contracts with the private and public sector and social landlords to provide accommodation for asylum seekers who request accommodation and who are dispersed away from London and the south-east, thereby alleviating pressure on authorities in those areas.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the total salary costs of each of the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible in each of the last five years. [50292]

  Beverley Hughes
  Details of executive non-departmental public bodies' salary costs are available in each individual body's annual report. All annual reports are presented to Parliament and copies placed in the Library. The majority of bodies have also posted recent annual reports on their websites.

  Asylum Seekers
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) Pakistan nationals and (b) Indian nationals have applied for asylum (i) on entry and (ii) after entry, in each of the last five years. [62288]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Applications1,2 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants from nationals of India and Pakistan, and locations where made, 1997 to 2001

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20003

  20013

  Nationals of India

  Total

  1,285

  1,030

  1,365

  2,120

  1,850

  Applied at port

  200

  340

  435

  455

  430

  Applied in country

  1,085

  690

  930

  1,660

  1,420

  Nationals of Pakistan

  Total

  1,615

  1,975

  2,615

  3,165

  2,810

  Applied at port

  645

  950

  925

  865

  625

  Applied in country

  970

  1,025

  1,690

  2,300

  2,185

  1Figures rounded to the nearest five

  2May exclude some cases lodged at local enforcement offices between January 1999 and March 2000

  3Provisional figures

  Information on asylum applications is published quarterly. The next publication will be available from 30 August 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl/html.

  Leave to Remain
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were granted exceptional leave to remain in Britain in each of the last five years for which statistics exist. [62292]

  Beverley Hughes
  The data requested are shown in the table.

  Asylum cases granted exceptional leave to remain (ELR)1,2, 1997 to 2001

  Principal applicants

  Granted ELR

  Granted ELR under backlog clearance exercise

  1997

  3,115

  —

  1998

  3,910

  —

  1999

  2,465

  10,195

  20001

  11,495

  10,020

  20011

  19,510

  —

  1Figures are rounded to the nearest five, and exclude dependants

  2Some cases decided under the backlog criteria may not be included, as they may be included in the figures showing cases consideredunder normal procedures

  3Data are provisional

  Information on initial decisions is published quarterly. The next publication will be available from 30 August 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals against refusal of leave to remain in the UK were outstanding(a) at the end of each month since June 2001 and (b) since June 1997. [62380]

  Beverley Hughes
  Historical figures on the numbers of outstanding appeals against refusal of leave to remain in the United Kingdom are not recorded centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Genetic Modification
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the genetically modified animals whose creation has been authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, indicating in each case the novel characteristics developed. [61089]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The production of genetically modified animals (as well as their use in experiments or other scientific procedures) is controlled under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The production and use of such animals allows new areas of medical and other scientific research to be explored: provides the potential for investigating a wide variety of conditions including cancer, cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis; and allows the quality of the science in many areas of research and testing to be improved. The Home Office does not maintain a central register of the lines produced of their physical characteristics. There are, however, a number of third party databases detailing genetically modified animals and their characteristics.

  Non-UK Minors
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children not of UK
  529W
  nationality have been brought into the UK for adoption by residents of the UK since the introduction of the Adoption (Inter-Country Aspects) Act 1999, broken down by nationality. [62213]

  Beverley Hughes
  The requested information is not currently available, as we do not identify children not of United Kingdom nationality brought into the United Kingdom for adoption separately in our statistics. This is currently under review to enable us to do so in the future.

  There are only three sections of the Adoption (Inter-Country Aspects) Act that have been enacted at present. These provisions were enacted in advance of the main body to tighten controls on the assessment process as quickly as possible.

  Immigration, Asylum and Citizenship Bill
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from groups concerning the Immigration, Asylum and Citizenship Bill. [62201]

  Beverley Hughes
  We invited comments on the proposals in the White Paper, "Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain", and have placed copies of the 330 responses from organisations and individuals in the Library.

  We did not undertake a formal consultation exercise when we introduced the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. But we have received comments from a number of groups which we are taking into account during the Bill's passage through Parliament.

  Youth Courts
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Department has to introduce(a) a hearings system and (b) an inquisitorial magistracy in youth courts. [60324]

  Hilary Benn
  We have no current plans to introduce an inquisitorial system in the youth courts, but are keen to investigate the possibility of pre-hearing arrangements.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment the Government have made of the potential use of illegal meat imports as a vehicle for bio-terrorism. [50441]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Secretary of State for the Home Department is responsible for counter terrorism policy. The Government have a range of contingency plans in place to respond to terrorist threats including those from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear agents. In relation to illegal imports of meat, my Department announced a Government action plan on 28 March to reduce the risks of illegal meat imports resulting in disease entering the UK.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid Solicitors
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will provide funding for the training of future legal aid solicitors. [62651]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor has made £1.5 million available in this financial year to contribute to the costs of tuition fees and training contracts for prospective solicitors who undertake to carry out publicly funded work for at least two years after qualification. The Legal Services Commission (LSC) published a consultation paper "Developing Legal Aid Solicitors" on 12 June 2002. The paper sets out the details of two schemes which will provide support for up to 100 training contracts, and 100 LSC sponsorship grants, from September 2002. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Powers of Attorney
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the cost of fees to register powers of attorney over the last five years. [63119]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The fee for registering an Enduring Power of Attorney was set at £50 on 1 May 1990; at £75 on 1 October 1999; and at £220 on 17 April 2002.

  Child Abductions
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many children have been abducted from the UK since 1 January. [62780]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Since 1 January this year, a total of 75 cases have been reported to the central authorities, under the Hague convention. The breakdown is as follows:69 cases in England and Wales, involving 116 children;
  two cases in Northern
  Ireland involving three children; and four cases in Scotland involving five children.

  For countries not under the Hague convention, a total of 37 cases, involving 38 children have been reported to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much money has been spent on legal aid for asylum seekers in each of the last three years; how much of this was for the initial application; how much of this was for fighting appeals; how many asylum seekers were involved in legal aid procedures in both categories; and if he will make a statement. [46673]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [pursuant to her answer of 7 May 2002, col. 68–69WI: In my original answer to the hon. Member's question I advised that total expenditure on immigration and asylum matters in 2000–01 was £88.3 million. This was incorrect and I apologise for this error. The true figure was in fact £81.3 million.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the average response time was for responding to departmental correspondence; what percentage of letters took longer than one month for a response; and what percentage took longer than three months for a response in each of the last five years. [37447]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested is not available. However the Cabinet Office publishes an annual report to Parliament on the volume of Members' correspondence received by Departments, and their performance against their service target. The Foreign and Commonwealth's service target is 20 working days. The report for 2001 was published on Friday 24 May. Copies of previous reports are available in the Library of the house. Figures for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for each year are as follows:

  Year

  Total number of Members'correspondence

  Percentage to in 20 working days

  1997

  18,553

  68.5

  1998

  19,493

  66

  2000

  17,141

  64

  2001

  18,551

  78.5

  Records of other correspondence received by my Department are not kept centrally and can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  I apologise to the hon. Member for the unacceptable delay in answering this question.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many computers were replaced in his Department in each of the past three years; how the replaced units were disposed of and by which companies; and at what cost. [60732]

  Mr. MacShane
  Figures for the PCs disposed of in the UK over the last three years are as follows:

  1999 PCs 488 Monitors 133

  2000 PCs 150 Monitors 305

  2001 PCs 180 Monitors 498.

  We do not hold the information regarding how the replaced units are disposed of centrally and this information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, under its environmental policy on operations, the FCO endeavours to minimise the generation of waste and implement recycling initiatives and we encourage posts to consider the option of donating replaced units to charitable causes.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff were employed by his Department on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 May 2002. [60894]
  532W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 13 June 2002,Official Report, column 1402W.

  Arms Trade
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his officials have had with the German Government regarding the re-export of MP5 submachine guns from Turkey to Indonesia by MKEK (Turkey) in 1999. [61986]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have had no such discussions with the German Government.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his officials have had with other signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports on agreeing common standards for the re-export of small arms imported or transferred from non-EU countries. [61988]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My officials have held no discussions with our EU partners about developing common standards specifically to control re-export from EU member states of small arms imported or transferred from non-EU countries. Such re-exports are covered by EU member states' arms export control legislation, and licence applications for such re-exports are subject to assessment against the EU code of conduct in the same way as other arms export licence applications, providing the same level of control as for any other arms exports.

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [61821]

  Mr. Straw
  Ministers and officials in this Department have access to published reference sources, as well as to the information about hon. Members made publicly available by the House authorities, for the purpose of parliamentary business.

  Kyoto Agreement
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Australian Prime Minister on his Government's decision not to sign the Kyoto Agreement. [61967]

  Mr. MacShane
  Since 5 June when the Australian Prime Minister said that Australia would not ratify the Kyoto protocol at the present time, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not discussed this issue with him. A senior level meeting between British and Australian officials took place in Bonn last week at a UN Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting. The UK Government will continue to engage constructively with the Australian Government and with all our international partners on the issue of climate change.

  Departmental Grants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which organisations which were in receipt of a grant from him in 1997–98 no longer are; what the annual saving is; which organisations which were not in receipt of a grant in 1997–98 now are; and what the annual cost is. [61392]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary of the Treasury on 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 137W.

  Timber
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Malaysia concerning the export of illegal timber products. [63057]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Ministers from DFID and DEFRA and officials from the Forestry Commission have been party to a number of discussions with the Government of Malaysia this year on environmental and forestry issues including the export of illegal timber products.

  Malaysia and the UK both participate in several international environmental fora where illegal logging and related forest issues are discussed at high level such as the Convention on Biodiversity and the United Nations Forum on Forests, which both held constructive meetings earlier this year. The UK was represented at ministerial level at both of these sets of discussions, by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) (DEFRA) at the United Nations Forum on Forests and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) (DEFRA) at the Convention on Biodiversity conference.

  The Malaysian Minister for Primary Industries, the hon. Dato' Seri Dr. Lim Keng Yaik, visited the UN on 10 June 2002. During his visit, he met with two Ministers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) (DEFRA) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) (DfID), and discussed the illegal timber trade, certification schemes and related issues.

  The UK is funding two projects that should contribute to the sustainable management of tropical forests in Malaysia through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Environment Project Fund.

  Bilateral Ministerial Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Ministers in his Department have held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 June 2000; when and where each meeting took place; which Ministers were involved in each meeting; which Irish Government Departments were involved in each meeting; and which Ministers and officials from the Irish Government attended each meeting. [63075]

  Peter Hain
  FCO Ministers meet the Irish Foreign Minister regularly, eg in the margins of UN conferences (New York) and in the margins of EU Councils. My noble Friend Baroness Amos visited Dublin in July 2001, and the President of Ireland met my right hon. Friends the 534W
  Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary after the funeral of HM the Queen Mother in London in May. In addition, the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have regular contacts with the Taoiseach and other Irish Ministers, most recently at the British Irish Council in Jersey on 14 June.

  India-Pakistan
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support was given by the United Kingdom to the United States during the recent peacekeeping mission to the India-Pakistan border. [62705]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: We are very concerned about the situation on the India-Pakistan border. We continue to work closely with the United States and other partners on all initiatives for easing the tension in the region.

  Zimbabwe
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on charging for consular and visa services in Zimbabwe, in the light of the divergence in the official and parallel rates of exchange in that country. [64093]

  Mr. MacShane
  Since July 2000, the British high commission has been running its sterling post account using the parallel rate of exchange, and charging for some of its consular and visa services using the parallel rate. It has held charges for other consular and visa services at the official rate. Initially, the two rates were broadly similar. But since February 2001, the parallel rate has diverged increasingly from the official rate, and the Zimbabwe dollar is now trading on the parallel market at around 10 times the official sterling rate of exchange. In financial year 2001-–2, this resulted in an under-recovery by the FCO of around £422,000 in consular fees.

  In order to regularise the position, and avoid any future shortfalls in recovery, the British high commission will charge for all consular and visa services at the parallel exchange rate, with effect from midnight on 23/24 June.

  Heroin
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been recorded in the availability of street heroin in the EU since the removal of the Taliban regime. [63337]

  Mr. MacShane
  General analysis of drugs markets suggests that changes at source take 12–18 months to have an impact on street level availability. In the first quarter of 2002 there were indications of heroin shortages in some member states, but in others no significant changes were reported. In the UK some local shortages of heroin have been accompanied by price rises and reductions in purity, but there is no indication of a widespread shortage or of a general upward trend in prices.

  International Travel Ban
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures are in place
  535W
  to monitor whether a person, subject to an international travel ban by either the EU or the United States, transits via a UK port en route to another destination. [62165]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  We are not aware of any nationals, subject to a travel ban, passing through the United Kingdom to other countries. But at major United Kingdom airports, only passengers who present themselves at the immigration control seeking entry while in transit would come to the attention of the Immigration Service. Many others will remain airside and travel on in direct transit to their destinations without seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom.

  The United Kingdom Immigration Service is responsible for enforcing the travel bans. Immigration officers at ports have been instructed not to grant entry to those identified as being on the ban lists.

SCOTLAND

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what proportion of the staff of her Department are(a) job sharing, (b) term working and (c) engaged in another form of flexible working. [42426]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department currently has four members of staff employed in a total of two job-share positions. There are no staff on term working.

  My Department operates a flexible working hours scheme.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff have been employed by her Department in each of the last 10 years. [42457]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since that date my Department has employed the following staff:

  Year

  Average number of staff

  1999–2000

  70

  2000–01

  94

  2001–02

  109

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people employed by the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible under the new deal for young people in each of the last four years have subsequently(a) found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks and (b) returned to jobseekers' allowance or other benefits. [49606]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department is responsible for the Boundary Commission for Scotland. No new deal for young people appointments have been made by the commission.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether her Department enforces a maximum retirement age for most staff; and whether it has a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59295]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The expected retirement age for staff below the senior civil service is 60 years. Beyond this, staff can be retained on a year-by-year basis if they meet certain criteria. This policy is currently under review. In considering applications for employment my Department does not discriminate on grounds of age.

  Longannet Deep Mine
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has held with Scottish Coal on the future of the Longannet deep mine in Fife. [60823]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Prior to liquidation, I had numerous discussions with Scottish Coal and the constituency Members of Parliament about the future of Longannet mine.

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to her answer of 8 May 2002,Official Report, column 202W, on unpaid advisers, if she will list the steps that were taken to ensure no conflicts of interest arose as a result of this appointment. [62972]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 19 June 2002,Official Report, column 332W.

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much has been spent by her Department on voice coaching for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years; [52695]

  (2) how much has been spent by her Department on training by the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52741]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  My Department has incurred no expenditure on either voice coaching or training by the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arms for Ministers and officials.

  Aggregates Tax
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the impact of the aggregates tax on the quarrying industry in Scotland. [63080]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  A regulatory impact assessment for the aggregates levy was published at the time of Budget 2000. It is available from the Customs and Excise website.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General how many people employed by the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible under the new deal for young people in each of the last four years have subsequently(a) found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks and (b) returned to jobseekers' allowance or other benefits. [49476]

  The Advocate-General: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, Official Report, column 535W.

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General (1) how much has been spent by her Department on training by the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years; [52735]

  (2) how much has been spent by her Department on voice coaching for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52696]

  The Advocate-General [holding answer 26 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, Official Report, column 536W.

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Rape

  Assault with intent to rape

  Indecent assault

  Total

  Rape

  Assault with intent to rape

  Indecent assault

  Total

  1993

  40

  7

  121

  168

  10

  3

  85

  98

  1994

  43

  2

  148

  193

  14

  1

  98

  113

  1995

  78

  0

  163

  241

  24

  0

  103

  127

  1996

  64

  5

  194

  263

  15

  0

  108

  123

  1997

  60

  1

  153

  214

  21

  0

  87

  108

  1998

  47

  1

  113

  161

  18

  0

  71

  89

  1999

  33

  3

  86

  122

  7

  1

  61

  69

  Car Crime
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) stinger and (b) similar devices used for the rapid arrest of a speeding vehicle have been purchased by the police in the past five years; and on how many occasions the occupants of stopped vehicles have been (i) arrested and (ii) successfully prosecuted. [60855]

  Jane Kennedy
  The PSNI has purchased 314 stinger spiked belts (245 of size 4.5m and 69 of size 7.6m) within the past five years. No similar devices have been purchased.

  The PSNI advise that recording of the use of stingers was implemented only at District Command level in September last year; therefore arrest statistics over the past five years are not available.

  Similarly, prosecution information specifically on persons stopped by the use of stingers is not available.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rape and Sexual Assault
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many rape and sexual assault incidents were recorded in each year since 1993; and how many arrests and how many successful prosecutions were recorded in these years. [60859]

  Jane Kennedy
  The PSNI record criminal offences in terms of clearance rates as opposed to arrests. The following table indicates the number of sexual offences recorded in Northern Ireland 1993 to 2000–01.

  Total sexual offences

  Percentage cleared

  Rape/attempted rape offences

  Percentage cleared

  1996

  1,187

  74.1

  193

  77.2

  1994

  1,333

  88.9

  208

  69.7

  1995

  1,697

  81.5

  259

  81.1

  1996

  1,745

  85.0

  292

  80.5

  1997

  1,444

  85.7

  294

  80.3

  1998–991

  1,605

  76.1

  324

  74.4

  1999–20001

  1,333

  75.1

  311

  75.9

  2000–011

  1,176

  67.8

  232

  67.7

  1 As recorded under revised Home Office counting rules

  The following table provides information on the number of prosecutions and convictions for rape, assault with intent to rape, and indecent assault from 1993 to 1999 (the latest figures available).

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60910]

  Jane Kennedy
  Details of the Department's (including its agencies but excluding NDPBs) spend on press and advertising is as follows:

  £

  2001–02

  11,245,114

  2002–03

  705,000

  1 This figure includes publicity costs for the General Election, which explains the difference between the two years.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff were employed by his Department on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 May 2002. [60930]
  539W
  Jane Kennedy
  Information is not held in the format requested.

  Full-time equivalent staff numbers in the Northern Ireland Office, for 1997–98 and April 2002, including civil servants, special advisers and prison governor and uniformed prison officer grades, are as follows:

  In 1997–98 there were 4,446 staff employed in the Department.

  In April 2002 there were 3,318 staff employed in the Department.

  Police Informants (Children)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on the use of children as police informants. [60856]

  Jane Kennedy
  The policy on the use of children as police informants is governed by Part 2 of the Regulations of Investigatory Powers 2000, Sections 29 and 43(8).

  The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juvenile) Order 2000 further clarifies this issue.

  In addition, the Home Office has draft codes of practice that set out the special safeguards relating to the use of juveniles. Although in draft form, they are widely available and have been used for some time.

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much the Department has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61057]

  Jane Kennedy
  The amount of money spent on direct training over the last five years was:

  £

  1997–98

  693,445

  1998–99

  873,260

  1999–2000

  1,057,797

  2000–01

  1,290,625

  2001–02

  1,166,365

  Key targets 1999–2000 to 2002–03

  Key business area

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Safety

  Breaches of order and control do not exceed 7.1 per 100 prisoners.

  Number of incidents of assault by prisoners on staff less than five per 100 prisoners

  Number of staff assaulted by prisoners is less than a ratio of 6.8 per 100 prisoners

  Number of staff assaulted by prisoners is less than a ratio of six per 100 prisoners

  Number of incidents of assault by prisoners on prisoners less than 9.5 per 100 prisoners

  Number of prisoners assault by prisoners is less than a ratio 8.8 per 100 prisoners

  Number of prisoners assault by prisoners is less than a ratio 8.8 per 100 prisoners

  Regimes and reducing re-offending

  50 per cent. uptake on sentence planning in Maghaberry and Magilligan Prisons

  50 per cent. uptake on sentence planning in Maghaberry and Magilligan Prisons

  60 per cent. uptake on sentence planning Maghaberry and Magilligan Prisons

  An average minimum of 70 per cent. of prisoners serving six months or more, including 90 per cent. of life sentence prisoners, is working to a sentence plan An average of at least 18 hours constructive activity per week for each sentenced prisoner

  3 per cent. increase in average constructive activity hours

  80 per cent. utilisation of available places in education and workshop

  Establish baselines for weekly average hours of constructive activity attendance per prisoner for each prisoner group and set targets and systems of measurement for 2002–03

  An average of at least 9.5 hours constructive activity per week for each remand prisoner

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the performance targets that his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004; and if he will specify for each target(a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. [604751

  Jane Kennedy
  Apart from those set out in its PSA, the Northern Ireland Office and its agencies apply the following performance targets:

  Six service standards for central Government-standards set and, up until 2001, monitored by the Cabinet Office and performance results published in an annual report. Now monitored internally.

  Handling of ministerial correspondence-standards set and monitored by the Cabinet Office. Performance results published by means of an arranged PQ.

  Code of Practice on Government Information-standards set and monitored by the Lord Chancellor's Office with performance published in an annual report.

  More details about these targets and NIO' s performance results can be found in its departmental report, the 2002 version due to be published on 14 June.

  Further information on performance targets for our agencies and NDPBs are detailed as follows:
  Agencies
  Northern Ireland Prison Service

  The Minister sets the key performance targets for the Northern Ireland Prison Service. The Director General is directly accountable to the Minister for the Prison Service's performance. The Director General, through the 'Fraser Figure', provides quarterly reports on performance against key targets to the Minister.

  The table gives the targets set for the prison service from 1999–2000 to 2002–03 excluding PSA targets.
  541W

  Key targets 1999–2000 to 2002–03

  Key business area

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–0

  Staff and developing the service

  An average minimum of five days development and training per member of staff

  An average minimum of five days development and training per member of staff

  An average minimum of five days development and training per member of staff. Representation in recruitment competitions of: (a) Women; (b) Roman Catholics; and (c) Other under-represented groups Lay annual report and audited accounts before Parliament prior to summer recess

  An average minimum of five days development and training per member of staff. Deliver at least 85 per cent. of the planned training days associated with the agreed corporate training priorities

  Finance, corporate governance and improving business performance

  n/a

  n/a

  Lay annual report and audited accounts before Parliament prior to summer recess

  Lay annual report and audited accounts before Parliament prior to summer recess

  Expenditure is within the budget allocated

  Forensic Science Northern Ireland

  The agency's key targets are set by the Minister and are published each year in the agency's corporate and business plan. Performance against these key targets is monitored by the NIO as the agency's parent Department. The agency's performance against key targets is published in its annual report and accounts. Both publications are presented to Parliament.

  Compensation Agency

  The performance targets for the Compensation Agency are set out in its published corporate plan 2001–04 and business plan 2001–02. The key performance targets are set by the departmental Minister and are monitored on a quarterly basis by the Department and reported to the Minister. Outturn against targets are published annually in the agency's annual report and accounts which are laid in Parliament.

  NDPSs

  Juvenile Justice Board

  The Juvenile Justice Board was appointed on a temporary basis in July 2000, pending the creation of a youth justice agency as recommended following a review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. The board currently operates on the basis of a ministerial strategic steer which it is then required to convert into an agreed action plan. The current programme which covers the period August 2001 to July 2002 includes the following key issues:

  Regime development.

  Revised assessment procedures.

  Updated child protection procedures.

  In addition, and in preparation for establishing a purpose-built single centre at Rathgael, the board is also required to develop and further provide:

  Staff training—to ensure that staff have all the necessary skills required to meet the objectives set by the board.

  Community projects—which seek to provide further support for vulnerable young people in the community.

  The board has responsibility for on-going monitoring of each of the key action points and formal meetings are held with the Northern Ireland Office at regular intervals to review progress. The Northern Ireland Office retains responsibility for routine monitoring of related expenditure.

  Percentage

  Target for 2000–01

  Target for 2001–02

  Target for 2002–03

  The proportion of induction interviews arranged within five working days of sentence

  90

  97

  98

  The achievement of the agreed standards regarding minimum levels of contact:

  Offered

  90

  92

  92

  Kept

  40

  45

  60

  The proportion of supervision plans (within an agreed sample of 224) written to the agreed Standards

  80

  80

  83

  Where breaches of proceedings are appropriate, the proportion commenced within 10 working days of the incident occurring (within an agreed sample of 224)

  85

  85

  87

  542W
  Police Service for Northern Ireland

  The performance targets for the Police Service of Northern Ireland (formerly the Royal Ulster Constabulary) from 1999 to 2004 can be found in the following publications:

  A Policing Plan for Northern Ireland 1999–2000 (published by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland)

  A Policing Plan for Northern Ireland 2000–01 (published by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland)

  A Policing Plan for Northern Ireland 2001–02 (published by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland)

  Policing Plan 2002–05 (published by the Northern Ireland Policing Board).

  The performance targets are (a) set by the Northern Ireland Policing Board (formerly the Police Authority for Northern Ireland); and (b) achievement is monitored by the Northern Ireland Policing Board and actual performance against targets is contained in the Northern Ireland Policing Board's annual report.

  Ombudsman

  The performance targets for the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland are contained in their corporate plan and annual business plan. The performance targets are (a) set by the Police Ombudsman and (b) achievement is monitored by the Police Ombudsman and actual performance against targets is contained in the Police Ombudsman's annual report which is laid in Parliament.

  PBNI Performance Indicators

  Performance targets for the Probation Board for Northern Ireland are agreed on an annual basis by the Department on behalf of the Secretary of State in accordance with the Probation Board Management Statement. The management statement has been in place since April 1999 and the following table outlines the performance indicators which have been agreed to date. Achievement of the targets is monitored by the Department at regular overview meetings and at the end of year Ministerial Accountability Review. The targets are set out in the Probation Board annual business plan and achievement levels are recorded in the relevant annual report. Information prior to 2000–01 is not readily accessible and was in a different format. The targets outlined are those agreed as a result of the development of the management statement.
  543W

  Percentage

  Target for 2000–01

  Target for 2001–02

  Target for 2002–03

  The proportion of offenders subject to an active community service order that work an average of five hours or more per week (within an agreed sample of 224)

  85

  85

  87

  The proportion of community service orders that complete their sentence within 12 months

  85

  95

  97

  The proportion of offenders whose risk assessment is reviewed at least ev ery four months

  80

  85

  90

  The proportion of pre-sentence reports or explanatory letters delivered to the courts by the date specified by the court

  95

  98

  99

HEALTH

  Pharmaceutical Lobbying
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he undertakes of the extent to which patients and professional groups who lobby for the increased use of pharmaceutical drugs are(a) financed and (b) influenced by pharmaceutical companies. [558491

  Mr. Lammy
  We make no such formal assessments, but do recognise that patient and professional representative groups receive funding from a variety of sources, including pharmaceutical companies.

  Prescription Exemptions
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the prescription

  Trust

  Architect

  Cost (£)

  South Buckinghamshire NHS trust

  David Hutchison Partnership

  55,006

  South Manchester university hospitals NHS trust

  HLM

  275,000

  Hereford hospitals NHS trust

  Strategic Health

  1—

  Worcestershire acute hospitals NHS trust

  Strategic Health

  1—

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS trust

  Ansell and Bailey

  134,178

  Leeds community and mental health services teaching NHS trust

  Thompson Spencer Associates

  1—

  St. George's hospital NHS trust

  Broadway Malyan

  45,000

  Dudley group of hospitals NHS trust

  Llewellyn Davies

  1—

  Berkshire healthcare NHS trust

  Llewellyn Davies

  36.879

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS trust

  Nightingale Associates

  163,100

  Post PITN: Anshen Dyer Architects

  39,273

  Publicly funded schemes

  Rochdale healthcare NHS trust

  Gilling Dod

  144,000

  Central Sheffield university hospitals NHS trust

  George Trew Dunn Partnership

  415.000

  Royal Berkshire and Battle hospital NHS trust

  Nightingale Associates

  3,552,845

  Guy's and St. Thomas NHS trust

  Michael Hopkins and Partners

  2,190,169

  1 Provided a package of advisory services, which included design elements, so not possible to identify architectural fees separately

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will add cystic fibrosis to the list of medical conditions entitled to free NHS prescriptions; [58352]

  (2) for what reason cystic fibrosis was not added to the list of medical conditions entitled to free NHS prescriptions in the 1998 review; [58353]

  (3) what percentage of sufferers of cystic fibrosis are in receipt of free prescriptions because they receive income-related benefits or for other reasons. [58354]
  544W
  exemption system; and what plans he has to extend the prescription exemption to people suffering from asthma. [56254]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have no current plans to review the prescription charging arrangements. Our policy is to give priority to helping people who may have difficulty in paying charges, rather than extending the exemption arrangements to people with other medical conditions including asthma.

  Architectural Commission
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which 10 architectural partnerships have received the most commissions since 1997 from the NHS; and how much money each has each received for its work. [569311

  Mr. Hutton
  Of the 28 major hospital schemes (24 private finance initiatives and four public capital) which have reached financial close, the following architect firms and services have been commissioned by national health service trusts:

  Mr. Lammy
  Our policy is to give priority to helping people who may have difficulty in paying charges, rather than extending the exemption arrangements to people with other medical conditions such as cystic fibrosis.

  When we reviewed the prescription charging arrangements as part of the 1998 comprehensive spending review, we noted that there was no consensus on what additional conditions might be included in any revised list of medical exemptions, or how distinctions could be drawn between one condition and another. We concluded that it would not be right to consider one group in isolation.
  545W
  We do not have information on what percentage of sufferers of cystic fibrosis are in receipt of free prescriptions. Information about items dispensed does not include information about patients.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what medical conditions confer NHS prescription charge exemption; and in which year they were made exempt. [58355]

  Mr. Lammy
  The medical conditions conferring exemption from prescription charge were introduced in 1968 and are set out in the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations 2000. They are:

  1. permanent fistula (including caecostomy, colostomy, laryngostomy or ileostomy) requiring continuous surgical dressing or an appliance;

  2. the following disorders:

  forms of hypoadrenalism (including Addison's disease) for which specific substitution therapy is essential

  diabetes insipidus and other forms of hypopituitarism diabetes mellitus-except where treatment is by diet alone hypoparathyroidism

  myasthenia gravis

  myxoedema

  3. epilepsy requiring continuous anti-convulsive therapy;

  4. a continuing physical disability which prevents the patient from leaving his residence without the help of another person.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost would be of removing prescription charges in the UK. [60483]

  Mr. Lammy
  We estimate that the loss of prescription charge income in England would be around £434 million in 2002–03. Additionally, there could be significant additional costs to the drugs bill if people who currently pay charges sought prescriptions for medicines and other items which they currently purchase.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of extra spending announced for the NHS in the recent Budget will be allocated for treatment of and research into diabetes; [59324]

  (2) how much his Department plans to invest into long term cures for diabetes type one over each of the next five years; [59322]

  (3) how much type one diabetes has cost the NHS in treatment over each of the last five years. [59323]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information is not collected centrally how much Type 1 diabetes costs the national health service in treatment, but it has been estimated that around 5 per cent. of total NHS resources are used for the care of people with diabetes.

  The Budget provides the highest sustained growth in NHS history, with annual average increases of 7.4 per cent. in real terms over the five years 2003–04 to 2007–08. Decisions about the allocation of the increased funding will be announced later this year.

  North Staffordshire (Health Care)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will visit North Staffordshire to discuss with constituents in Packmoor progress on their petition for a GP surgery. [59742]

  Mr. Lammy
  A range of options are being considered by North Stoke Primary Care Trust (PCT) in order to ensure that the residents of Packmoor and the rest of North Stoke receive a general practitioner service fit for the needs of the local population. I have no current plans to visit North Stoke but would be willing to meet constituents to discuss their concerns when I or one of my colleagues are next in the area, and the PCT's plans are more fully developed.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding was given to the North Staffordshire health authority to assist it in producing the strategic service development plan; and if he will place a copy of the consultant's report in the Library. [59740]

  Mr. Hutton
  North Staffordshire health authority received? 60,000 from the Department to assist in producing its strategic service development plan. The PriceWaterhouseCoopers consultants' report formed one element of the overall expenditure.

  The consultants' report contains confidential and sensitive information about general practitioner services and cannot in its current format be placed in the public domain. The consultants' report is being used to inform the strategic services development plan, the main report of which is due for completion in summer. A copy of that report will be made available to local MPs and stakeholders.

  Fibromyalgia
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on fibromyalgia; and what assistance is available through the National Health Service for sufferers of fibromyalgia. [60072]

  Ms Blears
  The Department funds research to support its work on policy development and evaluation in health and social care. The Department supports research and development of relevance to the national health service in hospitals, general practice and other health care settings. The Medical Research Council (MRC), which is funded by the Department of Trade and Industry, funds medical research as part of the Government's funding of the research base.

  The Department commissioned a research project entitled "A Randomised Control Trial of exercise prescription in fibromyalgia" which was completed in September 2001. In addition the Department provides NHS support funding for research commissioned by the research councils and charities but which takes place in the NHS. The Department is currently supporting 9 such ongoing projects on fibromyalgia and full details can be found on the National Research Register at:hhtp:;;www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm

  The MRC is not currently supporting any projects on fibromyalgia. However, it always welcomes high quality applications for support, which are judged in open

  547W
  competition with other demands on funding. Awards are made according to their scientific quality and importance to human health.

  The NHS provides a wide range of services to which people with fibromyalgia have access, and such patients are seen within a wide range of hospital specialities. Under the present system it is for primary care trusts to plan and arrange the services available to people in their care, as they are closest to the people they serve and so best placed to respond sensitively to their needs.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines on the treatment of patients with epilepsy have been given to primary care trusts; and if he will make a statement. [60082]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has supported the Joint Epilepsy Council in developing a "National Statement of Good Practice for the Treatment and Care of People who have Epilepsy", which was published in May 2002. The statement makes a series of recommendations for good quality epilepsy services. It is intended to facilitate commissioning and will be of use to national health service purchasers, providers and service users.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) provides advice on best clinical practice to NHS clinicians, commissioners of NHS services, and to patients and their carers. NICE is developing a clinical guideline for the diagnosis, management and treatment of epilepsy, NICE is also conducting a technology appraisal of the clinical and cost effectiveness of new anti-epileptic drugs in children and adults to help promote appropriate uptake and equitable access. The appraisal is due late next year and the guideline summer 2004, and both will be available to primary care trusts.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if further research will be undertaken into the causes of sudden death of epilepsy sufferers; [60079]

  (2) what further research he plans to undertake into SUDEP and epilepsy. [60084]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has recently welcomed the publication of the National Sentinel Audit of Epilepsy-Related Death. The audit looked at investigations into epilepsy deaths, care provided prior to death and contact with bereaved families. It makes recommendations for improving epilepsy services. The Department has given a commitment to consider these and develop an action plan by September 2002 to try to reduce the number of epilepsy-related deaths.

  It is a long-standing, and important, principle of successive Governments that they do not prescribe to the individual research councils the detail of how they should distribute resources between competing priorities.

  The Medical Research Council (MRC) is the main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease. The MRC always welcomes high quality applications from the scientific community for support into any aspect of biomedical research, including epilepsy. Applications are judged in open competition with other demands on funding.
  548W
  In 2000–01 the MRC spent around £3 million on research relevant to epilepsy. Additionally, the Department has spent around £1.5 million on directly commissioned projects on epilepsy since May 1997. This research will help to improve our understanding of the condition and aid in the development of treatments for it.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence underlay the statement of his noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that international research contradicted the claims made by Dr. David Paton of Nottingham university, in his paper on teenage pregnancy in the Journal of Health Economics, March 2002. [60265]

  Ms Blears
  The social exclusion unit report on teenage pregnancy gathered evidence from the best available international research to inform the cross-Government teenage pregnancy strategy. That evidence is supported by more recent research which concludes that improved sex and relationship education and access to youth contraceptive clinics have been shown to reduce teenage pregnancy rates but do not hasten the onset of or increase sexual activity among young people.

  Copies of the following relevant publications are available in the Library:
  "Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy".
  "Factors Affecting Changes in Rates of Teenage Conceptions 1991 to 1997".
  "Teenage Sexual and Reproductive Behaviour in Developed Countries. Can more progress be made?"
  "Why is Teenage Pregnancy Declining? The roles of abstinence, sexual activity and contraceptive use".
  "A League Table of Teenage Births in Rich Nations".

  Nutrients
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of(a) the provisional findings of the EU Scientific Committee on Food on the upper safe levels of nutrient intake for vitamin-B6 and Niacin and (b) the levels accepted as safe in the UK by health food manufacturers; and by how much and for what reasons he expects those levels to be further reduced under the Provisions of Article 5 of the European Food Supplements Directive when being used as the basis for setting maximum permitted levels of nutrient content in food supplements. [60197]

  Ms Blears
  The Government will take a view on these provisional findings when it receives advice from the expert group on vitamins and minerals (EVM), which has been established to draw up advice on maximum safe intakes of vitamins and minerals. The EVM is expected to publish its findings during the summer, and is aware of both the assessments of the SCF and other expert evaluations of the available evidence.

  The Government continues to press for a safety-based approach to setting of maximum limits under Article 5 of the EU food supplements directive; no specific levels for individual nutrients have yet been discussed.
  549W
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Food Standards Agency and his Department plans to take(a) to promote to other European Member States and Commission officials the conclusions of the forthcoming report from his Ad Hoc Expert Advisory Group on Vitamins and Minerals, (b) to commence a dialogue with Commission officials and the EU Scientific Committee on Foods about the information requirements for dossiers submitted for consideration in relation to the safety of vitamins and minerals which have been on the market for many years and (c) to use interGovernmental contact with other EU Member States to pursue his objectives in relation to the interpretation of the provisions of Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive. [60198]

  Ms Blears
  The food standards agency (FSA) will circulate the draft report of the expert group on vitamins and minerals (EVM) to the commission and all EU Member States, and will contact key officials to discuss the implications of these findings as appropriate.

  At the request of industry the scientific committee for foods has issued guidance on the required content of safety dossiers supporting use of nutrient sources, and the commission has issued guidance on the procedures for submitting such dossiers. The Government considers the guidance to be helpful and does not intend to intervene.

  The FSA continues to take every opportunity to put the case to other European Union member states that Article 5 of the EU food supplements directive should not be used to restrict unnecessarily the range of food supplements available to consumes specific plans for further contacts will be drawn up as appropriate when detailed risk assessments are available for discussion.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) those nutrients and nutrient sources which are permitted for inclusion in food supplements under the annexes of the European Food Supplements Directive and (b) those nutrients and nutrient sources which are available on the UK market but which are not included in those annexes. [60194]

  Ms Blears
  The final text of the directive, following adoption at development council on 30 May 2002, has not yet been published. Nutrients and nutrient sources permitted for inclusion in food supplements under the annexes of the European Food Supplements Directive (common position adopted by the Council on 3 December 2001) and published in the Official Journal C 90 E/1 on 16 April 2002 are listed.
  Nutrients
  Vitamins A, C, D, E, K, B1, B2, B6, B12, biotin, folic acid, niacin, pantothenic acid
  Minerals: calcium, magnesium, iron, copper, iodine, zinc, manganese, sodium, potassium, selenium, chromium, molybdenum, fluoride, chloride, phosphorus
  Nutrient sources
  Sources of vitamin A

  Retinol

  Retinyl acetate

  Retinyl palmitate

  Beta-carotene

  550W
  Sources of vitamin B

  Thiamin hydrochloride

  Thiamin mononitrate

  Riboflavin

  Riboflavin 5-phosphate, sodium

  Nicotinic acid

  Nicotinamide

  D-pantothenate, calcium

  D-pantothenate, sodium

  Dexpanthenol

  Pyridoxine hydrochloride

  Pyridoxine 5-phosphate

  Pterolylmonoglutamic acid

  Cyanocobalamin

  Hydroxycobalamin

  D-biotin

  Sources of vitamin C

  L-ascorbic acid

  Sodium L-ascorbate

  Calcium L-ascorbate

  Potassium L-ascorbate

  L-ascorbyl 6-palmitate

  Sources of vitamin D

  Cholecalciferol

  Ergocalciferol

  Sources of vitamin E

  D alpha-tocopherol

  DL-alpha-tocopherol

  D-alpha-tocopherol acetate

  DL-alpha-tocopherol acetate

  D-alpha-tocopherol acid succinate

  Source of vitamin K

  Phylloquinone

  Sources of minerals

  Calcium carbonate

  Calcium chloride

  Calcium salts of citric acid

  Calcium gluconate

  Calcium glycerophosphate

  Calcium lactate

  Calcium slats of orthophosphoric acid

  Calcium hydroxide

  Calcium oxide

  Cupric carbonate

  Cupric citrate

  Cupric gluconate

  Cupric sulphate

  Copper lysine complex

  Chromium chloride

  Chromium sulphate

  Potassium fluoride

  Sodium fluoride

  Ferrous carbonate

  Ferrous citrate

  Ferric ammonium citrate

  Ferrous fumarate

  Ferric sodium diphosphate

  551W

  Ferrous lactate

  Ferrous sulphate

  Ferric diphosphate

  Ferric saccharate

  Elemental iron

  Potassium iodide

  Potassium iodate

  Sodium iodide

  Sodium iodate

  Magnesium acetate

  Magnesium carbonate

  Magnesium chloride

  Magnesium salts of citric acid

  Magnesium gluconate

  Magnesium glycerophosphate

  Magnesium salts of orthophosphoric acid

  Magnesium lactate

  Magnesium hydroxide
  Magnesium sulphate

  Manganese carbonate

  Manganese chloride

  Manganese citrate

  Manganese gluconate

  Manganese glycerophosphate

  Manganese sulphate

  Ammonium molybdate

  Sodium molybdate

  Potassium bicarbonate

  Potassium carbonate

  Potassium chloride

  Potassium citrate

  Potassium gluconate

  Potassium glycerophosphate

  Potassium lactate

  Potassium hydroxide

  Potassium salts of orthophosphoric acid

  Sodium bicarbonate

  Sodium carbonate

  Sodium chloride

  Sodium citrate

  Sodium gluconate

  Sodium lactate

  Sodium hydroxide

  Sodium salts of orthophosphoric acid

  Sodium selenate

  Sodium hydrogen selenite

  Sodium selenate

  Zinc acetate

  Zinc chloride

  Zinc citrate

  Zinc gluconate

  Zinc lactate

  Zinc oxide

  Zinc carbonate

  Zinc sulphate.

  552W
  Boron, cobalt, nickel, silicon, tin and vanadium are used in products on the UK market, but are not include in annexe I of the Food Supplements Directive (common position adopted by the Council on 3 December 2001) and published in the Official Journal C 90 E/1 on 16 April 2002. The Government have not compiled a definitive list of the many nutrient sources used in UK products and not listed in annexe II of that directive.

  Motor Neurone Disease
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research into motor neurone disease the Government are funding; and what financial assistance the Government gives to the Motor Neurone Disease Association. [60764]

  Ms Blears
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatment for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The Department also funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the national health service.

  The MRC spent?1.4 million in 2001–02 on research relevant to motor neurone disease (MND) and on basic work on the function of motor neurones. The MRC also support a large portfolio of basic research into the biology of the brain and the nervous system in both normal and diseased states. Such studies may well have relevance to the treatment of MND and related conditions in the future.

  The Department has also supported work in this area. Recent research projects include the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of riluzole for the treatment of motor neurone disease that completed in August 2000. There is an on-going project on speech recognition for people with severe dysarthria (dysarthria is the inability to articulate speech and is common in MND patients) which is due for completion in July 2003.

  The Government give no financial assistance to the Motor Neurone Disease Association.

  Capital Projects
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the 35 per cent. design component of his Department's capital projects. [603181

  Mr. Hutton
  In order to evaluate tenders from bidders a preliminary invitation to negotiate (PITN) is sent out. The bidder's response to each question on the PITN is allocated a score and weighted percentage. 35 per cent. is the percentage mark attributed to the weighting of the design component.

  Consultant Waiting Times
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there was a change in the basis for calculating the numbers of people waiting 13 weeks or more to see a consultant between the statistics for 31 December 2001 and those for 31 March 2002; and if he will make a statement. [60458]

  Mr. Hutton
  There have been no changes in the basis for calculating out-patient over 13 week waiters since data collection started in 1994. The data collected refer to the waiting time from general practitioners written referral to first out-patient appointment.

  Voluntary Hospices
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers he has to direct voluntary hospices. [60850]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no powers to direct voluntary hospices.

  Palliative Care
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was earmarked for palliative care for the three years ending 2003–04(a) for the central south coast area and (b) for each other part of England; and how much of each sum was (i) committed and (ii) spent in 2001–02. [60847]

  Ms Blears
  The Government have pledged in the NHS cancer plan that funding for specialist palliative care services, including hospices, will increase by £50 million per annum by 2004. This investment is included in the overall national health service investment for implementing the cancer plan. How the £50 million is deployed locally will depend on the needs of the area. Cancer networks have drawn up service delivery plans on palliative care to review the level of services offered in their area and these will ensure that each network has a range of palliative care services available. We are currently reviewing the outturn position for 2001–02 and the progress in that year.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 had been spent by 31 May; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [61006]

  Mr. Lammy
  Reliable estimates for 2002–03 spending to 31 May are not available. Estimated outturn spending figures for 2001–02 can be found in "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2002–03", published in May 2002 as command paper Cm 5401.

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Department has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61067]

  Mr. Lammy
  Spend on training and development in the Department for the last five years has been as follows:

  £000

  1997–98

  5,119

  1998–99

  8,366

  1999–2000

  6,554

  2000–01

  6,395

  2001–02

  5,411

  Hospital Appointments
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions will apply to the ability of patients and general practitioners to book hospital appointments at a time and place of the patient's convenience. [61429]
  554W
  Mr. Hutton
  On 6 December 2001, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced proposals to give patients choice over where they are treated in the national health service.

  By 2005, all patients and their general practitioners will be able to book hospital appointments at both a time and place that is convenient to the patient. This might include local NHS hospitals, NHS hospitals or diagnostic and treatment centres elsewhere, private hospitals, private diagnostic and treatment centres, or even hospitals overseas. Lessons learned in pilots will be taken forward in the arrangements that operate from 2005.

  General Practitioner Contract
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what diseases will qualify for quality payments under the tiered system outlined in the general practitioner contract. [61421]

  Mr. Hutton
  The new general medical services contract framework agreement sets out the principles of how the new quality framework will work. The national health service confederation and the general practitioner committee of the British Medical Association are continuing to negotiate the detailed clinical and organisational standards and levels and will make them public in due course.

  Nurses (Assaults)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many physical assaults against nurses were recorded in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001; [61449]

  (2) when he last met representatives of (a) Unison and (b) the Royal College of Nursing to discuss violence against nurses; [61448]

  (3) what action the Government are taking to reduce assaults on nurses. [61419]

  Mr. Hutton
  Violence against any member of staff working in the national health service is unacceptable. Significant action has been taken at both national and local levels to tackle the problem of violence as part of the cross-Government NHS zero tolerance zone campaign. This includes the issuing of new sentencing guidelines to magistrates courts, the publication of new guidelines on the withholding of treatment from violent and abusive patients and, for the first time ever, the allocation of central funding to support the large number of local initiatives being introduced to protect staff. A distance learning package developed specifically to support nurses in dealing with violence has also been issued jointly with the Royal College of Nursing.

  Information on the levels of violent incidents by individual staff group is not collected centrally, but may be held at a local level by NHS employers. The results of the 2000–01 survey of reported violent or abusive incidents, accidents involving staff and sickness absence in NHS trust and health authorities, in England, have been placed in the Library, along with a report setting out the Government's proposed action in the light of the findings.

  "Delivering the NHS Plan-next steps on investment, next steps on reform" included the commitment to ensure that all general practitioners have access to secure services

  555W
  for the treatment of violent patients, and the Government will be providing extra resources to primary care trusts to deal with violent patients.

  Officials have worked closely with the Royal College of Nursing, UNISON and other staff representative bodies on the development of each stage of the zero tolerance campaign, and will continue to do so.

  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the contribution of medical science and education to the pharmaceutical industry. [61464]
  Ms Blears
  The Government recognise that education and the science base are important factors in maintaining the attractiveness of the UK as a location for the research and development (R&D) pharmaceutical industry. Last year the Government published, jointly with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, a set of competitiveness and performance indicators which will be used to monitor trends in UK competitiveness as a location for the R&D pharmaceutical industry. Baseline data collected show that in the late 1990s the number of graduates in medical sciences from UK universities was similar to that in Germany and rather greater than in other European countries. Data also show that the UK Government spends more on R&D in health fields than does any other European Government. Copies of the Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force (PICTF)—Competitiveness and Performance Indicators 2001 report are available in the Library.

  Health Care Professionals
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is his intention that health care professionals who refuse to provide him with patient information will face fines. [61425]

  Mr. Lammy
  The possibility of a doctor being fined for refusing to disclose information on ethical grounds was a concern voiced during the affirmative procedure debates on the regulations. While the imposition of such a fine cannot be ruled out, circumstances where it would be the appropriate response are difficult to imagine. It is more likely that the involvement of appropriate bodies such as the General Medical Council would be the appropriate response.

  Research Projects
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of long-term funding of dual support for externally-funded research projects. [61465]

  Ms Blears
  The Department continues to provide resources in the national health service (NHS) to secure research funded through the dual support system. In March 2000, my noble Friend the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath announced the development programme for NHS research and development (R&D) funding set out in "Research and Development for a First Class Service: R&D funding in the new NHS". This includes transparent and accountable arrangements for targeting NHS funding on providing the NHS base for high quality science and 556W
  on meeting the NHS costs of supporting high quality R&D under appropriate standards of strategic direction and quality assurance.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for results of cervical smear tests in each of the London health authorities was in(a) March 2001 and (b) March 2002. [61432]

  Ms Blears
  The information is not available in the format requested. Information on waiting times for screening test results is only available for those areas where the result letters are sent to women directly by the health authorities (around two thirds of health authorities do this).

  In 2000–01, 60 per cent. of women in these health authorities received their written cervical screening test result within six weeks (54 per cent. in London). 91 per cent. (84 per cent. in London) received their written result within 10 weeks. It is likely that even where a letter is sent, general practitioners will notify their patients by more rapid means as soon as they have a result.

  Guidance from the national health service cervical screening programme states that women should have to wait no longer than six weeks for the written results of their cervical smear test. It is regrettable when delays occur and we look to the relevant trust and health authority to work together to address the reasons for any delay.

  Bowel Cancer
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding is available for the treatment of bowel cancer at Chase Farm hospital in Enfield. [61452]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not held by the Department.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the trends in the incidence of TB in England in the last five years; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for changes. [61136]

  Ms Blears
  Data taken from five-yearly surveys of tuberculosis undertaken in 1988, 1993 and 1998 show that the incidences of TB are multi-factorial taking into consideration geographic distribution, ethnic distribution age, place of birth and other risk factors of developing TB.

  Tuberculosis is a disease that we take very seriously and we continue to develop and implement programmes to improve TB control.

  Toxoplasma Gondii
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the UK are known to be infected by toxoplasma gondii; how many reported deaths from toxoplasma gondii infection there have been in each of the last five years; and what research is being sponsored by the Department into the causes and treatment of toxoplasma gondii. [61146]
  557W
  Ms Blears
  There is no current data available on the number of people known to be infected with toxoplasma gondii, as toxoplasmosis, the infection associated with toxoplasma gondii, is not a disease reportable under the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations 1988. However, the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) has received the following confirmed laboratory reports for Toxoplasma gondii in England and Wales for the years 1999 to 2001:

  Year

  Number

  1999

  610

  2000

  662

  2001

  551

  The numbers of deaths from toxoplasma gondii infection are not known, as the Office for National Statistics does not collect these statistics.

  There are two projects on the causes and treatment of toxoplasma gondii currently sponsored by the Department. These are:
  Use of neonatal blood spots for HIV and toxoplasmosis screening. Dr. H. Wilcox, St. Helier Hospital, Surrey, England
  GENET-EMSCOT: A study of genetic susceptibility in congenital toxoplasmosis. Dr. R. E. Gilbert, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients with deep vein thrombosis were treated by the NHS in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [61520]

  Ms Blears
  The information shown in the table is the number of admissions to national health service hospitals in England where the patient's main diagnosis was deep vein thrombosis.

  Year

  Finished consultant episode

  1998–99

  24,871

  1999–2000

  25,155

  2000–01

  24,903

  Notes:

  1. Admissions are defined as the first period of patient care under one consultant within one health care provider. Admissions do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  2. Figures are only given for NHS hospital in-patient admissions; there are no figures available for patients diagnosed or treated elsewhere. The figures are the latest available.

  3. The figures for 1998–99 to 1999–2000 are grossed for both coverage and invalid/unknown clinical data, but the figures for 2000–01 have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data (ie it is ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) code used: 180.2

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated time is between the formation of blood clots in the lower limbs of air travellers and the development of a deep vein thrombosis. [61521]

  Ms Blears: The formation of a blood clot in the deep veins of the lower limbs is a deep vein thrombosis. People who sustain a blood clot/deep vein thrombosis in the
  558W
  lower limbs may or may not have symptoms. In those who do have symptoms, these may occur soon after and any time up to several weeks after the blood clot/ thrombosis occurred.

  A two-year project by the World Health Organisation will start in June 2002 to establish whether there is a link between deep vein thrombosis and air travel.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of long haul air travellers he estimates suffer from blood clots in their lower limbs; [61522]

  (2) what proportion of deep vein thromboses treated by the NHS since 1999 have been air travel related. [61519]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the proportion of deep vein thromboses treated by the national health service which may have been travel related is not collected.

  We do not yet have sufficient scientific understanding of whether there are elements specific to the aircraft cabin environment that can increase the risk of deep vein thrombosis. For this reason the UK Government fully support the World Health Organisation's research into air travel and venous thromboembolism and has agreed to provide up to £1.2 million in funding for this work. The two-year project will start in June 2002.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what records are kept by the NHS on the incidence of thromboembolic diseases among air travellers; [61524]

  (2) what plans he has to record the incidence of patients suffering from a deep vein thrombosis who have made a long haul flight up to four weeks before they contracted the disease. [61523]

  Ms Blears
  The national health service does not currently record the travel history of patients with thromboembolic disease as a matter of routine. However, we recognise the importance of improving the understanding of any link between air travel and deep vein thrombosis. The United Kingdom Government therefore fully support the aims of the World Health Organisation's research into air travel and venous thromboembolism and have agreed to provide up to £1.2 million in funding for this work. The two-year project will start in June 2002.

  Any future plans to record such information will be informed by the outcome of this research.

  Labelling
  Mr. Raney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has put in place to ensure the implementation of the Curry report recommendations for clear and honest labelling of meat products. [53703]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency is taking the lead in pressing for changes to European Union labelling rules to require country of origin labelling on a wider range of foods, particularly meat products. It is also pressing for changes that would prevent misleading labelling by restricting the use of terms like "produce of …" to those foods where the main ingredients come from, and production processes occur in, the named place or country. Other EU member states are supporting the UK's initiative on this issue. In addition, the recent
  559W
  adoption of a harmonised definition of meat across Europe for food labelling purposes means meat products will declare and quantify their meat ingredients on a common basis, making it easier for consumers to compare products and make better informed choices.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to amend the law to require the labels on imported processed food to state whether the food contains beef from animals more than 30 months old or has been processed in a country where such meat is allowed to enter the human food chain. [61590]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 12 June 2002]: The Government are in favour of positive labelling giving consumers the information they need to make properly informed choices. The Food Standards Agency is taking the lead in pressing for changes to European labelling rules to require more informative country-of-origin labelling on a wider range of foods, particularly those containing meat.

  However, it would not be possible to extend labelling requirements to cover imported processed food containing beef from animals over 30 months old in the way that has been suggested. The rules covering the restrictions on sale of over thirty-month imported beef are UK national measures and such additional labelling requirements may not be in conformity with EU law. In addition, it is usually not possible to tell the age of the animal from which processed beef products have been derived.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many alleged incidents of condemned meat being illegally mislabelled and sold on for consumption have been investigated in each of the last five years; and how many prosecutions have been instigated for such offences in each of these years. [62095]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directive on the Removal of Technical Barriers to Trade in Colouring Matters which may be Added to Medicinal Products is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55216]

  Mr. Lammy
  The committee for the adaption to technical progress of the directives on the elimination of technical barriers to trade in the sector of colouring matters which may be added to medicinal products is a regulatory committee which assists the European Commission in exercising its powers of implementation and facilitates the adoption of draft measures in the field permitted colours for medicinal products. It consists of representatives of member states with a representative of the European Commission as chairman. The UK representatives are the chief executive of the Medicines Control Agency (MCA), in relation to medicines for human use, and the chief executive of the veterinary 560W
  medicines directorate in relation to veterinary medicines. The committee has not met during the last 12 months and no costs to public funds have been incurred. Its rules provide for a written procedure which may be invoked as an alternative to convening meetings.

  Together with member states, the European 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". The Commission has published an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Com(2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition 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. [61695]

  Ms Blears
  The mandate for the scientific committee on animal nutrition (SCAN) is set out in European Commission Decision 1997/579/EC, as amended by Commission Decision 2000/443/EC. The committee provides opinions on scientific questions concerning animal nutrition.

  The committee has met seven times in plenary session in the year ending 30 April 2002. In addition, there have been several working group meetings. SCAN is composed of independent experts who do not represent the views of the member states in which they work. Three members are based in the UK.

  The committee is accountable solely to the European Commission, which pays the travel and subsistence costs of members. There are no additional costs to UK public funds. The committee is currently considering a number of dossiers for products used in animal nutrition. Minutes and current agendas of the committee's meetings can be found on the SCAN website.

  European Economic Area Doctors
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors from the European Economic Area have been appointed as associate specialists in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [62698]

  Mr. Hutton
  At 30 September 2001 there were 50 associate specialists working in the national health service in England who had obtained their primary medical qualification in the European Economic Area.

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 May 2002 to the hon.
  561W
  Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), Official Report, column 725W, on smallpox vaccine, when the new supplies of vaccine will be delivered. [59466]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is not putting information about the size of its smallpox vaccine stocks, delivery schedules or its deployment into the public domain as this is information that might be useful to terrorists.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the questions of 19 March from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon on heart failure. [63381]

  Ms Blears
  I replied to the hon. Member on Wednesday 19 June 2002.

  Locum Doctors
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by each acute trust on agency locum doctors as(a) a total annual amount, (b) a proportion of the annual expenditure on doctors' salaries and (c) as a proportion of the total operating expenses in each of the last five years for which records are available. [47996]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the savings which NHS trusts can make by recruiting locums from NHS Professionals rather than private agencies. [59442]

  Coronary revascularisation, position at 31 December 2001

  CABG

  PTCA

  Region/HA code/HA name

  9–11 months

  12+ months

  9–11 months

  12+ months

  Northern and Yorkshire

  QDD Bradford

  11

  3

  0

  0

  QDE County Durham and Darlington

  19

  3

  3

  0

  QDF East Riding and Hull

  30

  3

  0

  QDG Gateshead and South Tyneside

  6

  0

  0

  0

  QDH Leeds

  0

  0

  0

  0

  QDJ Newcastle and North Tyneside

  11

  0

  0

  QDK North Cumbria

  25

  0

  0

  0

  QDM Northumberland

  3

  0

  0

  0

  QDN Sunderland

  4

  0

  0

  0

  QDP Tees

  16

  0

  0

  QDQ Wakefield

  4

  0

  0

  QDR North Yorkshire

  21

  3

  0

  0

  QDT Calderdale and Kirklees

  26

  3

  4

  0

  176

  17

  9

  0

  Trent

  QCG Barnsley

  1

  0

  1

  0

  QCH North Derbyshire

  1

  4

  1

  0

  QCJ Southern Derbyshire

  0

  0

  2

  1

  QCK Doncaster

  10

  0

  1

  0

  QCL Leicestershire

  33

  11

  0

  1

  QCM Lincolnshire

  34

  1

  1

  1

  QCN North Nottinghamshire

  0

  1

  1

  1

  QCP Nottingham

  0

  1

  5

  10

  QCQ Rotherham

  6

  0

  0

  0

  QCR Sheffield

  7

  0

  0

  0

  QDL South Humber

  0

  0

  0

  0

  92

  18

  11

  14

  562W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: NHS Professionals for doctors will improve the quality of patient care by establishing a national database of doctors outside managed organisations, improving standards and providing locum doctors with suitable appraisal and in due course support for general medical Council revalidation.

  NHS Professionals are non-profit making service designed for, and led by, the national health service. We expect it to provide a high quality competitive service as the first-choice supplier to the NHS. It is difficult to predict the precise savings as NHS employers have a variety of different arrangements with the private sector agencies.

  Heart Disease Treatment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on waiting times for heart disease treatment, broken down by(a) regional health areas and (b) PCT areas. [53320]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Data on waiting times by primary care trust area are not yet available as many primary care trusts have only recently been formed. The following data show numbers waiting over nine months for coronary artery by-pass surgery and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty on 31 March 2002, by region and health authority, as was.

  Waiting times have been substantially reduced since the publication of the national service framework for coronary heart disease in March 2000. At that time 1,093 patients had been waiting for more than 12 months for a heart operation. By March 2002 we have achieved, with the exception of 20 patients who declined earlier dates, a 12-month maximum wait for revascularisation.
  563W

  Coronary revascularisation, position at 31 December 2001

  CABG

  PTCA

  Region/HA code/HA name

  9–11 months

  12+ months

  9–11 months

  12+ months

  West Midlands

  QD9 Birmingham

  41

  58

  7

  1

  QEA Coventry

  11

  4

  0

  0

  QEC Dudley

  17

  13

  3

  1

  QED Herefordshire

  8

  7

  1

  0

  QEE Sandwell

  22

  20

  1

  0

  QEF Shropshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  QEG Solihull

  8

  11

  0

  0

  QEH North Staffordshire

  6

  8

  0

  0

  QEJ South Staffordshire

  12

  11

  1

  0

  QEK Walsall

  18

  15

  2

  0

  QEL Warwickshire

  14

  9

  0

  0

  QEM Wolverhampton

  20

  23

  4

  0

  QEN Worcestershire

  17

  23

  0

  1

  194

  202

  19

  3

  North West

  QC1 South Lancashire

  15

  7

  3

  0

  QC2 Liverpool

  20

  10

  3

  0

  QC3 Manchester

  19

  6

  1

  0

  QC4 Morecambe Bay

  21

  11

  0

  0

  QC5 St. Helens and Knowsley

  16

  9

  1

  1

  QC6 Salford and Trafford

  10

  2

  0

  0

  QC7 Sefton

  6

  0

  2

  0

  QC8 Stockport

  9

  8

  0

  0

  QC9 West Pennine

  9

  5

  0

  0

  QCT Bury and Rochdale

  16

  5

  0

  0

  QCV North Cheshire

  7

  6

  1

  1

  QCW South Cheshire

  16

  7

  2

  0

  QCX East Lancashire

  15

  5

  8

  2

  QCY North West Lancashire

  20

  7

  15

  1

  QDA Wigan and Bolton

  11

  3

  0

  0

  QDC Wirral

  6

  5

  1

  0

  216

  96

  37

  5

  Eastern

  QA6 Bedfordshire

  2

  2

  0

  0

  QAX North Essex

  25

  6

  1

  0

  QAY South Essex

  41

  12

  0

  0

  QCF Suffolk

  20

  1

  1

  0

  QER Cambridgeshire

  19

  0

  2

  0

  QET Norfolk

  19

  1

  1

  0

  QEX Hertfordshire

  60

  11

  9

  1

  186

  33

  14

  1

  London

  QA2 Hillingdon

  1

  0

  0

  0

  QA3 Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  QA5 Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  29

  15

  0

  0

  QAD Croydon

  0

  0

  6

  0

  QAG Kingston and Richmond

  7

  0

  2

  0

  QAH Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  QAJ Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  3

  0

  14

  0

  QAP Barking and Havering

  15

  6

  0

  0

  QAR Brent and Harrow

  3

  0

  5

  0

  QAT Camden and Islington

  3

  2

  0

  0

  QAV Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  QAW East London and City

  17

  7

  0

  0

  QEW Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  1

  7

  0

  0

  QEY Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  3

  2

  1

  0

  82

  39

  28

  0

  South East

  QA7 Berkshire

  15

  0

  2

  1

  QA8 Buckinghamshire

  13

  1

  1

  0

  QAE East Kent

  7

  0

  0

  0

  QAF West Kent

  9

  1

  1

  0

  QAK East Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  QAL West Surrey

  2

  0

  3

  0

  QAM East Sussex Brighton and Hove

  29

  2

  0

  0

  QAN West Sussex

  12

  1

  0

  0

  QCC Northamptonshire

  13

  2

  0

  0

  564W 565W

  Coronary revascularisation, position at 31 December 2001

  CABG

  PTCA

  Region/HA code/HA name

  9–11 months

  12+ months

  9–11 months

  12+s months

  QCE Oxfordshire HA

  7

  3

  0

  0

  QD1 North and Mid Hampshire

  8

  1

  3

  0

  QD3 Southampton and SW Hampshire

  9

  3

  4

  1

  QEV Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  6

  7

  0

  0

  130

  21

  14

  2

  South West

  QD5 Somerset

  9

  10

  10

  QD6 South and West Devon

  14

  8

  1

  0

  QD7 Wiltshire

  13

  0

  3

  0

  QD8 Avon

  12

  10

  5

  5

  QDV Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  20

  7

  4

  0

  QDW Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  QDX North and East Devon

  4

  0

  1

  0

  QDY Gloucestershire

  15

  0

  0

  0

  79

  34

  24

  15

  England

  1,155

  460

  156

  40

  Source:

  Department of Health form QF01

  Immunisation Policy
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representatives of parents' organisations participate in his Department's studies of immunisation policy. [575301

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: We do not routinely seek the views of parent organisations. However, over the course of one year the Department consults a sample of 3,000 mothers. The purpose of this is to elicit their knowledge, attitudes and understanding of the immunisation programme. The information gained from this exercise is then used to inform our communications with health professionals and parents.

  A lay representative is shortly to be appointed to the joint committee on vaccine and immunisation who advise the Government on immunisation policy.

  NHS Direct
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the nurse grade structure is of nurses that offer medical advice on NHS Direct. [59575]

  1 1998–1999

  1999–2000

  22000–2001

  2001–2002

  NHS staff and contractors

  Prosecutions4

  1

  18

  45

  42

  Civil redress and disciplinary

  4

  37

  74

  44

  The public

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Penalty charge notices issued

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 34,249

  Prosecutions4

  2

  3

  1

  3

  1 The director of the NHS CFS was appointed in September 1998 to establish the new organisation, and the strategy document "Countering Fraud in the NHS" was published in December 1998.

  2 The NHS CFS Operational Service was established and became fully operational in January 2000.

  3 Because of the low value of most NHS patient fraud (the current prescription charge is £6.20) it is not appropriate or cost effective to routinely prosecute those who perpetrate it. A process to recover the value of the charges evaded has been in place since the NHS CFS was established. In addition. Penalty Charges are applied. These are for a sum which is five times the charge which should have been paid plus the original charge up to a maximum of £100.

  4Only one prosecution (out of 115) has been unsuccessful in the last three years, however, the NHS CFS do not merely seek to apply criminal sanctions. Rather it seeks to combine criminal, civil and disciplinary sanctions to best effect.

  566W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The nurse grade structure for NHS Direct consists of F and G grade nurses offering medical advice.

  NHS Direct defines what it requires of its nurses through a set of competency statements. Nurses can be recruited from any speciality provided they meet these competencies, although they must have between three and five year's post-qualification experience.

  Fraud
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 17 April,Official Report, column 1037W, what the remit of the NHS counter-fraud service covers; and how many (a) staff and (b) members of the public the counter-fraud service has successfully investigated, and what range of penalties was imposed, in each year since 1998. [59553]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The NHS Counter Fraud Service (NHS CFS) has the strategic, policy and operational remit to tackle fraud and corruption across the National Health Service, wherever it occurs.

  Information on successful investigations is shown in the table as follows. The information it contains was current as of 31 March 2002.

  Organ Storage (Alder Hey)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many parents are pursuing information about the whereabouts of their children's organs improperly removed at Alder Hey Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [59796]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]: As at 11 June 2002 the serious incident team at the Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital National Health Service Trust has received inquiries about organ retention from parents of 4,541 deceased children.

  The trust acts on behalf of parents inquiring about organ retention at the trust as well as that for the University of Liverpool.

  From all enquiries received, 1,372 have had organs and/or blocks and slides retained. This figure represents retention by the trust and the University of Liverpool.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding he is making available for(a) research into and (b) greater awareness of primary progressive multiple sclerosis. [61564]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the national health service.

  The Department and MRC spend for 2001–02 is estimated at £2.2 million on research into multiple sclerosis. This includes spend on basic work on a whole range of autoimmune disease.

  We are not making funds available directly for increasing awareness of primary progressive multiple sclerosis. The Department and the drug manufacturers have, however, agreed on an innovative way to secure disease modifying therapies on behalf of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. The scheme allows patients with MS meeting the criteria of the association of British neurologists to be treated cost-effectively on the NHS. The scheme started on 6 May 2002 and is backed by statutory directions to ensure there is no postcode prescribing of these treatments.

  My hon. Friend the Minister of State (Jacqui Smith) announced on 12 June 2002 at the college of occupational therapists "Making Waves" conference that the national service framework (NSF) for long-term conditions will have a particular focus on the needs of people with neurological conditions and brain and spinal injury, and also address some of the common issues faced by people living with long-term conditions. We are now considering the next stage of work, which includes selecting and appointing an external reference group and developing further the communication and consultation strategy. We expect to publish the NSF in 2004 and to start implementation in 2005.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 30 April concerning a constituent. [61113]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 12 June 2002]: A reply was sent on 20 June.

  Mechanically Recovered Meat
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports the FSA has received from meat processors on which products contained mechanically recovered meat. [62532]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The Food Standards Agency has commissioned a study on the historic use of mechanically recovered meat from bovine animals undertaken before this practice became illegal. Arising from this, there have been consultations with meat processors, among others. Initial findings from the study, once available, will be considered by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee later this year.

  Myeloma
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of myeloma patients in the UK are(a) men and (b) women; [62686]

  (2) how many people in the UK were diagnosed with multiple myeloma in (a) 1975, (b) 1980, (c) 1985, (d) 1990, (e) 1995, (f) 2000 and (g) 2001; [62682]

  (3) what percentage of myeloma patients in the UK are under (a) 50, (b) 40 and (c) 30 years of age; [62685]

  (4) if he will list areas in the UK in which there are clusters of multiple myeloma sufferers. [62684]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Ian Gibson, dated 20 June 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply on how many people in the UK were diagnosed with multiple myeloma in (a) 1975, (b) 1980, (c) 1985, (d) 1990, (e) 1995, (0 2000 and (g) 2001, what percentage of myeloma patients in the UK are (a) men and (b) women, what percentage of myeloma patients in the UK are under (a) 50, (b) 40 and (c) 30 years of age, and to list areas in the UK in which there are clusters of multiple myeloma sufferers. (62684, 62682, 62686, 62685)
  The available information on the incidence of multiple myeloma in the United Kingdom is shown in the attached tables.
  We have no information on areas in the UK where there may be clusters of multiple myeloma 'sufferers'. To determine if indeed there are clusters, and if so where, would require an appropriate research study.
  Further information on trends in the incidence, survival and mortality from multiple myeloma can be found in Chapter 14 of the book 'Cancer Trends in England and Wales 1950–1999, SMPS No. 66, author M. Quinn et al, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  569W

  Number of newly diagnosed cases of multiple myeloma1 in the United Kingdom2, 1975 to 1998

  Total number of cases

  1975

  1,890

  1980

  2,327

  1985

  2,946

  1990

  2,960

  1995

  3,538

  1998

  3,770

  Percentage of newly diagnosed cases of multiple myeloma1 in the United Kingdom by sex and age group, 1998

  Percentage of all newly diagnosed cases

  Male

  53

  Female

  47

  Age

  Less than 30 years

  0.2

  Less than 40 years

  1.3

  Less than 50 years

  5.0

  Total number of cases—3,770

  1Multiple myeloma has been defined to the International Classification of Disease eight and nine revision (ICD8 and ICD9) code 203 for the period 1975–1994, and to codes C88 and C90 according to the International Classification of Disease tenth revision (ICD10) from 1995 onwards.

  2Cancer incidence figures for Northern Ireland are only available since 1993.

  Sources:

  England—Office for National Statistics

  Wales—Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit

  Scotland—Information and Statistics Division

  Northern Ireland—Northern Ireland Cancer Registry

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average life expectancy is of a myeloma patient. [62688]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated 20 June 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply on what the average life expectancy is of a myeloma patient. (62688)
  Life expectancy is generally not estimated for cancer patients, because death rates in any age group would be much more heavily influenced by age at diagnosis than by survival from the disease.
  A better indicator is the proportion of patients who are still alive at various period of time after diagnosis. This is used almost universally in the assessment of cancer control programmes. The crude survival rate is simply the proportion of the original group of patients alive at the specified time since diagnosis, i.e. it takes into account both deaths from the cancer concerned and deaths from all other causes.
  The latest available information on crude survival for patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma in England and Wales is given detailed in the table.
  570W

  One and five year crude (percentage) of patients aged /5–99 diagnosed during 1991–93 with multiple myeloma1, by sex. England and Wales

  Number of cases 1991–93

  One year survival (percentage)

  Five year survival (percentage)

  Men

  3,774

  55

  16

  Women

  3,408

  53

  14

  1 International Classification of Disease Ninth Revision Code 203

  Source:

  Report: Cancer survival in England and Wales, 1991–98. Health Statistics Quarterly 2000; 6: 71–80

  The most useful summary measure is the median crude survival time, i.e. the point in time at which 50% of the original group have died (from any cause), but diagnosed with myeloma; this was just about 15 months for men and 14 months for women.

  More information is available in Health Statistics Quarterly 2000; 6. copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Drug Treatment
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average waiting time has been for treatment for a heroin addict in Plymouth in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [59743]

  Ms Blears
  The current waiting time for non-urgent specialist prescribing for a heroin addict in Plymouth through statutory drug services is 65 weeks (which has remained stable since December 2001)' and through those general practitioners who initiate prescribing the waiting varies from immediate access to three months'. For non-urgent specialist prescribing through the non-statutory services that facilitate shared care with general practitioners, the maximum wait for community opiate detoxification is three months' and the maximum wait for longer-term opiate substitute prescribing is 12 months'.

  Urgent cases are seen within one week2.

  1Information as of June 2002 from local DAT Co-ordinator

  1Information as of June 2002 from Primary Care Trust

  Oestrogenic Steroids
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to monitor the flow of oestrogenic steroids into the human food chain. [60832]

  Ms Blears
  The use of all hormones, including oestrogenic steroids, as growth promoters in food producing animals is banned throughout the European Union. The veterinary medicines directorate routinely monitors for synthetic hormones in animals in Great Britain as part of our EU obligations. No evidence of their use has been reported in recent years.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each NDPB or agency sponsored by his 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. [59581]
  571W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: At present the Department and its executive agencies have a normal staff retirement age of 60 and do not consider applications for employment from those over that age. However, the Department is now involved in a centrally led initiative, Winning the Generation Game, which will examine age-related issues such as flexible retirement beyond the normal retiring age of 60. The Department would expect that its non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) would also wish to adopt any revised policy the Department itself adopted as a consequence of that initiative. The following policies on retirement age apply in the Department's NDPBs:
  Commission for Health Improvement (CHI)
  CHI does not set a particular retirement age for any of its employees. It would however anticipate that most staff would choose to retire by the age of 60 as this is the age at which they could retire without losing any pension benefits. CHI will consider applications for employment from people of any age and does not have a policy of not considering applicants over a certain age.
  General Social Care Council (GSCC)
  The retirement age for GSCC employees is 65 years of age for both men and women. The GSCC policy allows staff to continue to work beyond the usual retirement age following an annual review on retirement date. Decisions to continue employment are authorised by the chief executive or one of the directors. The GSCC currently has two staff employed over the age of 65, one male and one female. The GSCC has no upper age limit for the appointment of staff. All appointments are made on the assessment of the applicant's competence to undertake the job.
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)
  The normal retirement age for HFEA employees is 60. The retention of any employee beyond that age is a matter for the chief executive's discretion. These principles also apply to the HFEA's recruitment policies.
  National Biological Standards Board (NBSB)
  The NBSB has a normal retirement age of 60. However, this is not a maximum retirement age. The board operates a policy whereby, in exceptional cases, staff may be asked to work beyond their normal retirement age. There is no policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. The board's policy on retirement age is currently under review.
  National Care Standards Commission (NCSC)
  The normal age of retirement for the majority of employees at the NCSC is 65. although some staff who transferred from local authorities and health authorities carried forward existing contracts enabling them to work beyond 65 at the employer's discretion. The Commission does not put an age limit on its consideration of applications for employment.
  572W
  National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB)
  NRPB's normal retirement age is 60. but in the event of ill health, redundancy, limited efficiency or to remedy defects in the staffing structure an earlier retirement date may he effected. At present, NRPB employs people up to age 60.
  Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS)
  While the policy of the PHLS does normally require staff to retire at age 65, the service has been flexible where necessary, consistent with both the wishes of the individual and the needs of the PHLS. The PHLS recognises, however, that it is becoming apparent that the significant shortfalls in various professional groups of employees will require a further review of its position to ensure that the service's professional standards are maintained. Although the service does not normally appoint new staff aged over 65, there is no PHLS policy of not considering applications from people over a particular age.

  Stents
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the relative costs and benefits of stents and drug eluting stents in(a) reducing the need for open heart surgery, (b) increasing the number of treatments undertaken and (c) reducing the incidence of restenosis after angioplasty. [59777]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued guidance on the use of stents in May 2000. This guidance is due for review in April 2003. The Department referred drug eluting stents to NICE on 20 May 2002.

  NICE will provide evidence based advice to the National Health Service in England and Wales on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of drug eluting stents compared to 'bare' stents, and on their appropriate use.

  Cutting Plants
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cutting plants there are in the United Kingdom that are licensed to remove specified risk material from slaughtered cattle; what the locations of these plants are; and if he will make a statement. [61576]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 12 June 2002]: The only specified risk material that can be legally removed at cutting plants is the vertebral column of certain bovine animals. In the United Kingdom there are 50 cutting plants licensed for this purpose. The are located as follows: 20 in England, two in Wales, eight in Scotland and 20 in Northern Ireland. There is one cutting plant in Scotland that is licensed only to remove the vertebral column of cattle from beef assurance scheme herds.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having keen read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Flooding
The Lord Bishop of Lichfieldasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to guard against further flooding in Shrewsbury and the physical and emotional suffering which results.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, my department provides grant aid for flood and coastal defence capital works and associated studies that meet essential technical, economic and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has approved works for the Frankwell area of Shrewsbury and awaits applications from the Environment Agency for any further works in the town. For areas where permanent defences may not be viable, the Environment Agency is giving advice to individual householders on the installation of flood-proofing devices.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but is he aware of the scale of the human trauma arising from what are now recurrent floodings in Shrewsbury and elsewhere? I refer to losses suffered by businesses, damage to people's homes, difficulties in getting insurance, family stress and health costs. Can the Government not increase funding for defence works in such areas by including those human factors in their cost-benefit calculations for building adequate flood defences?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, expenditure on flood defences has already risen by 90 per cent under this Government. Clearly, the forward programme, under which we are identifying the growing problem of flood vulnerability, will need to be taken into account in the current spending round. As for taking social, environmental and health factors into account in setting priorities for defences, that is already done. It is not done on a purely property value basis.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at a meeting earlier this year, officials of the Environment Agency at Llanidloes—Llanidloes is the first town on the Severn; if Llanidloes floods one day, Shrewsbury floods 24 hours later—gave an undertaking to consider and report on the local and
880
broader issues that caused the flooding? Damage was also caused at Llanidloes; I saw for myself some of the damage at Shrewsbury.
Does the Minister know of that undertaking, which was given some time ago? Has there been a report? Does he realise that that report could be of immense significance not solely for Shrewsbury but for towns upstream, such as my own of Llanidloes, and the towns downstream? There are regular patterns of flooding along the Severn. The whole question must be considered in terms of, first, the broad issue of the river tending to flood and, secondly, the local issues of floods in various parts being aggravated by local conditions.
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, in addition to its studies in individual parts of Shrewsbury at present—studies that are in addition to the work already started in the Frankwell area—the Environment Agency is undertaking a study of the whole catchment area. It is important that areas both upstream and downstream from Shrewsbury are taken into account. That study is not yet complete, but my understanding coincides with that of the noble Lord: we need to consider the total picture.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the problem goes much wider than Shrewsbury and the Severn area? Does he have any comment to make about statements from insurance companies that they will no longer insure properties subject to a danger of flooding? That could cause real problems for householders.
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. Although it is true that many areas such as Shrewsbury have been subject to floods for centuries, the frequency and, in some cases, the intensity of those floods has increased in recent years. That has led to problems for insurance companies. My department is in close contact with the insurance industry. The Association of British Insurers has said that it will maintain insurance for another year. Thereafter, there are problems with insurance. We are maintaining close contact with the insurance industry on those matters.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that flooding is a deep problem and, indeed, goes wide? How can local authorities resist the pressure from builders to build on flood land? Living, as I do, in the Thames Valley—in Reading—1 know perfectly well that that pressure is almost constant. It does not go away whatever the planning authority wants to do. Even when government inspectors recommend against, the builders are still come back. We need to reduce that pressure on the flood plain.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, advice from the Environment Agency on new developments on the flood plain is provided on every occasion. Often, it recommends against developments. In addition, the general guidance to the planning authorities, which must balance the economic and environmental

881
aspects, as well as the flooding aspects, is strongly to take into account vulnerability to flooding. But some of those areas have been built on for, as in the case of Shrewsbury, centuries, and it is a question not of new but of old development being subject to flooding. In the Frankwell area, the Environment Agency had to adopt some novel and innovative ways of dealing with defence of those valuable properties.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government must first ensure that the institutional framework for dealing with floods works effectively, efficiently and consistently? Does he further agree that at present the framework suffers from what is frankly an extraordinary degree of bureaucratic complexity, with too many bodies involved: county councils, district councils, town and city councils, parish councils, landowners, internal drainage boards, and so on? What are the Government's plans to deal with that serious bureaucratic mess?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, several agencies are indeed involved, but in most areas there is an established system of co-operation, with the Environment Agency often acting as the lead. Nevertheless, the noble Lord is right to say that co-ordination and funding of those efforts need to be addressed. We are considering how best to co-ordinate the various authorities.

Israel and Palestine
3.8 p.m.
Lord Blakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their current policies regarding the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government condemn unequivocally the most recent suicide bombings, which have resulted in the deaths of 26 Israeli civilians. The loss of life and suffering of both Israelis and Palestinians must end.
The priority is to break the cycle of violence through a ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli troops and negotiations based on the vision of two states living side by side within secure and recognised borders. We call for implementation of recent United Nations Security Council resolutions and support an international conference and the renewal of a political process leading to a comprehensive settlement.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Does she agree that all noble Lords will wish to express their horror at the terrible tragedies suffered by both sides in recent days and weeks? Is it not becoming clear that the policies of the Israeli Government are not reducing, but rather increasing, the number of suicide bombers? Is not the
882
new Israeli Government policy of occupying land likely to work to the disadvantage of Israel? Finally, is it not clear that it is probable that peace will not come to that area unless and until an American Administration prepared to be firm not only with the Palestinians but with the Israeli Government and the Israeli lobby in the United States?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I support entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said about our horror at the casualties on both sides. It is the position of Her Majesty's Government that Israel has, of course, the right to security. Unilateral acts, however, do not provide lasting security. The right way forward is to restart a political process, and Her Majesty's Government will remain engaged in all attempts to do so. I agree with the noble Lord that the United States has an important part to play in that and in persuading both sides to engage seriously in the process.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if the purpose of Mr Sharon's present policies is to improve and protect the security of Israel, they are failing? If his policies are designed to isolate and humiliate President Arafat and undermine the Palestinian Authority, leading to a reoccupation of the West Bank and Gaza, it is all the more urgent that Her Majesty's Government, in co-operation with our European partners and, especially, with the United States Administration, should take steps towards the comprehensive peace settlement to which the Minister referred. That must include the urgent withdrawal of Israeli settlers from the West Bank.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the policies of both sides are failing. The use of suicide bombers does nothing to bring peace, nor, sadly, will the Israeli Government's attempts to increase security, without serious engagement in a political process. The United Kingdom Government have been intensively engaged to that end. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has met President Mubarak, US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Prime Minister Sharon and Prime Minister Hariri and in recent days has spoken to Crown Prince Abdullah and President Bush. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has, similarly, been heavily engaged.
We will continue to do everything that we can to take forward the process, despite the appalling events in the region.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the latest suicide bombing was carried out by the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the political wing of Fatah, the organisation controlled by Yasser Arafat? Will my noble friend take into account, when assisting with the so-called peace process, the contradiction between Yasser Arafat's condemnation and the fact that a wing of his movement is carrying out the atrocities?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, one of the problems is the degree of control that can be

883
exercised in the circumstances. We call on Yasser Arafat to make a 100 per cent effort to prevent terrorist attacks. We do that constantly in all our interchanges with the Palestinian Authority.
I should point out that President Arafat has condemned the bombings this week. He said that attacks on Israeli citizens did not relate in any way to the Palestinians' legitimate right to resist the Israeli occupation. He said that in Arabic, so I hope that there will be no equivocation among his supporters about his condemnation.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it is right that Ariel Sharon's policies will not produce any kind of solution and are self-defeating. Does the Minister accept, however—I am sure that she does—that the calculated and targeted suicide bombing of civilian men, women, children and babies is an unqualified evil, with no "ifs" or "buts" attached? Does she welcome, as I do, the statement by 55 leading Palestinian thinkers to that effect? It was welcome, as were the comments of Chairman Arafat to the same effect. Will the Minister give us the Government's view of the new proposal to build a fence and trench through West Bank territory? Is that a plus or a minus?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord heard how I began my initial Answer. I said that Her Majesty's Government condemn unequivocally the suicide bombings. The noble Lord is, of course, right to emphasise the point, and Her Majesty's Government welcome all such statements, from whatever side. We hope that, when the statements are made by those on the Arab side, those who are carrying out the atrocities will listen carefully.
I understand that a 110-kilometre stretch of fence is being built along the northern green line, although it may extend further than that. I understand the wish to try to secure the Israeli population, but I fear that fences alone will not achieve that objective. Israel will be secured only by negotiations in which both sides have taken part realistically and sincerely.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that some of' the prime sponsors of terrorism in the West Bank are in Syria and Iran? They use the Palestinians cynically as their means of destroying the state of Israel, their prime purpose, and have little interest in the well-being of the unfortunate Palestinians. Is there anything that our Government can do to bring pressure to bear on those states?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, without in any way indicating intelligence sources, I can assure your Lordships that, if Her Majesty's Government have reason to believe that such activities are encouraged by states overseas, we make representations to those governments. If we are looking around to find those who are really trying to help the Palestinian people, I would point to the donors of aid. The major contributor has been the European Commission. That aid helps the
884
Palestinians and will be of more importance and benefit to them than encouragement for any form of terrorism.

Prisons: Facilities
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as a past member of the board of visitors of a young offenders institution.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the new prisons which are being built will have facilities for disabled prisoners, staff, visitors and volunteers; and what plans they have to adapt existing prisons to provide these facilities.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, new houseblocks in both Prison Service-managed and contracted-out prisons are designed to be fully accessible to wheelchair users at ground floor level. Other appropriate facilities are also provided. The Prison Service has produced a draft design guide to reflect the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. A needs assessment is being undertaken, which will benefit all those with a disability.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. However, many facilities in our prisons are upstairs, and it is hugely difficult for severely disabled people to be integrated into prison life. Such people suffer extra discrimination.
Are prison officers covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? How does human rights legislation relate to prisons?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there are, of course, problems above ground floor level. As I said, a needs assessment is due to be completed within 12 months. That will form the basis of Prison Service strategy planning for all existing accommodation. As I suggested in my Answer, problems for disabled people must be taken into account in tenders for new prisons—contracted-out or in the Prison Service.
Prison officers are not included in the DDA. We take their position into account when preparing employment policies. It would take some time to give a complete summary of how the Human Rights Act 1998 applies to prisons. I shall write to the noble Baroness about that.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend accept that, where possible, it is better to treat non-violent offenders in the community rather than sending them to prison? Should that not apply especially to disabled prisoners who, as the noble Baroness has already pointed out,

885
are unlikely to receive decent treatment that will help them to avoid further expenses? If my noble and learned friend agrees with that comment, will he do what he can to encourage sentencers to take disability into account, in particular when a disabled person is found guilty of a non-violent offence?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in a joint Statement made last week, my right honourable friends the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary made it clear that, with regard to non-serious crimes not involving violence or sexual assault, sentencers should consider whether prison will do any good in such cases. Evidence would suggest that short prison sentences imposed in cases where neither violence nor sexual assault is involved rarely do any good. Sentencers need to think about that much more.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, first, given the overcrowded conditions in our existing prisons, are there sufficient cells available which can be quickly adapted for prisoners afflicted by blindness or deafness? Secondly, are the relevant doorways wide enough for wheelchairs?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the position is mixed throughout the prison estate. At any one time something under or up to 1 per cent of the prison population is disabled in one way or another, including physical disablement and sight impairment, to which the noble Lord referred. As I have said, at present sufficient space is available to deal with those prisoners, but it varies from place to place. I cannot give the noble Lord an assurance that in every case doors will be wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs, nor can I say whether in every establishment there will be sufficient facilities for the sight impaired.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, while welcoming the tone of his original Answer, does the Minister agree that it is extremely important for disabled family members, visitors and friends to know exactly what facilities are available during what will be a stressful time if they are visiting from outside? Do individual prison establishments produce in an accessible format a clear, one-page guide on what is available? If they do not, would the noble and learned Lord support that proposal?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that it is important for people to know exactly what facilities are available in each prison establishment and that family members in particular should be aware of the relevant facilities if a disabled relative is to visit a prison. I do not know the answer to the question put to me by the noble Baroness. I shall look into the matter and write to her.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is vitally important that the recommendations of the DDA are implemented with regard to support
886
staff brought in from outside the Prison Service; that is, those working in prison education? I should also mention prison visitors, as referred to in the original Question. Will the Minister give an undertaking to ensure that, under the recommendations of the DDA, or at least its equivalent, such people will be provided with access to the entire prison system?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think that, in relation to the provision of services for people inside prisons, whether for prison staff or for prisoners themselves—in so far as those services are provided by outside agencies—then the equivalent standards of the DDA should apply.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the best way to guarantee that disabled prisoners do not suffer discrimination would be to extend Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? However, some six months ago the Minister for Disabled People told me that she did not know when the provisions would be implemented, despite a clear commitment made by the Government. Will my noble and learned friend take this opportunity to tell the House by what date the extension of those provisions will be made?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot do so at the moment. Perhaps I may write to my noble friend.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, while I appreciate that the Government are committed to trying to improve conditions for prisoners, is the noble and learned Lord aware that at the moment many valuable prison health education programmes are being cut? I speak as a former worker in a young offenders' institution.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in looking at the needs of prisoners, one must bear in mind the kinds of health education programmes that will be of help to them when they get out. That in turn helps the wider community because such education helps to reduce reoffending. I am not aware of the particular programmes to which the noble Baroness has referred, but I thoroughly endorse the sentiment that such education helps the community as a whole.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister do what he can to encourage more disability awareness education for all those involved in prison work?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the fact that a needs assessment is presently being undertaken and is due to report in 12 months' time marks an important step towards people becoming more aware of disability issues in the context of prisons.

Migration to the European Union
3.24 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaireasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their proposals for action on migration into the European Union for the Seville European Council include proposals to publish accurate figures on current migrant flows, countries of origin, transit and destination.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, the Government are proposing a range of measures to speed up progress on migration and asylum measures at EU level. Clearly we need to make sure that our action is based on appropriate evidence. EU member states already share information on migratory flows on a regular basis. If our discussions with our EU partners highlight the need for additional information gathering, then we shall consider how we can work together to take that forward.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that it is not so much information gathering, but the publication of such information that is necessary if we are to hold a slightly less passionate debate about immigration? At present, phrases such as "being swamped" and "floods of immigrants" are used frequently without the benefit of detailed evidence. I was happy to note that, two days ago, the Foreign Secretary gave some figures, although those figures concerned which countries people are coming from and in what numbers. Figures to show whether flows are rising or falling are not so easily available. Could not the Government suggest that it would help to promote a more dispassionate debate if such figures were to be published?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, to an extent, yes. Noble Lords will know well that the problem with many migration statistics, in particular information with regard to illegal immigration, is that the people concerned are not particularly keen to be enumerated. Furthermore, it is often the case that problems are encountered with data comparisons between different countries.
Nevertheless I agree with the thrust of the question put by the noble Lord. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary could not have made clearer his position on race and immigration; namely, that we must stand absolutely clear on our commitment to oppose racism and those who seek to equate pressures from migration with racism. We must also recognise the very positive contribution made by migration into
888
the European Union and to the United Kingdom. The issue concerns bringing those migratory pressures under appropriate control.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will population densities and unemployment figures also be provided for the European Union?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I have no idea. I shall certainly raise those queries with the respective departments and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is very disturbing that recent research illustrates that many people in Britain, in particular the young, believe that there are 10 times as many immigrants in this country as is in fact the case? Should not a great deal of government time and resources be put into correcting this misapprehension so that, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, pointed out, we can have an intelligent rather than an emotional debate about this crucial issue?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I agree that poll evidence suggests that many members of the public have considerably misplaced perceptions of the scale of asylum-seeking. It is a point that needs to he rebutted by all responsible politicians. Both my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary could not have made it clearer that it is important to look truthfully at this issue. On the other hand, however, the reverse does not apply: it does not imply that nothing needs to be addressed.
Earlier this year we held a very good discussion on these issues. At the time the Government stated that it is crucial that the public should be convinced both by the Government and by responsible political parties that there are issues to be addressed, but that they are not out of control. Furthermore, we must sustain confidence in the fact that this country will welcome refugees, but that it does not have an open-door policy for economic migrants. That is impossible and the notion that it is happening in any way should not be allowed to catch fire.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I join with the Minister in welcoming a rational debate on this very important issue. Returning to the Question with regard to Seville, does he agree that there would be a greater chance of achieving progress if European-wide agreement were reached to the effect that, when people move from one safe country to another safe country, they should return to the safe country from which they started their travels to have their applications processed?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am pleased to welcome to the Dispatch Box a fellow newcomer on this issue. The noble Baroness has expressed exactly what we believe and what we think a number of other countries feel would be right; namely, that there should be a responsibility in this area, as had been the original intention of Dublin 1. The first safe country should

889
process the applications of asylum seekers. Under Dublin 2, one of the Prime Minister's goals for Seville, among a number of others, will be to try to ensure that we achieve a commitment to get a rapid agreement on Dublin 2, preferably by the end of this year.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that as the European Union enlarges there will be safe boundaries and that country states will be capable of carrying out their duties for the first registering of refugees?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs Committee of the European Union recognises that this is a significant challenge which requires vigorous preparation in terms of enlargement, which the Government strongly support. Enlargement will bring in a number of extra countries and considerably expand the land border. Some of those countries do not as yet have effective border controls for historical reasons. The challenge is to raise their performance on border control to the level of the best within Europe rather than allowing them to have the poorest border.

Business of the House: Summer Recess
3.30 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Bach repeats the Statement, perhaps I may say a word on a matter that may be of passing interest to the House—that is, the dates of the Summer Recess. The usual channels have been able to agree that, subject to the progress of business, we hope to rise at the close of business on Tuesday, 30th July and return on Monday, 7th September—I am sorry, October. That was a bad start. Monday, 7th October.
As noble Lords will know, "subject to the progress of business" is the phrase normally used. In this case it means precisely that. If business progress is slower than we expect at the moment, I shall have the grim task of coming before your Lordships and saying that it may be that we cannot rise when we are hoping to. On the other hand, if it is swifter, I shall have the joyous task of coming before your Lordships and saying that it may be that we can rise a little earlier. But those are the dates that we expect to adhere to.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Roper, for their help in the long and difficult task of trying to find agreed dates.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms for making this announcement today—it is in the interests of the House to know what are the Government's proposals—and for his personal remarks. At an earlier stage in both our careers I would have taken his kind remarks as an attempt to damage my career, but things are different here.
890
We believe that the Government are setting themselves—and hence your Lordships' House—artificially early deadlines for the completion of business. Before anyone reads too much to their advantage into the noble Lord's remarks about the progress of business, it is my opinion that the Committee stages we are looking at are likely to take a longer rather than a shorter time than that currently allowed for. But the Government are entitled to have their business considered and we shall try to make it work.
As to the noble Lord's Freudian slip, I expressed the view that many of your Lordships would prefer to come back a little earlier—for example, on 2nd October—rather than sitting in the week beginning 29th July. I hope that I was reflecting your Lordships' view in that respect. If it is really necessary for us to sit so much longer than another place—to maintain, among other things, our reputation as the hardest-working legislature in the world—that might be a better way to do it. After all, as we know, sitting in September rather than in July reflects the view of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I am glad that the Government Chief Whip has been able to make this announcement. It is for the convenience of the whole House to have information on these matters as early as possible. I thank him and his office for the hard work that they have put in over the past two days to ensure that we have a timetable. However, it is a challenging timetable which, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, will present us with some difficulties. I believe that it is possible to meet the timetable. I hope that we can achieve the optimistic view and even shave a day or two off it. Let us hope that that is the case.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it seems that in this House the Recesses get shorter and the sitting times get longer whereas in another place it appears to be the reverse and that the Recesses are longer and the sitting times are shorter. Can the noble Lord say what will be the Recess dates for the House of Commons? Is it not right that we should examine further the relationship between progress in each House so that this House does not have to sit a lot longer in order to accommodate the House of Commons sitting fewer days?
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, can the Government Chief Whip explain what are the Government's views now on family friendly policies? There is much interest in this subject in another place but, speaking as a mother with three young children, I take exception to the fact that family friendly policies seem to stop at the entrance to this Chamber. Here we are continuing, as always, to sit during the school holidays.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is very much in the mind of the Leader's Group and the Procedure

891
Committee. It may be that the outcome of discussions will result in what she seeks. I am entirely sympathetic to the point that she makes, but the choice here is whether the extra days come at the beginning or at the end. It would be nice to have fewer, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It was rightly pointed outthat several noble Lords—including some who have spoken—who used to be at the other end of the Corridor have popped down here thinking, "Well, maybe it has a more gentle, leisured style". Clearly, that is not the case. We have longer, more frequent days of sitting now than the other place.
As to the noble Lord's question about how long the Recess will be at the other end of the Corridor, I believe that they rise three days earlier than us and return a week later than us. So I suppose that he will say that his case is made. The mismatch between the sitting days at the two ends is a serious issue that will have to be addressed.
I greatly appreciate the efforts made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to reach accommodation on this issue. He referred to my Freudian slip. If he had seen noble Lords' reaction, as I did, when I made that Freudian slip, he would have noticed that it was more in the nature of blood draining from faces than any sense of exultation. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, for his help. I hope that we are able to keep to these dates.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Lord give an undertaking about the need for extra time being accommodated at the end of the Recess rather than at the beginning. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, those of us with school-age children have no time to go on holiday except in the month of August. If the extra time needed is added at the beginning it is extraordinarily inconvenient for those with families, whereas we would not mind if it was after September when the children have already gone back to school.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we are hoping to finish on 30th July, which is not an inordinately late day historically. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be highly desirable if we could look to more family friendly days of working. Those of us without children of school age may have grandchildren of school age and it is always desirable to achieve those objectives. But that may take a little negotiation.

Afghanistan
3.39 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement about the contribution that British forces have made to operations in Afghanistan and the future disposition of our forces in that country.
892
"Two groups of British forces have been deployed in Afghanistan with separate but closely complementary aims—security assistance to the Afghan Interim Administration and offensive operations against Al'Qaeda and the Taliban. The United Kingdom has contributed to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) which we have led since its inception; and, through Task Force Jacana, we have contributed to Operation Enduring Freedom, aimed at Al'Qacda.
"I shall address ISAF first. The House will recall that, from the outset, we planned to reduce our contribution to ISAF once we had transferred its leadership to one of our partners. This has taken longer then we originally anticipated. But we had to get this right—ISAF's success has been crucial to the stability of Kabul and, more widely, to Afghanistan, a strategic aim that is profoundly important to the United Kingdom.
"I told the House on 16th May that we were working towards achieving the handover of the command of the ISAF by the end of June. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that commend of the ISAF was formally transferred from General McColl to General Zorlu of the Turkish Army a few hours ago, in a ceremony attended by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of Slate for Defence and the Chief of the General Staff.
"I should like to take this opportunity to record our thanks for the considerable work that Turkey has done to make the handover a success. The United States has also made a significant contribution to this process—not least by providing strategic airlift to move Turkish troops to Kabul. For our part, we have agreed to leave computer and communications equipment and a fire engine in Afghanistan for use by the new ISAF headquarters. Some British troops will remain with the ISAF as well—I will say more about this later.
"No one who has been involved—and the British and Turkish staffs have been working closely together now for some time—can doubt the great importance that Turkey attaches to a successful tenure in command. We have every confidence in General Zorlu and his troops as they build on and take forward the excellent work that ISAF has already achieved.
"ISAF under Major General McColl has been a great success. It is no exaggeration to say that the force, while limited geographically to the area of Kabul, has had an impact right across Afghanistan. The Emergency Loya Jirgah and its local and regional groups would have been impossible without the reassurance, stability and sense of normality that ISAF helped the Afghan Interim Authority bring to Kabul. And without a secure place where representatives of all Afghanistan's people could meet to discuss how they want to govern their country, the gains of the past nine months could have been lost. Those members of our Armed Forces who have been involved with the

893
ISAF should rightly feel proud of what they have achieved. They have the thanks of this House and of the British people.
"The Emergency Loya Jirgah, which concluded this morning, offered the Afghan people their first opportunity in decades to play a decisive role in choosing their government. It demonstrates the great progress that has been made since the collapse of the Taliban. Less then a year ago, the lives of the Afghan people were blighted by that cruel regime. It is a remarkable tribute to the decisive coalition action against the Taliban, to the Afghan people, and to the Interim Administration under Hamid Karzai, that within only six months, this large and peaceful assembly, representing all the Afghan people, has taken place in Kabul.
"The Loya Jirgah has given the Afghan people the chance to build a future based on mutual respect, human rights and democracy. It is a significant step towards the goal of representative, democratic elections, which are due to be held in 2004.
"As for the Emergency Loya Jirgah itself, I warmly welcome its decision to elect Hamid Karzai as Afghanistan's head of state. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has written on behalf of the Government to congratulate him personally. Hamid Karzai risked his life to play a crucial role in the early stages of rebuilding Afghanistan. He deserves our full support.
"Through a combination of tact, diplomacy, understanding and firm authority, the ISAF has made a real difference on the ground. In the six months it has been in Kabul it has mounted 2,185 joint patrols with the Afghan police, increasing security on the streets of Kabul; destroyed or disposed of nearly 3 million munitions, including guided weapons, fuses, rockets, submunitions, bombs, shells, small arms ammunition, mortar bombs, grenades and both anti-tank and antipersonnel landmines—indeed, nearly 80 per cent of all the munitions destroyed were anti-personnel landmines, on its own a massive contribution towards the safety of the Afghan people; operated an ambulance service across Kabul throughout the night-time curfew; begun the process of reforming Afghanistan's security sector through the training of the 1st Battalion of the Afghan National Guard; completed some 200 aid projects in co-operation with the local civil authorities and other agencies—repairing roads, utilities, health, education, and administrative services.
"All this has made a real improvement to the lives of the people of Kabul. There is still more to do, but Kabul is again a bustling city. The vast majority of the people recognise, value and support ISAF's work. The warm welcome its patrols receive in the streets is proof enough of that, as I have seen for myself.
"This is not, of course, simply a British achievement. The ISAF is a truly multinational force. Nineteen other countries answered the call to
894
provide forces. The United States has given invaluable assistance and support. Without the efforts of all these nations, the ISAF would not have been the success it has been.
"But we should certainly take pride in the particular British contribution to the force. General McColl and the British contingent have made a lasting and favourable impression on the Afghan people. Thanks to the efforts of British servicemen and women, we now have many friends in Afghanistan, from children on the streets of Kabul to the most senior members of the Afghan administration.
"The House will be pleased to know that the 1st Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment, will come home once it has completed transferring its responsibilities to the Turkish battlegroup that is replacing it. Together with many of the British forces committed to ISAF, they will have returned to the United Kingdom by the middle of next month.
"But that is not the end of our involvement with ISAF. It remains vital to the maintenance of security in Kabul and a stable future for Afghanistan. The United Kingdom will remain a major contributing nation. In total, our contribution will reduce from about 1,300 to some 400 troops. These will primarily be engineers and logistics support troops—high-value specialists who can bring important expertise that will be of specific use to ISAF.
"There is now a degree of optimism in Afghanistan that was unthinkable just a few months ago and ISAF has played a major role in creating a more secure environment. But, while Kabul is a safer place and Afghanistan as a whole is more secure, there is still a terrorist threat. The mountainous and inaccessible regions remain an ideal hiding-place for the Al'Qaeda and Taliban forces that are working to destroy that new-found sense of security. That was why we deployed Task Force Jacana—a 1,700-strong battlegroup formed around 45 Commando Royal Marines—at the request of the United States.
"There is no doubt that Al'Qaeda has been dealt a shattering blow by the coalition military action. But elements of that network remain. Recent arrests in Morocco and the United States have demonstrated that Al'Qaeda retains both the ambition and the capacity to threaten, and take, many lives. It is striving every day to find ways to use that capacity— including in Afghanistan.
"The future of Afghanistan now looks brighter than it has for some time. A significant milestone has been passed successfully with the conclusion of the Loya Jirgah, but Al'Qaeda have not gone away. We know they have been determined to undermine and derail the rebuilding process. The presence of Royal Marines and others on the ground in eastern Afghanistan has helped prevent them from achieving this. Our forces have denied ground to Al'Qaeda remnants and destroyed terrorist infrastructure. They have been crucial in providing a secure environment for the Emergency Loya Jirgah.

895
"The four operations conducted by Task Force Jacana—Ptarmigan, Snipe, Condor and, most recently, Buzzard—have involved destroying 28 bunkers and caves; flying over 1,000 helicopter sorties in the Chinooks of 27 Squadron, in an environment so demanding that it required us to operate at the edge of the aircraft's capabilities; finding and destroying 45,000 rounds of munitions, from machine-gun rounds to 155mm artillery shells. British troops also recovered two mortar systems and 440 107mm rocket systems. Every round destroyed helps to contain the terrorist threat and safeguard Afghanistan's future.
"The force also conducted significant humanitarian assistance work in its area of operations, so winning the hearts and minds of Afghan people in areas previously dominated by the Taliban and Al'Qaeda. For example, more than nine tonnes of wheat and 1,100 blankets have been distributed to those who need them.
"I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that Task Force Jacana has been led in an exemplary fashion from the start. Brigadier Roger Lane has done an outstanding job in leading his troops in four demanding operations through rugged, high-altitude terrain, which has been as tough as any that British units have had to tackle in recent memory.
"We should bear in mind that these operations carried, and still carry, real risks and we should be grateful that we have achieved such success without loss of life. Those who carp about the lack of action do so from a position of ignorance about the nature of warfare. That is one thing. It is quite another to wish that our troops had come under fire, which appears to have been the hope of some armchair commentators in recent weeks.
"It would have been quite wrong had I come before this House just over three months ago and not warned of the risks that our forces could face. British troops were and are keen to engage the enemy. They want to demonstrate the courage and professionalism that are the hallmarks of Britain's Armed Forces. However, the enemy is no fool. He has learned from the harsh defeat that he suffered during Operation Anaconda and has avoided further direct contact with our forces.
"I have previously told the House that the Jacana deployment would last in the order of three months. On the completion of Operation Buzzard, Task Force Jacana will be withdrawn from Afghanistan. The phased drawdown of the force will begin on 4th July and, subject as always to operational demands, should be complete by late next month. The drawdown will enable us to rest and reconstitute our forces for future contingencies. After consultation with the United States and our other coalition partners about the challenges and likely tasks ahead, I have concluded that there is no need to replace 45 Commando immediately. However, we will retain stores in Afghanistan to enable an even more rapid deployment than the initial one should that be required.
896
"Taken together, the handover of the ISAF command, the return home of the 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, and the drawdown of Task Force Jacana means that the number of British forces in the operational theatre in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region supporting these operations should reduce from more than 4,000 today to some 2,000 by late summer. However, we will still maintain a Tomahawk-armed submarine presence, ships, aircraft and elements of other forces in Afghanistan and the region. These include forces on the ground—elements of 40 Commando will remain at Bagram, where they have played a vital role in helping to secure and protect the airfield. We shall also have logistics support personnel at Bagram as part of our capacity rapidly to deploy additional forces if the operational situation demands it.
"This reduction in numbers does not mean a reduction in our commitment either to Afghanistan or to the campaign against international terrorism. In fact, it is proof of our willingness to keep up military action for as long as it takes. This is not a conventional campaign. It will vary in tempo and location. The United Kingdom has forces with capabilities that few can match. That is why we must use them where they can do the most good.
"Crucial to the long-term future of Afghanistan as a stable and secure state will be the reform of its entire security sector—the army, the police and the structures that guide and control them. This is crucial if Afghanistan is to enjoy the stability that will permit economic and social recovery from decades of conflict. It is essential to ensure that Afghanistan does not slip back to being a failed state that provides a safe haven to terrorists. Together with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, the Ministry of Defence is making a significant contribution to the international effort to achieve security sector reform.
"The United Kingdom is therefore co-ordinating international counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan. The new Afghan authorities have taken a tough line on drugs, issuing a decree banning the cultivation, processing and trafficking in heroin. We should applaud their resolve in tackling this problem, against the background of the poppy crop's economic significance to the people of parts of Afghanistan. Financial assistance has been offered to farmers who voluntarily eradicate their crops. This has had some success. We estimate that around a third of this year's crop has been destroyed. Afghan farmers who currently depend on opium production must have an alternative and legal livelihood. The international community needs to provide carefully targeted assistance to this. This is obviously a long-term problem and not one that can be solved in a single season.
"Our forces have been engaged in invaluable work in Afghanistan. They have carried out their duties with outstanding professionalism. There is more to do in the rebuilding of that country. We are determined to play our full part in this. That

897
means ensuring that we maintain a sustainable commitment of forces and preserve a balance between contributing to military operations, training and maintaining skills and, importantly, giving our forces the opportunity to rest and spend time with their families. The changes in our contributions to operations in Afghanistan do that. I am sure that the House will give them its support".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed Statement. We on these Benches congratulate Her Majesty's Armed Forces on carrying out yet again another two exemplary operations, this time in Afghanistan. I am sure the whole House thanks all our service men and women who took part in these operations. They should be justly proud of what they have done. The families of those who have been deployed should also not be forgotten, as they have had to put up with yet another period of separation.
The Statement was divided into two parts—ISAF and Task Force Jacana. I shall raise a few points under those two headings. The commander of ISAF, Major General McColl, is also to be congratulated on achieving such success with ISAF. I am not going to repeat all its achievements, as they have been listed in the Statement. He has undertaken a most difficult operation with great success. To bring together a multi-national force of 5,000 troops who have never trained together or even seen each other before is a significant achievement. To command such a fighting force in and around a war-torn city containing many gangsters and feuding warlords and to return that city to some normality, with peace and order on the streets and schools and hospitals reopened—and to do so without reliable intelligence—is a remarkable feat.
We on these Benches very much welcome the withdrawal of many of our troops from ISAF and at the same time wish every success to General Zorlu and the Turkish Army now in command of ISAF. I have noticed that there is no mention of the command arrangements for the British troops who will not be withdrawn. Will the Minister clarify under whose direct command our troops will be? Which logistic troops and supporting troops will be in the force of 400 left behind? Will he go into more detail about the tasks that they will be employed to do? We very much welcome the return of the 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment.
On Operation Jacana, 45 Commando is to be congratulated on its successes. However, as the Statement warned, the return of Al'Qaeda is easy and may happen at any time. We also welcome the return of 45 Royal Marine Commando, less the elements of 40 Commando remaining to secure the Bagram airbase—a vital airfield for the support and sustainability of the remaining force and for any reinforcement, should it be required. Will the Minister clarify whether reinforcement would be required
898
from the United Kingdom, and if so, under what conditions? Which elements of the Army, Navy and Air Force will remain in theatre?
I entirely support the comments about those who carp about the lack of action. Those, including the press, who make such statements should be very ashamed. They clearly have no idea about military operations. They should remain silent and not criticise an extremely dangerous and difficult operation. Great bravery and determination have been proved in some of the most difficult terrain in which troops have operated.
As I mentioned only yesterday, the Army is overcommitted. Over-commitment degrades training because the gap between tours of duty and operations becomes insufficient. That is what is happening now. Will the noble Lord give an undertaking that no more exercises will be cancelled, there will be no more shortages of spare parts, and there will be no more shortages of ammunition, fuel and equipment, so that our Armed Forces can train properly? Over-commitment also degrades retention, and the Army in particular is severely under-strength. Will the noble Lord say whether there is any intention to cut the Army establishment?
It is essential that we sustain Armed Forces that can be properly trained to carry out operations, develop and hone their skills, and yet have time to spend with their families, as has been said. The withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan is very welcome and is a start to being able to achieve this. However, this withdrawal on its own will not reduce the operational figure to the 19 per cent which will achieve it overall.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the Statement. We echo the sentiments expressed by the Minister that it is a matter for celebration that, considering the very hostile nature of the operation, there were no fatalities. The fact is that 45 Commando has done an excellent job in Afghanistan. The fact that it has not had to undertake extensive firefights inevitably leads one to believe that Al'Qaeda and Taliban forces have seen the Marines' professionalism and strength. I believe that, as in Sierra Leone, it was those factors that discouraged extensive fighting. Those factors have also enabled the peaceful situation which has made it possible to conduct a successful Loya Jirgah. Extensive military operations probably would have made that much more difficult to achieve.
We have long expected that Turkey would take over the lead role in ISAF under the command of General Zorlu. However, if one of our other allies is not prepared to take over that role from Turkey, will British forces return to it? Although that would be unfortunate, it might be necessary to maintain the integrity of the ISAF mission.
The Minister mentioned the importance of rebuilding Afghanistan. There is some concern that, whereas there was full backing for the military commitment, similar support is not forthcoming for

899
the rebuilding programme. The money that has been pledged does not seem to have materialised. Surely Afghanistan's security will be threatened if that country is not rebuilt, with direct consequences for Britain. Although action has been taken to counter heroin production in Afghanistan, production would be easier in an unsecured Afghanistan. Part of that crop would almost inevitably appear on British streets.
The real benefit of withdrawal from Afghanistan is partial easing of the perennial overstretch problem. I very much hope that the troops and the many support staff helping them will be allowed to rest and recuperate, rather than being immediately put on standby for future and as yet unannounced commitments. I have two questions on overstretch. First, has a date been agreed for the next reduction in troop numbers in the Balkans? Secondly, do the Government have any idea of the projected commitment of British forces to Macedonia?
4.5 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords very much for their comments, especially for their support for the Statement and for their kind and impressive words about our Armed Forces. I am sure that their words, as well as the Statement, will be welcomed by those members of the Armed Forces.
Various questions have been asked, some of which I can answer now. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, wanted to know what ISAF and our troops remaining in Afghanistan will do. As the Statement says, the troops who will remain as ISAF members are primarily engineers and logistics support troops. They are high-value specialists and, after discussions, it was decided that they could most usefully serve now as ISAF members. ISAF will continue to fulfil the UN mandate. The detailed tasks will of course depend on the nature of the continuing situation, which we hope and expect will improve.
British leadership of ISAF in its first few months, and the fact that a substantial number—400—British troops are remaining, are undeniable factors in ISA F's success. Our troops' performance in such situations easily bears comparison with that of any other country in the world, as the past few months have shown.
As the Statement says, approximately 2,000 troops will remain in and around Afghanistan, comprised of members of all the Armed Forces. I shall not go into detail as to what they may or may not do. However, a considerable British presence will remain in and around Afghanistan.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked what will happen when Turkey's leadership ends. It is too early to say. As he will know, however, discussions on that issue are under way. That is really all that I can say about that.
Unsurprisingly, both noble Lords used the word "overstretch". As noble Lords will know, that is not a word that I employ. I am not sure that it describes the position. We do not believe that our Armed Forces are overstretched. What we do say is that they are clearly very busy. Today's Statement on Afghanistan
900
demonstrates our commitment to withdraw service personnel from operations at the earliest possible opportunity—the crucial phrase—in order to ease the demands placed on them.
As for figures, the review of the Army's future manpower requirement has been concluded and the figure of 106,978 was recently published as the revised manning target. As of May 2002, whole Army strength stood at 101,320. Recent performance has been encouraging, with whole Army strength increasing by about 1,300 in the past 12 months. It is predicted that the whole Army strength will increase to between 103,000 and 104,000 by the year 2005. Of course, that is not to say that there are no difficulties; it would be foolish to pretend that that is the case. However, recruitment has certainly gone up during the course of the past 12 months. There are other problems. Noble Lords will be quick to say that retention is one of them. Of course, that is correct.
As I say, we continue to withdraw personnel from operations at the earliest possible opportunity but I remind the House that the percentage of the Army committed to operations has reduced from 44 per cent in June 1999, during the height of the Kosovo campaign, to around 27 per cent. That includes those preparing for, deployed on and recovering from operations in April 2002. Those actually on operations at the present time, before we start to withdraw the troops we are discussing, amount to a figure of about 20 per cent.
The average interval between unit tours has also improved. The Army's latest average figure—I emphasise the word "average"—is around 24 months, which is consistent with the SDR target. However, we recognise that some individuals do not fall the right side of that particular average.
I hope that I have answered most of the questions asked by the two noble Lords. As regards the Balkans, no date has yet been set by the United Nations for any reduction in troops there.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that for those of us who have had the privilege of serving in the Armed Forces, and have had ministerial responsibility in this area, there is no doubt whatsoever that one of our finest assets in the United Kingdom is the quality and professionalism of the services, not least the Royal Marines? Does my noble friend agree therefore that it is proper for the whole House to record its immense appreciation for what the services have done in these difficult circumstances in Afghanistan and for the patience and long suffering of their families who must have been very anxious for much of the time?
Does not my noble friend agree that one of the highest priorities must be to encourage the new administration in Afghanistan to take responsibility for security and that, therefore, reform of the security sector—the building up of the Afghan military services and, indeed, the building up of the civil police—is a crucial priority?

901
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, security in Afghanistan will never be won on that score alone. The economic and social redevelopment and reconstruction of Afghanistan is absolutely crucial, not least if the game being played by the warlords is to be undermined. In that context, can my noble friend reassure the House that there is some acceleration and strengthening of commitment, not only on our part but also on that of our allies, to ensure the success of the economic and social reconstruction programme in that country?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments and for his remarks on the British Armed Forces, in particular the Marines. I agree with the other points that he raised. Although the Statement is concerned primarily with defence, defence activities should not be considered on their own. The noble Lord is absolutely right to stress the need for economic and social development. That is just as important, if not more so, in the long term as our defence activities at the present time.
Right from the beginning the British Government have been committed to ensure that various departments of state are involved in Afghanistan. The noble Lord will remember that the Statement referred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, DfID and the Ministry of Defence as being linked together. We work together on this matter. Our Armed Forces in ISAF and the Marines have carried out humanitarian work that probably would not have been done if they had not been there. I promise to pass on the noble Lord's comment about the need to accelerate that side of our activity in the months to come. I think that he will find that that will happen.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I add my personal and warmest tribute to the achievement of the British forces which comes as no surprise to any Member of this House. The British forces bring to this kind of task not only significant military capability and courage but also that quality of humour and good nature on the streets which can win hearts and minds in an absolutely vital and crucial way.
I have two or three questions for the Minister. First, did I hear him say that Turkey would lead 1SAF for any particular length of time? Is there a fixed period? Is a further leadership envisaged? Secondly, Afghanistan is hardly a country. If it is to be a country, some unifying security force is critical. There is a reference to the training of 1 Battalion. What are the plans for training any further battalions? Who will be responsible for that? Is it an ISAF responsibility? Does it now become a Turkish responsibility to start training further battalions? Thirdly, the Minister referred to problems of retention and recruitment. I believe that he referred to a target strength of 106,000. Subject to the difficulties of retention and recruitment
902
being effectively tackled, can I take it that the funding is in place to enable that figure of 106,000 troops, if it can be achieved, to be paid for?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. He has held high office in the defence field. His comments therefore are of particular value. He did not mishear: I did not mention a time-scale for Turkey's period of leadership as I am not in a position to do so. However, I believe that one can anticipate that it will be of roughly the same length as our leadership. I am afraid that I cannot help the noble Lord further on that matter.
As regards numbers, we would not have mentioned the figure of 106,000-plus if resources were not available to meet that. The noble Lord asked another question, which I—
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I asked about training.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of that. As I understand the position, the Americans have played an important role in training the new Afghan security force. I do not know whether that involves just the armed forces or whether it includes the police or other elements that make up that crucial security capacity. I do not know who will now be responsible for training the new Afghan army but I shall write to the noble Lord on that matter.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I too welcome the Statement. I join noble Lords in congratulating our Armed Forces. I pay tribute to them and to their families in regard to the sacrifices they have made.
I have one major and one minor question for the Minister. The first question relates to the destruction of the opium crop. I can see that the opium crop may need to be destroyed, but are farmers compensated for that? If you destroy crops and do not compensate people, you make them hostile. Will the international development agencies seek a way to capture the opium crop and make it non-marketable and, while encouraging farmers not to replant opium, at the same time ensure that they do not lose money as a consequence of our drugs policy? If we do not have an effective drugs policy, it is not their fault.
Secondly, as regards the creation of an Afghan nation, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord King, that is a matter for the Loya Jirgah and politics. Surely there are enough trained people in Afghanistan who can fire a gun and various other arms; the question is to win them over to the government's side. What may be required is a political means of incorporating the warring people into a national army.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's comments about our Armed Forces. I shall do my best to answer his questions. Financial assistance has already been offered to farmers who voluntarily eradicate their opium crop. No doubt that form of assistance will be improved over time. The noble Lord

903
is right to say that if farmers have for years lived off the proceeds of growing opium but suddenly find that they are no longer able to do so, they will be tempted to continue unless they are properly compensated.
The noble Lord's second comment, about the new Afghan army—and, indeed, any new Afghan security force—was absolutely right. That involves as much a political question as a question of training. Great care has been taken to ensure that all the elements that make up Afghanistan are included in the 1st Battalion of the new Afghan National Guard, to which I referred. That can be difficult but it has been taken on board. Nothing would be worse than if the security forces in Afghanistan were committed for various reasons to one part of that nation rather than another.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I join in the congratulations expressed by noble Lords throughout the House on the excellence of, and superb services provided by, all our Armed Forces. I say how very proud we all are of them. Could the Minister give us some information about when all of 45 Royal Marine Commando will be able to return to Arbroath? Could he also give us—I know that this is more difficult—any idea of what future commitment there could be for our Armed Forces? I am aware that that means donning his fortune-telling hat.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I know of her great interest and involvement in the part of Scotland in which Arbroath is found. As I understand it, all of 45 Royal Marine, which is currently in Afghanistan taking part in Operation Jacana, will return home in the time period that I mentioned; some will do so sooner rather than later. If I am wrong, I shall let the noble Baroness know at once.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I join in the general congratulations that have been extended to our Armed Forces. I pay tribute in particular to those engaged in the destruction of munitions, who may help to save civilian lives in Afghanistan. We should recognise that those doing that work face hardship and danger carrying out that important task.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, did we complete the training of the 1st Battalion of the Afghan National Guard? If not, could he say more about to whom we handed over the immediate task, irrespective of his promise to write to noble Lords about the long-term future of the training programme for Afghan security forces as a whole?
Secondly, pursuant to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, can the Minister give an undertaking that British troops who are now being withdrawn from Afghanistan will not be redeployed in active service—that might have been foreshadowed by the reference in the Statement to future contingencies—without a full Statement in your Lordships' House and the other place?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can give that last guarantee to the noble Lord. If we are to send more soldiers or
904
other members of our Armed Forces to Afghanistan in considerable numbers, so as to counter some of the effects of what I have announced today, both Houses of Parliament should be informed. Both Houses of Parliament were informed about Operation Jacana when the 45 Royal Marine first went to Afghanistan.
I thank the noble Lord for his comments on those who destroy munitions. Those outside this House do not always recognise the crucial role that the Armed Forces play as a force for good, as peacekeepers, in making civilisation more possible by getting rid of some of the dreadful landmines. Both of the forces to which I have referred today have been involved in that effort. It is of huge value in saving lives and making sure that people are not injured.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, first, what financial arrangements have been made for the reimbursement of Turkey for undertaking its role? What contribution is Britain making to that reimbursement, both as a proportion and as a sum of money? Secondly, what has been the total cost to us so far of our military involvement in Afghanistan? Which countries have contributed to that cost, and how much did they contribute?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot help the noble Lord with his second question, but I shall make sure that he is written to and given the latest figures that are available. So far as Turkey is concerned, the British Government have not paid any financial assistance to the Turks. As I said when I repeated the Statement, we have left some equipment for them, including the computers to which I referred. The United States, which has given its firm support to us—it will also do so to Turkey—has played a full part in the discussions concerning the handover and it gave Turkey 28 million dollars in financial assistance.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, while the Minister may not like to use the word "overstretch", is he aware that almost everyone else uses it and that almost everyone else believes that the Army is currently seriously overstretched?
The Minister kindly gave noble Lords various figures about Army strength and recruitment. Has he heard reports—I heard one only this morning— stating that the Government's current intention is to cut the size of the Army to below 100,000 in future defence reviews? Bearing in mind the level of overstretch, the continuing terrorist threat, the demands of the new European ESDP and the need to catch up with training—my noble friend on the Front Bench referred to that—it would be absolute lunacy at the moment to reduce the size of the Army to below 100,000. Will he tell us that those reports are totally unfounded?
Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, I can indeed. I am happy to tell the noble Lord and the House that those reports are totally unfounded. The figure that I gave— 106,978—is the considered figure after reviewing the Army's future manpower requirement. I know that

905
articles in the press have made the suggestion that the noble Lord kindly put to me. Those articles—not for the first time in the defence field—are wrong.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we are rightly paying tribute to our Armed Forces for their remarkable role in achieving security, especially in Kabul. Does the Minister also recognise the contribution of British non-governmental organisations, which deploy considerable forces, not least in the field of security? I refer, for example, to the mine-clearance agencies.
The Minister mentioned engineers. Is it true that the ISAF forces are now moving outside Kabul into civil engineering? Have they a role in, for example, the reconstruction of roads from the Iranian border, with which the Government of Iran are involved?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am more than happy to acknowledge the very important role that NGOs have played right from the start in Afghanistan. They went there when it was extremely dangerous to do so. I am grateful to the noble Earl for having raised that.
On ISAF, the United Nations resolution that set it up and which continues it relates to Kabul and the area immediately surrounding it. So far, that is precisely the area on which those working in ISAF have concentrated. Moving to a wider area in Afghanistan would be a big step, which has not yet been taken.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the importance that the Afghan Government attach to the elimination of the opium poppy is confirmed by the fact that the Minister of Defence, when an assassination attempt was made on him a few months ago, was engaged in precisely that role with other army officers? Did I correctly understand the Minister to say that some of the British troops who remain will continue to train the Afghan army, which at present consists of only two battalions? If so, that is an immensely important role, not least to this country because historically, as the Minister no doubt knows, 90 per cent of the heroin in this country has come from Afghanistan. Over the past year, the growth of the poppy in Afghanistan has increased dramatically following a ban imposed by the Taliban.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. There is no doubt that the administration in Afghanistan has taken a brave stance on opium and heroin. It is one with which we shall assist them as best we can for exactly the reason given by the noble Lord. Many people in this country are victims of that terrible trade, and it has gone on for many years.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, are our forces being brought back from Afghanistan and possibly from Kosovo with a view to their future deployment in assisting the United States in a possible engagement with Iraq?
Lord Bach: My Lords, they are not being brought back for that reason. No decision has been taken to
906
launch military action and such action is not imminent. As we have made clear on a number of occasions, we are proceeding patiently and prudently in consultation with our allies and we are giving Iraq every chance to comply with United Nations resolutions. Therefore, the answer to the noble Lady is: no.

Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Bill [H.L.]
4.31 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Elton) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"Possession of anything for mobile telephone reprogramming purposes

(1) A person commits an offence if he has in his custody or under his control anything which he may use for the purpose of changing or interfering with the operation of a unique device identifier.

(2) A unique device identifier is an electronic equipment identifier which is unique to a mobile wireless communication device.

(3) It shall be a defence against a crime committed under section 2(1)(a) if the person is able to demonstrate that he is required to have in his custody or under his control that thing for legitimate purposes.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or to a fine or to both."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by saying that I am grateful to the Minister for sending me a letter in which he set out in detail how he expected the Bill to work. But it remains a concern of myself and my colleagues that the Bill, as currently drafted, is not sufficiently clear and not sufficiently strong. Perhaps I should reiterate the purpose of the Bill, which is to make it a criminal offence to tamper with the unique identification number of a mobile telephone. The intention is to prevent the second-hand market, as one might say, in stolen mobile telephones.
The Bill is wholly laudable in intention and, indeed, we support it entirely in principle. But our concern is that it is not sufficiently precise to catch people and, indeed, we believe that more could have been done to prevent the crime. The offence that we seek to stop is not the crime of tampering with mobile telephones and the marginal loss of revenue to mobile telephone

907
companies; we are seeking to stop muggings on the street in which people are robbed of mobile telephones. Therefore, it is street crime and street violence and part of that general campaign which is far more significant. We believe that, in other circumstances, the Bill could have been rather more fortunately drafted with a definition of the offence. My amendment seeks to bring that about.
I am bound to tell the Committee that I tried to table another amendment which I believe would have been even more effective. When I questioned how one measures a person's intent to commit a crime, the Minister's letter to me explained that if someone is found with the equipment to alter a unique identification number and if he is found with 50 stolen mobile telephones, one might reasonably infer that he had the intent to commit the crime. That is so. But people in that category would quickly learn to keep their stock of stolen mobile telephones separate from the equipment which they would need to use. Therefore, I asked myself: why not make it an offence for an ordinary individual to own or have in his possession four or more mobile telephones? I tried very hard to come up with a reasonable number. I could not think why anyone would want three mobile telephones. Therefore, it seemed to me that four was probably a safe number to choose.
When I tried to table an amendment to that effect, I regret that the Clerks, to whom we have to turn for guidance, considered the matter and said that such an amendment was not permissible because the terms under which the Bill is drafted are so tight and so specific that such wording would not be acceptable. I must defer to their expertise. However, that leads me to the conclusion that perhaps the driving motive for the drafting was to get the Bill passed quickly rather than necessarily to consider keenly ways of preventing such offences taking place and to do something to improve the environment on our streets.
However, we should be clear that in order to amend an identification number for a mobile telephone one simply needs a computer and a particular type of computer program. One cannot very well start to restrict the sale of computers if, as the Bill says, one believes that someone might commit an offence with them. As to the program, I have here a print-out of some 75 pages to which I was referred when I researched this matter. It tells me very precisely how, to use a vernacular phrase, to "clock" a mobile telephone. That information is freely available. I dare say that the suppliers of that information might have been slightly amused to see it being downloaded in so august a place as this House.
But the fact is that, if my amendment is approved—if the Minister is gracious enough to accept it—it will knock me down because I shall quickly have to take that mass of paper to the shredder or I shall become a criminal through having the means of doing the job.
Lord Campbell-Savours: Will the noble Lord give way? When I was faced with that dilemma this morning, I used my own personal computer so that I
908
did not have to use the parliamentary intranet computer, with which we are provided, for fear that I might find myself equally in difficulty.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I suppose that there is a remote possibility that, in downloading the material on to my computer, I have managed to download it on to everyone else's computer on the intranet. That would have most amusing consequences.
On a more serious note, in my submission, the amendment that we propose makes the position of the crime more clear in the Bill. The amendment states that possession of anything for mobile telephone reprogramming purposes will be an offence. It then goes on to provide a defence because there are legitimate uses for such programs, or so I am told—I defer to other people's expertise. Therefore, subsection (3) of the amendment states:
"It shall be a defence against a crime committed under [this] section … if the person is able to demonstrate that he is required to have in his custody or under his control that thing for legitimate purposes".
It may be argued that in tabling such an amendment we are making a presumption of guilt.. In British law a presumption of guilt is already accepted if one happens to have on one's computer a load of paedophiliac photographs. I do not believe that we can argue that that creates an unreasonable precedent. It is not unreasonable to work in this way and provide a defence.
That is the substance of the amendment. We believe that it provides a clearer position than that in the Bill where a person commits an offence if he has under his custody or control anything that may be used in that way and he intends to use it. I believe that there are difficulties in relation to judging intent, although circumstantial evidence can create a reasonable supposition of intent. The same applies to the second clause of the Bill on the supply of equipment. It deals with whether a supplier,
"knows or believes that the person to whom the thing is supplied intends to use it unlawfully".
This is an interesting Bill which has been designed to be passed quickly and almost without thought. I believe that we can improve it and I hope that my amendment, which is designed to improve it, may be acceptable to the Minister. Amendment No. 2 is consequential upon Amendment No. 1 and if we get nowhere with the first amendment, Amendment No. 2 will sink without trace. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): If this amendment is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 2 on the ground of inconsistency.
Lord Campbell-Savours: I ask my noble friend's forgiveness as I have some friends waiting for me outside the Chamber. I did not expect the Statement to take place over the past hour.
I want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and point to some specific equipment that may be one of the things—"things" being the key word in his amendment. There is an early reference to "anything"

909
and then "thing". That "thing" could be a cable that links the PC to the phone; that could be the interface between the two. Perhaps in reply my noble friend could make specific reference to that because in a conversation that I had a couple of hours ago with someone in this area of business—it seemed an interesting Bill on which to carry out some work—reference was made to problems that may arise with the possession of a cable as an interface.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: We also support the broad principle of this Bill, as we said at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is absolutely right to talk about the extent to which crimes in relation to mobile phones have caused a serious blip in car crime figures, particularly when violence is used.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I well remember him making the same point at Second Reading. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the Minister's letter. It would have given me an explanation, but that does not matter. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was good enough to let me have a copy of his amendment. I am interested in the Minister's observation about the amendment.
At first sight, I do not see anything wrong with what is proposed. Clause 1 sets out circumstances under which a person does not commit an offence, such as being the "manufacturer of the device" or because the action of re-programming has been authorised by the manufacturer of the device. The amendment broadens that provision in that it provides an individual with a defence,
"that he is required to have in his custody or under his control"—
a mobile device—
"for legitimate purposes".
In terms of the defence provided there is a difference of emphasis. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain whether the amendment would be more productive than the Home Office provision.
Lord Filkin: I thank both Front Benches for their expressions of broad support for the intent of the Bill, if we have not yet reached unanimity on the exact mechanisms. I shall resist the invitation to respond to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, did not move and try to focus on the one that he did. He raised some interesting, almost Second Reading type questions, about the context of the amendment. I shall speak briefly as we are in Committee.
In essence, the Bill is the product of some effective work between the police and the mobile phone industry. There has been clear and strong pressure from them both that it is necessary and desirable to move forward as rapidly as possible and to introduce this legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, also raised questions about the wider context. The Government have been extremely active in the past
910
year or so in terms of considering mobile phone theft and its relationship to street crime in general and to the street crimes initiative.
A range of actions are under way in terms of crime prevention and detection: closer and more vigorous targeting by the police; working with the police on identifying hot spots; high visibility policing and robbery teams; video ID parades; fast-track street crime cases; street crime courts proposals; enhancement of victim support schemes; the Crown Prosecution Service premium service; electronic tagging of juveniles and so on. There is a wider context. He is quite right to say, and we do not pretend this to be the case, that one Bill, with only three clauses, will provide the total solution to the problem. We believe that it is a necessary part of that picture and we are emboldened by the strong desire from the industry and the police to move forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, invited me to make a judgment about whether he was guilty of creating an offence. We have not yet passed the Bill, but had we done so, I would say that he was not guilty. Although he may have downloaded the software, I have known him long enough to believe that there was no intent to go with it. Is my judgment wrong?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I thought I had made it plain that the offence would have been mine if the Minister accepted my amendment.
Lord Filkin: I rest my case. The central point is that the Bill states that one has to have the means to change it and the prosecution has to prove the intent at the same time. In that context, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours ingeniously suggested that he, in possession of a table on which his PC sat, may potentially be in danger. One cannot use a table for the purpose of,
"changing or interfering with the operation of a unique device identifier".
Lord Campbell-Savours: I said "cable" not "table"!
Lord Filkin: Despite my hearing, I believe that the point still stands. A cable by itself is not capable of reprogramming a mobile phone in that way. Only software has that capacity. Therefore, I believe that he is safe with his cable, or even his table!
Let me say that, while we are appreciative of the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—it is right and necessary to ensure that we get it right—we do not believe his amendment to be necessary. It reflects his clearly expressed concerns at Second Reading that the offences proposed in Clause 2 of the Bill may criminalise legitimate retailers and people who own computers and software programmes which are capable of changing mobile telephone numbers.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My noble friend says that a cable could not be so used. In fact the Bill says,
"A person commits an offence if…he offers to supply anything which may be used for the purpose of changing or interfering with the operation of a unique device identifier and…he knows or

911
believes that the person to whom the thing is offered intends if it is supplied to him to use it unlawfully for that purpose or to allow it to be used unlawfully for that purpose".
He could use a cable as an interface. It would form part of the equipment that is required. All I am asking is whether, if the dealer sells a cable and it can be shown that he may have known it was going to be used for this purpose, he is committing an offence.
Lord Filkin: That is a slightly remote set of circumstances. I cannot see how a dealer could be aware that a cable by itself was to be used for the purposes that we are focusing on in terms of mobile phone theft.
Lord Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I can come hack to my noble friend; I am sorry to press this matter. I was told today that that is precisely what dealers do. They offer for sale this equipment for those purposes. Perhaps we can come back to this on Report having gathered a little more information. I am not trying to be difficult, but I feel we should consider that it is not only the software that we are talking about.
Lord Filkin: I can give the assurance that my noble friend seeks: if we are not able to satisfy him before then, we shall return to this on Report. We will clearly check whether, on a common sense interpretation of the law as drafted, there is any risk of the type he implied. The broad thrust, as I expressed earlier, is that a dealer is only liable if he seeks to sell such equipment or undertakes such activities with an intent to commit the offence that we are seeking to prevent.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would replace the offence in Clause 2(1) of the Bill. Clause 2(1) provides that a person who possesses anything which can be used to change an IMEI number, and intends to use it or allow it to be used for that purpose, commits an offence. The offence covers all the equipment or software that may be used for reprogramming, which is perhaps the point of my noble friend, even if it was not designed with that in mind. The amendments would remove from the offence the need to show intent. It would be a defence if the person concerned could demonstrate that he was required to have possession of the equipment or software for legitimate purposes.
The Government's position, as I explained in my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is that we do not believe the concern to be justified. We accept that the equipment required to re-programme the identification number may also be used for legitimate purposes. However, the requirement in Clause 2 to show intent will mean that the Bill will not criminalise people who legitimately possess equipment which can be used to change an IMEI number. The offence is only committed if there is proof both of possession or of supply of the equipment and of intent to use it to change the number. It is that lock of the two that is central to the offence.
The provision has been drafted in close consultation with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the mobile phone industry to ensure that it does not cover
912
the legitimate use or supply of equipment. The noble Lord previously explained that he sees a difficulty with proving intent. But the concept of intent and belief are already used extensively in criminal law without major difficulty. For example, the Theft Acts create the offence of theft where a person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. The courts have held that intention can be deduced from the circumstances of a case.
In many cases a defendant will deny that he intended permanently to deprive the owner of the property. But the courts will look to what the defendant did with the property to ascertain his intention. So under Clause 2 of the Bill, in the absence of a confession, the courts would look to see what the defendant knew and to what use he had put the equipment in order to ascertain his intention. In the context of the Bill proof of intent may emerge from evidence gathered by the police in targeted, intelligence-led operations; for example, where a stockpile of handsets with the same IME1 number was found in the custody of an individual who also possessed the relevant equipment. In that circumstance one could envisage that the Crown Prosecution Service would feel that there 'was a reasonably strong case to answer.
The police and the CPS are confident that they will be able to mount successful investigations and prosecutions under the Bill. They are currently working on joint charging standards to ensure that the legislation has the maximum effect. Therefore we do not consider the amendments to be necessary to safeguard owners or suppliers of equipment or software which is used legitimately. I can add weight to that by instancing the sort of work already being undertaken by the Merseyside Police Force, which is in the process of identifying the retailers who currently supply such equipment and giving them advance warning of the Act, ensuring that they are aware of what they need to do to avoid any risk of criminality on their part.
In the light of my remarks, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will accept that, while this is by no means the total solution to mobile phone theft, it is a necessary part of it. We believe it makes progress. It will support the initiatives that the mobile phone industry has put in place to reduce mobile phone theft, and it is important that the Government respond in this way. But it needs to stand alongside many other measures which are currently under way.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I do not intend to be facetious when I say that the Minister, in explaining why he rejects my amendment, actually supported the amendment that I could not move. He said that one of the circumstantial facts that the police would take into account in judging an offence under the Bill is the possession of a cache of mobile phones with the same IMEI number. If that was an automatic offence people might not do it, and it would in fact be quite a disincentive.

913
The Minister gave a considerable explanation as to why the Bill will work and why my amendment may not be necessary. But he did not pass an opinion as to whether or not my amendment would strengthen the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his remarks, and more importantly to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for his brief intervention, which indicates how technically difficult the problem is with which we are dealing. In the circumstances it is probably prudent for me to say that we will study the Minister's response. Perhaps we can meet before the next stage of the Bill to see if we can resolve our differences off the Floor of the House, which would be a happy outcome. If not, we may need to return to this matter in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Possession or supply of anything for reprogramming purposes]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Tax Credits Bill
4.59 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Tax Credits Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 10 [Maximum rate]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 15, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 is a simple probing amendment. It seeks to leave out subsection (4). Clause 10 is concerned with the maximum rate of tax credit which may be paid and in particular the situation with regard to child tax credit.
The earlier part of the clause sets out its purpose and describes the way in which a determination of the amount of tax credit should be established. It mentions various elements of that tax credit, namely an element which reflects the entitlement of a person to child tax credit and an element which reflects the situation with regard to each child or qualifying young person for whom the individual or the couple are responsible. There is a third element which specifies how those shall variously be described.
However, subsection (4) simply states:
"The prescribed matter of determination may involve the inclusion of such other elements as may be prescribed".
914
The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Minister what the Government have in mind as to what additional elements might be prescribed. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with this amendment. The clause in the Bill is open-ended to the point of vacuity. It reads:
"The prescribed manner of determination may involve the inclusion of such other elements as may be prescribed".
One might freely translate that as, "I am a medicine: prescribe me".
It empowers the Secretary of State to do almost anything. I know that departments want flexibility. But departments and Parliaments are always competing interests. There are always two sides to the net. When one gets to the point where there is only one side to the net, and the law allows the Secretary of State to do whatever he likes, then we sign away our usefulness.
I am sure that the Minister has perfectly sensible things that she wants to do under this power. In which case she might define it a little more tightly in order to allow herself to do what she actually wants to do, which I am sure is not nearly as nefarious as all the various things that could possibly be done under the clause if one had a mind to do them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, stood up, I was not sure whether he was more concerned with the infelicity of the drafting, in other words, he was going to do a critique of its syntax—which is to some extent the point of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with which I have sympathy—or whether he had a more substantial concern with the breadth of the clause. I am very happy to try and put on record why we believe we need the clause in its drafted form.
The aim of the provision is, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suspected, to create a flexible framework so that the child tax credit can adapt to the changing needs of families. That must always be within the framework provided by the Bill. But the provision would allow us a different way of targeting additional support to families with children. Therefore, the child tax credit would react sufficiently and ensure that we could provide the most appropriate support to families with children.
I wish I could predict how that power might need to be used. If I could, I would specify that and it could be done by regulations, and so on. But we need this power for the flexibility. Perhaps I may give a couple of reasons why. We know, for example—and this is an issue which I have raised before—that in the next few years a third or more of all poor children will be living in large families. We might very well want to strengthen the tax credit system to have, for example, a premium for large families to help them better move into the world of work.
Perhaps I may look backwards. Experience suggests that we need such flexibility, and governments have drawn on such flexibility in the past. For example—

915
and I asked the officials to check this for me—with family credit, the then government had a similar flexibility which was used to introduce extra money for the 30-hour premium, which gave additional support to families who worked longer hours.
Later, within the Bill that dealt with working tax credit that your Lordships were involved in, such flexibility was used to give more support to disabled children in the light of evidence that the degree of poverty in those families was even more severe than we had originally anticipated.
Clause 10 is a benign clause. It allows the inclusion—not exclusion—of additional elements. It cannot touch the basic structure—the CTC and working tax credit—hut it allows the inclusion of additional elements. I cannot conceive how that could be other than beneficial to families that we are trying to help. Any additional element must be in addition to the child and family element —it cannot scrap it—which under Clause 10(2) we must provide for and which will remain key elements of support in the child tax credit. It must remain within the general framework of the Bill provided by Clause 9. Additional elements must also sit within that.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, pressed me on whether we could draw the regulations more tightly. Actually, no. We either have the power to introduce new and not yet identified elements, or we do not. If we have that power—and I have taken legal advice on the matter—we need the vires that we have taken, which are the same kind of vires, powers and flexibility that have been drawn down by previous governments.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the law stated that the Secretary of State is entitled to prescribe support for children according to other criteria identifying children who may be in a particular need, would that not meet the case and be a good deal more precise?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords. One of the elements of the Bill is the working tax credit, which obviously goes to adults. At the moment there is an over-25s rule. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has pressed me on many occasions that it might apply to people below that age. I could conceive of circumstances in which we might wish to develop policy in that way. We could not do that if we follow the path of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
With the experience that we have had with tax credits, and before that with family credit, we need such powers. Such powers have been exercised benevolently because they add to what we are already doing. And they are subject, through regulations, to the full scrutiny of this House. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that the noble Earl will accept that this is a benevolent power to meet unspecified circumstances, but which in the past have certainly been to the benefit of the families that we most want to help.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness is in her most persuasive mode and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause —
"REVIEW AND ALTERATION OF RATES OF TAX CREDITS
Section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c. 5) (annual up-rating of benefits) shall apply with like effect to tax credits, and paragraph 28(2) and (3) of Schedule 3 to this Act shall amend section 150 accordingly."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 27, which is grouped with it. It is one of the disadvantages of proceeding orally that one cannot indicate the presence or absence of capital letters. If I were to say that Rooker. Wise was wise, I would not wish to emulate the limerick about Liddell and Scott's Greek dictionary:
"Oh, Mr Liddell, will you answer a riddle, was it not mainly Scott?"
I would never have so treated the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Having met and having done business with him, I would never have dreamed of doing so. "Wise" in my sentence was in lower case. It was meant to say that it was a good idea.
We have experience of things which have been included within the regular uprating formula for social security and of things which have happened. Where something is included within the regular formula for uprating, it is no bar to the Secretary of State uprating if he or she chooses by a greater amount than that formula. But it is a bar to doing so by a lesser amount.
I remind the Minister of the capital limits, which fall outside the Rooker-Wise formula and were not uprated from 1988 until recently. The Minister and I have had a lot of exchanges on that subject, which she has brought to a triumphant conclusion—on which I congratulate her. Would not it be nice to have a formula on the statute book whereby we would not have to do all this work to achieve uprating? When something falls outside the formula, there is a risk of a political battle, of which only a tiny part will be visible in this House—much more will happen at the Treasury—when uprating is wanted in difficult circumstances.
The Minister may want to be more generous than the Rooker-Wise formula in some respects, which I honour and welcome. The amendment would do nothing to prevent her. Can the Minister indicate that the formula will be updated, and regularly, and that she is prepared to accept a legal obligation to that effect? Going to the Treasury without a legal framework for protection is a case of going naked into the conference chamber, if ever I heard one. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, this matter was debated in Committee on 23rd May and subsequent amendments cover some of the same points. I shall defer my remarks until we reach them, depending on the Minister's response now.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Earl seeks to apply the provisions of the 1992 Act but that is not the right approach because the new tax

917
credits do not form part of the social security system. The Bill is designed to establish a dedicated, administrative framework for those credits—rather than borrow from social security legislation.
When a similar amendment was tabled in another place, the Government made it clear that they did not intend to apply the provisions of social security law to deal with uprating but undertook to consider whether it would he appropriate to introduce arrangements for uprating the new tax credits similar to those that currently apply for WFTC and DPTC. In Committee, we brought forward a package of changes intended to respond to some of the noble Earl's points.
Clause 41 requires the Treasury to review each year against prices the amounts for the various elements of child tax credit and working tax credit. That applies also to income thresholds, including the £2,500 responsiveness band, and the like. The Treasury is required by Clause 41 to prepare and lay before Parliament a report of its review, which must include a statement of the amount that would have been if the credit had fully retained its value against prices.
The existing arrangements for uprating WFTC and DPTC ensure that an order changing the rates of those tax credits will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We amended Clause 66 accordingly.
The concerns expressed by the noble Earl and by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in his later amendment are proper in seeking to protect the value of tax credits and to avoid a fight each and every year, but there is no way that the Government can make a commitment beyond the life of the current Parliament.
The childcare element of child tax credit would not be included in any automatic uprating. At present, we reimburse 70 per cent of a sum of £200-plus for children. I could conceive that without altering the upper figure, we might prefer to go from 70 per cent to 75 per cent, choose to look at regional premiums or consider the option of helping to fund informal childcare.
Leaving the childcare element aside, I am happy to confirm that the children's element in CTC—the basic building block of support for children—will be raised in line with earnings during the life of this Parliament. That is one of the most generous commitments to child well-being that I can recall.
I have discussed the issues with my right honourable friend the Paymaster General. In another place, she has already expressed sympathy with the proposal that the working tax credit should be regularly uprated in line with prices. I am happy today to give the undertaking to the House that WTC—the adult element—will also be uprated in line with prices during the life of this Parliament. That is a new commitment—an undertaking that goes beyond the sympathy that my right honourable friend has so far felt able to extend. I am sure that your Lordships welcome it. I am delighted that there is consent on this
918
issue in all parts of your Lordships' House. With those assurances and that undertaking, I hope that the noble Earl will feel that he has not done badly today.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly. Her reply does not give me everything for which I asked but it is significantly more than half a loaf. I understand her arguments about childcare. I am familiar with a number of debates and am aware that they could go in a number of different directions. If the Minister wants flexibility, she has a right to it.
The commitment to uprate the child element in line with prices is remarkably generous and a great achievement, on which the Government are to be congratulated. I warmly welcome also the further undertaking—I particularly welcome the word "undertaking"—to uprate the ordinary working element in line with prices. Even granted all the Minister's comments about this not being pure social security law, if the result of the move to the Treasury were to be that a lot of things that are significantly good in social security law were to disappear, one might think twice. But if such provisions are preserved for the life of this Parliament, any questions can be dealt with at the next general election and the electorate can form their own opinion.
This House has achieved that which the Bryce commission envisaged, in allowing a delay sufficient for the opinion of the people to be expressed. I can ask no more. I thank the Minister warmly and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Initial decisions]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 30, at end insert ", provided that the date specified is not less than thirty working days from the date of receipt of the notice"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this it may be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7, which together seek to alter the Bill in such a way that the period within which action can be taken in response to a decision by the board—effectively to appeal against it—is lengthened. It seems eminently reasonable that small businesses preoccupied with everyday affairs should have an appropriate length of time in which to respond to the Inland Revenue. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there is very little between us on this point. Clause 23 provides for regulations to be made to set out the time limits for providing information. In considering the time limits, the main factor will obviously be the need to let the Inland Revenue have the information that it requires as quickly as possible in order to come to a decision on a claim, or a change of circumstances, or to continue with an inquiry into an award. It will thus be in the interest of claimants for information to be given in good time.

919
Nevertheless, the Inland Revenue would also always consider the practicalities of supplying information, especially when requesting information from third parties such as employers or childcare providers. There is no wish to impose unreasonable time limits on claimants or third parties with this provision. Therefore, regulations made under Clause 23 will specify a time limit of not less than 30 days. It is important to get that on the record. I wonder whether I should repeat that sentence, because it goes to the heart of the noble Lord's amendment. Regulations made under Clause 23 will specify a time limit of not less than 30 days. I should stress that these formal powers to request information by means of a notice in writing shall be used only if an informal request for information, usually made by telephone, has not been successful. Therefore, notices of this kind will not be commonplace but will be used only when absolutely necessary. This also means that the third party who is subject to the request will always have significantly more than 30 days to respond from the date of the initial informal request for information.
Therefore, although the noble Lord's amendments are not quite the same in that they specify a time limit of "thirty working days" for supplying information to the Inland Revenue, I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that, in practice, the time limit of 30 days to be set in regulations will take effect only when informal requests for information have been unsuccessful. Therefore, in practice, we may well be going beyond the 30 working days required by the noble Lord. I do not find this unreasonable. It is consistent with existing provisions in tax and social security legislation. With those assurances and cross-references, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Minister has given us some helpful information. No doubt such matters could be further considered. However, on balance, I am inclined to accept the noble Baroness's argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Revised decisions after notifications]:
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Other revised decisions]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Power to enquire into awards]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Information etc. requirements: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Payments]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 18, line 22, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is rather an important amendment, which suggests that subsection (8) of Clause 25 should be deleted. The subsection is perhaps open to a variety of possible interpretations. Our main cause for concern is the implication that
920
those receiving tax credits will need to do so through a bank account. The subsection starts with the word "IF", by way of a proviso, and states:
"If the regulations [for making payments] make provision for payments of a tax credit, or any element of a tax credit, to be made by the Board by way of a credit to a bank account or other account notified to the Board, the regulations may provide that entitlement to the tax credit or element is dependent on an account having been notified to the Board in accordance with the regulations".
On the face of it, that sounds fairly straightforward. However, if the regulations do make provision for payment of tax credits to be made through a bank account, the implication would seem to be that the person concerned will not receive his tax credit unless he has informed the board of the nature of the bank account into which he wishes the payment to be made. Therefore, the problem immediately arises as to what the situation would be if the individual does not have a bank account. Indeed, he might well prefer to have that payment made through some other means by way of the existing arrangements, or whatever.
The sanction would seem to be pretty severe. If the board makes a regulation stating that the tax credit should be paid into a bank account and the person does not tell the board what the bank account is, it would seem that he will not receive the tax credit. Clearly that is not the intention of the Bill; indeed, the Bill's intention is that the board shall pay tax credits, not that it shall pay them providing that the recipient has a bank account and notifies the board as to the nature of the bank account.
On top of all that, we have a further ambiguity in the last few words of the subsection, because it says that,
"the regulations may provide that entitlement to the tax credit or element is dependent on an account having been notified to the Board in accordance with the regulations".
But we have no idea—indeed, none at all—of what regulations may say regarding how the bank account is to be notified. Of course, this has wider implications. We debated earlier the position of post offices as a means of making payments. As far as concerns this subsection, it seems that it would be possible for the board to say "We will only pay a tax credit through a bank account". It does not say that the board will do so, but, in effect, it says that the board may do so if it wishes; in other words, the regulations may insist, subject to the penalty that I mentioned, that an arrangement is made for the payment to be made into a bank account. I trust that I have the noble Baroness's attention—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was just drawing my noble friend's attention to the precise wording of the subsection and trying to explain to him why I thought that the noble Lord might have misunderstood the purport of the clause.
Lord Higgins: I do not believe that I have, my Lords. Indeed, I find it slightly sinister. We need to he clearer on the meaning of the subsection.
Can the noble Baroness assure us not only that it is not the intention of the Government to insist that all payments are made through a bank account, but also

921
that they will positively not do so? The implication of the subsection seems to suggest that, if the board so decides, payments will only be made through a bank account, and that, without a bank account, recipients will have a problem. That leads us to the issue of post offices and the whole question of the position of the so-called "Universal Bank". We are unclear as to what extent that has made progress, and to what extent it might be available to all those who might wish to receive a tax credit.
At present, we know that there are many people, especially those who are likely to be in receipt of a tax credit, who do not have a bank account. We must consider how difficult it might be for them to open such an account. I raised previously the question of a credit rating agency. I pointed out that, without any credit record, it may be extremely difficult for someone to open a bank account. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, replied to a question that I raised only recently. I understand that not as much progress has been made in this respect as the noble Baroness suggested on that occasion. It is certainly the case that many people will experience problems in opening a bank account. If that is so, and if these regulations are used in the way that subsection (8) seems to imply, people—I was about to say "may not be able to get"— will not get the tax credit to which this Bill would otherwise make them entitled.
I view this subsection with very considerable suspicion. I believe that the way in which it is suggested that the tax credit will not be paid at all unless the requirements outlined in its wording are met—namely, that the individual must inform the board of the nature of his bank account into which the payment is to be made—is quite worrying. This is not a point that we picked up earlier. It is only upon reflection that we have come to the conclusion that the subsection, as drafted, is open to a number of interpretations, some of which should be regarded with considerable suspicion. I put it as high as that. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to reassure us. The easiest way to do so would be to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on spotting this one. The subtext of the amendment should be not, "Don't mention the war" but "Don't mention the Post Office". So I shall not, but it is certainly true that for many people at the lower end of our income distribution, a bank is not really a suitable means of dealing with their money.
I have told before, but it bears repetition, the citizens advice bureau story of the woman on income support whose bank wrongly calculated her to be in overdraft and sent her a letter charging her £10, which meant that she could not buy any food. It was convinced that it had made a mistake and wrote her a letter to say that it admitted its mistake. It restored her account to credit but charged her £10 for the writing of the letter, which put her back into overdraft. So once again she could not buy any food.
922
That is the sort of thing that makes poor people tend to avoid banks. If people are in that situation and the only way that they can receive working tax credit is through a bank, they may, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, not receive it at all. That will mean that the working tax credit will not achieve its object.
So I hope that the Minister can give us the categorical assurance that it will be possible to receive the tax credit other than through a bank. She needs to say a little more than that it will be available through the universal bank, because the universal bank, although we all wish it well, at present remains optative. There must be some present means by which people can receive the credit, or that she can guarantee will exist when the Bill comes into force. If she cannot, we are in a serious situation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am delighted that your Lordships agree that at this stage we are not discussing post offices or the location of post offices; we are discussing whether claimants can be required to receive payment through an account if that account is available to them.
The amendment would by removing Clause 25(8) prevent the Revenue ever making it a requirement that clients should receive their tax credits by automated credit transfer, even when they already had a bank account and when other benefits, such as child benefit, were being paid into it. About 85 per cent of tax credit and benefit clients have a bank account, yet under the amendment they could demand that although they have a bank account they should be paid by, say, Giro in perpetuity. That is what removing the subsection would do.
To answer the point impressed on me by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I have already made clear our commitment that clients who prefer not to use an ordinary bank account will be able to access their credits and benefits in cash at a post office. We expect that that transfer to the Post Office will be made by ACT—if not directly through a bank, such as Lloyds, or whatever, down the road—either into the basic bank account with outlets at the Post Office, about which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pressed me on our progress, or even via the more basic card account at a post office. That may meet the noble Lord's concern.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me to give an assurance that payments can be received other than through a bank. Yes, my Lords, they can be received through the card account at a post office, which is so simple, and into which benefits or credits are paid and from which cash is withdrawn. That is all that it does. There are no cheques, credit, problems with overdrafts or anything like that. Indeed, that may be the first step towards people becoming comfortable with an account and moving to other forms of banking mechanisms that allow them to pay by standing order, direct debit and so on. But I can give the noble Earl the assurance that he sought.
Claim forms will invite people to give details of their bank account when they claim. If they cannot or do not do so, the Inland Revenue will contact them to ask

923
them for details and provide guidance for those who need help in opening an account, including setting up the basic account at a post office.
So as I said, the transfer of cash will take place by ACT, but the cash can be withdrawn at a post office if necessary—not through people's own bank, not through the basic bank, but through the card account. I have gone further and said that where, for example, parents with care want the protection of a separate account—I know that that has concerned the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in the past—they can have it and the child tax credit can be paid into a different account from that into which wages may be paid. So there is that security as well.
We have gone further still—again, I hope that the noble Earl will find this worth while—and said that, exceptionally, where even the Post Office card account is inappropriate—for example, in the case of travellers or of an ex-offender with no fixed address—some form of credit payment document may be required. We have taken careful steps in the Bill and in draft Regulation 12(3) to ensure that, where necessary, the Revenue can make payments by alternative methods.
We have given the final assurance, even beyond that, that we will not require payment by ACT until suitable facilities are available, including the post office card account—not just the basic bank or universal banking system. There will be no gaps in provision. I entirely accept that the transition must be seamless.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, who is gradually helping to clarify the matter. Earlier, she appeared to be implying that an individual who was already receiving social security payments through a hank account would not be allowed to draw the tax credit by one of the other means. Perhaps I may also thank her for something. Just before Third Reading, she kindly sent round an example of the proposed tax credit claim form. We are grateful for that; it was interesting to read it. But it states:
"You need a bank or building society account into which we can pay credits. If you do not have an account, or want to use the Post Office or open a new account for tax credits, see Notes, page 31".
Unfortunately, the noble Baroness kindly sent us the form but not the notes, so we do not know what is proposed for individuals who receive the form and say that they want to use the Post Office or open a new account for tax credits.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I apologise for that. If the notes are ready, I shall send the noble Lord a copy.
There is no problem if someone already has a bank account and wants to be paid by another ACT method. What I was saying is that what the noble Lord could not reasonably expect us to permit is people, while having a bank account and being used to it, to continue to he paid by Giro, or even order book, say, in perpetuity. On the noble Lord's first point, if they want to use other methods of payment such as the basic bank or a card account at a post office—that is
924
a simple money in, money out account with no other facility—there is no problem. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that.
Given all of those undertakings, I should have hoped that I had met your Lordships' concerns. The amendment provides that even where a client already has a bank account or already has some credits, benefits or wages paid by ACT, he could none the less continue to require his or her child tax credit to be paid by some other method—by order book or, more likely, Giro.
Why did the previous administration seek to introduce a smart card for benefits payments—although we know that, given the overrun on cost and time, we had to pull back from that? For two reasons: they were worried about the cost of transactions; but above all, they were worried about fraud and safety. About £150 million a year is already lost in fraud because of Giro and order book payment methods. The larger the value of the benefit or credit, the greater the safety risk. What is a Giro? Essentially, it is an uncrossed cheque. Which has been the worst area of wide-scale fraud in social security? Housing benefit. Why? In part, because it has been paid by Giro, and tenants have stolen Giros from other tenants and landlords have in turn stolen them from their tenants.
The Government have been addressing those issues, as your Lordships will know. I have—rightly—been pressed to address the issue of fraud in housing benefit, part of which is attributable to the use of giros and the fact that they can be cashed by other people We are making progress, but we must do more. Fraud occurs because handling giros is like handling uncrossed cheques.
I cannot believe that the noble Lord would wish to see benefits or tax credits, which could be of substantial value, being paid by giro, as in the case of housing benefit. At the very point at which we are trying to eradicate fraud in housing benefit, we should not import it into the tax credit system in the method of payment. That would be madness.
The child tax credit, in particular, is a high value credit. If it includes the cost of paying childminders or nurseries, it could be worth £300 a week, £600 a fortnight, £1,200 a month. Would any of your Lordships want that sort of money handled by giro or uncrossed cheque? Of course not. Yet, the amendment would mean that vulnerable people who live in rough areas or who are less financially sophisticated could be exposed to difficulties, just because of a sentimental attachment to ration books and giros. That is not safe. Nor will childminders and nurseries be keen to be paid in cash in that way.
The amendment is concerned with the way in which clients are paid. The payment will still be available in cash at the post office, if that is what the client wants. Furthermore, under ACT, the client will not have to draw out all of the £300 and wander home with all that cash, as would happen with a giro or a ration book. With a bank facility or a Post Office card facility, the client can draw out the £50 or £80 that she needs at that time. That will allow the client to budget and will mean

925
that she does not put herself at risk. With ACT, clients can draw out what they need, when they need it. They can also use whichever post office they wish, which is not the case at the moment.
The money will be available in cash at post offices. It will be a more economical form of transaction for the taxpayer—a penny per transaction with ACT, compared to £1.40 per giro transaction—and will be more convenient for the clients, who can withdraw what they need, rather than the full lump sum, where and when they need it. It is a speedier form of payment. For childcare, in particular, people may need to adjust the arrangements several times a year. With ACT, necessary adjustments can be made to the payment almost immediately; with order books or giros, it would take some time, and there could be problems. It may also have the longer-term financial benefit of bringing people into the banking system. Above all, the system is safe and secure. It will reduce fraud of the sort that has bedevilled the housing benefit giro system and should reduce the theft that so many pensioners with order books fear.
The amendment is profoundly misguided. No one in the Chamber would advise a friend to receive or transmit sums of £300, £600 or £1,000 by the equivalent of order books, giros, ration books or uncrossed cheques. We are ensuring that people will have their cash at their post office. I hope that I have given the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the assurance that he wanted. We will not move to any system until we are confident that it is available to all who need to use it. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and I shall read it with even greater care in Hansard.
Much of what the Minister said was right, but she was rather over the top about what the amendment would do. It is not clear that it would have the effect that she suggested. If I were wrong about that, the clause would not read as it does. It says that the board can make regulations, and then it says:
"If the regulations make provision for payments of a tax credit...by way of a credit to a bank account".
If my amendment were as dramatic as the Minister sought to portray it, it would not say that. It would say:
"Regulations shall make provision for payments".
It does not. The clause is oddly worded, with an "if' at the beginning. I do not accept that the amendment would be as dramatic as the Minister says.
There is still considerable doubt about this aspect of the Bill. I was almost tempted to suggest that we should take the opinion of the House, but, on balance, I have decided not to. The important thing is that, when the regulations are produced, we should scrutinise them with great care. That shows how important it is that your Lordships' House should retain the right to throw regulations out, even if we still
926
do not have the right to amend statutory instruments and orders. The events of the past few days show how important that right is, if only for use as a deterrent, in certain circumstances.
I look forward to receiving the notes about the form to which I referred. Subject to that, and as we will have a chance to examine the regulations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 18, line 26, at end insert—
"() Payments under this Act shall be made from the Consolidated Fund."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we tabled this amendment at earlier stages, but, for various reasons, we have not moved it.
The Chancellor's Budget included measures that raised a huge amount of extra money from national insurance contributions by companies and individuals. I have always regarded national insurance contributions as a tax, even when I was at the Treasury. In effect, the Budget raised a huge amount in extra taxation. In simple terms, one could say about the overall shape of the Budget that the amount raised from business in national insurance contributions roughly equaled—or provided—the amount of extra money to be spent on the National Health Service. The money raised from individuals in increased national insurance contributions and other taxation effectively funded the payments to be made under this Bill.
If the money was raised in national insurance contributions in order to provide some vestige of plausibility for the Government's previous promise not to increase taxation, how did the Government succeed in getting their hands on the money that they wished to spend in a particular way? The money would normally go into the National Insurance Fund, in certain proportions, and to the National Health Service, in other proportions. I was not mistaken in thinking that the Government had a problem, and we soon found that we had a National Insurance Contributions Bill that changed the allocation between the National Health Service, on the one hand, and pensions and so on, on the other.
I am still puzzled, however. The National Insurance Contributions Bill distributes the extra money into the National Health Service in the way that was intended and changes the balance between health payments and social security payments in the national insurance pot. I am still not clear how the Chancellor can obtain the money needed to meet the extra expenditure envisaged in the Tax Credits Bill. What is the total cost of the Bill now? Originally, I thought it was £2.7 billion, but I think that I am right in saying that it is £1.7 billion. Can the Minister clarify the cost of the Bill?
If we turn to the Red Book, which has grown over the years—it is probably 20 times thicker than the original Red Book with which I was originally involved—we may look in vain for any means of ascertaining where the extra money to fund the Tax Credits Bill is to be obtained by the Chancellor. We

927
cannot tell whether the money will be drawn from funds that have gone to the Consolidated Fund or from those that have gone to the National Insurance Fund.
It is clear that, under the Budget, there has been a massive increase in government taxation and expenditure. I would assume, therefore, that since the Tax Credits Bill will impose a massive increase in expenditure for reasons we all understand, it must be related in some way to the corresponding increase in taxation. I hope that the noble Baroness will explain where the extra money now to be redistributed—this one is a real old Labour proposal; I am glad to see the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and, indeed, noble Lords on the Back Benches behind the Ministers smiling at my remark—is to come from; that is, how those concerned are to receive it and from what source. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this amendment seeks to explore the Government's thinking behind the funding and accounting arrangements for the two new tax credits. We touched on a similar issue covering the various devices and forms both in Grand Committee and in our debates on Report. Each of us takes our delight in different ways, but I have to say that my delight in rehearsing once again our theological debates on accountancy is now diminishing somewhat. However, perhaps that is because we have reached Third Reading.
The Government's position on funding arrangements for the new credits is clear and consistent. I should stress that the arrangements provided for in this Bill follow the model laid down by the Tax Credits Act 1999, which was also carefully scrutinised and agreed by noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. On behalf of my right honourable friend the Paymaster General, I brought that Bill to your Lordships' House.
The key point to make is that tax credits form part of the tax system. We have discussed at some length the percentage of tax credits that will offset tax liabilities and the amount of tax credit payments which will exceed such tax liabilities. We have also discussed the ways in which the new tax credits replicate the tax system in the sense that awards will run for up to one year, in line with the tax year; entitlement will be based on income for one tax year; the measure of income for these new credits will be much more closely aligned with that used for assessing income tax; and that the new, more integrated system for support will be available to people whether or not they are in work, but will be in place and able to support them as they move into work.
Given that, I think that it would be wrong to focus only on the numbers, although I shall be happy to repeat for the noble Lord the information that I believe I have already given him; namely, that the additional cost of these proposals, on top of the cost of the existing tax credits, is to be around £2.7 billion. I have no reason to think that the figure has changed. I am
928
not quite sure from where the noble Lord took the figure he quoted in his remarks. If he has a source I should be happy to look at it.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I took the figure from page 217 of the Red Book. To my surprise, it seemed to indicate that the cost would be around £1.7 billion rather than £ 2.7 billion.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this is the one occasion on which I have not brought the Red Book into the Chamber However, the assurances I have been given, along with the figures that I have quoted during previous stages, confirm the figure of £2.7 billion. We put that figure on the table in Grand Committee.
Because the tax credits will form an integrated part of the tax system they are to be administered by the Inland Revenue, and because the credits will provide a way for the tax system to recognise a family or household's circumstances and responsibilities within the tax year, it is entirely proper for the new tax credits to be funded from tax receipts, just as WFTC, DPTC and the children's tax credit are funded in this way now. We are building on what we already have in place. This is an issue which, as I recall, went through with all-party support.
I have already made clear that the funding arrangements provided for in the Bill follow those set out in the 1999 Act. They do not introduce any new principles. Existing tax credits are already administered in this way.
The noble Lord pressed me about the relationship with the National Insurance Fund. The funding arrangements for tax credits have nothing to do with the National Insurance Fund. These new tax credits, like WFTC and DTPC, will be funded by deductions from tax receipts before they are paid to the Exchequer. In effect, they will reduce the amount going into the Consolidated Fund.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we know from our earlier discussions on this matter that the amount comprising a genuine tax credit is only around 10 per cent of the total. Some 90 per cent of it will be straight expenditure. What I do not understand is where the money to pay for that additional expenditure has been raised.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the money is to come from general tax revenues. As I have said, payments are to be deducted from tax receipts before they are paid to the Consolidated Fund, as set out in Clause 2. That is why Clause 2 makes it clear that the amounts are to be deducted by the Board from the gross revenues. I have to say that we have discussed this at length.
I appreciate that there may well be an unbridgeable gap between noble Lords on the Benches opposite and myself as regards whether these are tax credits or benefits and therefore whether the accountancy devices or the modes of funding are appropriate, in the

929
views of the noble Lords, for this endeavour. At its core, we are seeking to make work pay. People are to be paid working tax credit through the wage packet. As a result, I hope that people will be brought from being out of work into being in work. Furthermore, for the first time tax credits will provide an integrated child tax credit which can be received by someone out of work, but which can then be ported into work.
The accountancy devices regarding which elements should be appropriately recorded under taxable revenues and which should be recorded as payments being made to individuals are entirely in accordance with the ONS and OECD proposals, a matter that we have already discussed at great length. I could discuss on a philosophical level whether tax credits form a part of the tax system or whether only 10 per cent of the credits should be counted as tax forgone. However, I think quite simply that there is no meeting of minds on this.
Ultimately, however, for the purposes of what we are seeking to achieve here, and given that we are following well-established procedures originally set up for WFTC and DPTC, does it matter? We are seeking to ensure that more money goes to families with children in ways that will encourage people into the labour market. The procedures of accountancy are entirely compatible with international standards; they are transparent and available for public scrutiny. There can be no ambiguity about what we are doing. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that I really do not understand why he does not let the matter rest.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I do not seek to raise any of the complicated points we discussed earlier in our deliberations with regard to the OECD and so forth. All I seek is this. As the noble Baroness has said, this Bill will involve an extra expenditure of £2.7 billion. The question is: what is the corresponding increase in taxation that is going to finance that expenditure? It is a simple point.
However, the recent increase in taxation has been in the form of higher national insurance contributions and therefore does not go into the general tax pot, except to the extent that the National Insurance Contributions Bill that I mentioned earlier will transfer it from one pot to the other. My question is this: from where will the increased taxation come to pay for the £2.7 billion which this Bill is going to transfer?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this is no different from anything else that we have discussed during our debates on other Bills. The Government make a judgment on taxation, including tax credits, at each Budget consistent with strict fiscal rules. The noble Lord has respected those rules. He has agreed that we have observed them absolutely and properly. The Budget included measures to raise additional resources. It also provided additional moneys for government priorities, including tax credits. There is no hypothecation of revenue raised in one place to be
930
spent on tax credits. I believe that an element of hypothecation may be what the noble Lord is pushing for, but I do not think that I can help him.
I repeat: I do not think that at any stage we are going to have a meeting of minds on this matter.
6 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the relevant response is the one I once put on a test paper of a student at Yale—that is, "Four out of 10. See me afterwards". We shall have to discuss this matter outside. I am still very unhappy about the arrangements. It would be helpful to discuss this issue outside. Perhaps that is the best way of handling the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Payments of working tax credit by employers]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 18, line 28, leave out from "payments" to "to" in line 29.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11. These are technical amendments and concern the rather broad way in which the regulations are to be drawn. Subsection (1) states that,
"Regulations may require employers, when making Schedule E payments and in any such other circumstances as may be prescribed",
and so on. The wording seems excessively wide. Is the Minister absolutely sure that the regulations need to cover
"any such other circumstances as may be prescribed"?
Is not that too wide? This is somewhat similar to the earlier amendment. It is perhaps a rather tedious point to raise at this moment but I believe it is worth bringing to the attention of the House.
Amendment No. 11 concerns the wording,
"or prescribed elements of working tax credit,
which is rather more specific. The clause gives the Government discretion to act,
"in any other … circumstances as may be prescribed"
in regard to either the whole of the working tax credit or "prescribed elements". Either way, the wording is too wide and gives the Government too much scope to amend the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, described the amendment as a technical amendment and I shall reply to it in that vein. The effect of Amendment No. 10 would be that employers could be required to pay working tax credit to their employees only when they are making Schedule E payments and in no other circumstances. It is the "no other circumstances" that he believes is too wide.
An employer who by mistake failed to make a tax credit payment at the same time that he made a Schedule E payment would not be able to correct the error until he was due to make another Schedule E payment—in other words, he would not be able to

931
make an intermediate payment to correct an error. That is the only effect that the amendment would have. It would slow down and coarsen the payment system. It would not have any effect in reducing burdens on employers.
The effect of Amendment No. 11 would be to ensure that employers pay all elements of working tax credit due to an employee and would remove the power for the board to prescribe that certain elements should be paid direct to the claimant by the board and not by the employer. That strikes me as being directly in conflict with the passionate arguments that we have heard during the course of the Bill that this is a burden on employers.
The effect of the amendment would be that regulations could not prescribe, for example, that the childcare element is to he paid direct to the person in a family who is mainly responsible for caring for the children. So, in addition to increasing the burden on employers, Amendment No. 11 would stop the payment of childcare benefit direct to the carer. I cannot believe that that is right either.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, that is far and away the most convincing argument I have heard today. It is probably the most convincing argument I have heard for some time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.]
Lord Higginsmoved. Amendment No. 14:
Page 18, line 32, after "to insert "inform the Board of the gross pay of each of their employees and to"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. The amendments seek to establish an easier system for employers to work. Indeed, it may be the case that the Government have in mind something of the same kind. Amendment No. 14 seeks to insert the words,
"inform the Board of the gross pay of each of their employees",
and so on. Amendment No. 15 seeks to insert the words,
"and such notices to indicate to the employers the appropriate payment to be made to each employee".
It is my understanding that the Government, in deciding how much of a tax credit ought to be paid to an employee, have all the information necessary other than specific information about the gross pay of each employee. If they were provided with that information, it would be possible for them, taking into account all the various factors which will alter the tax credit, simply to indicate to the employers the appropriate payment to be made to each employee.
So the employer would tell the Revenue, "I have 10 employees. Their names are such and such. Their gross incomes are so much", and the Revenue will then say, "In that case, you should pay a specific amount to each of them by way of tax credit". My understanding is that all the information the Revenue will need to work that out should be available to it. That may or may not he the case, but I thought it would be helpful to
932
establish to what extent the Government feel that system would enable the burden on employers to he reduced by the Inland Revenue carrying out the calculations rather than the employer having to do it for the Revenue and on its behalf. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, both amendments are unnecessary. In particular, Amendment No. 14 would place a considerable extra burden on employers for no conceivable purpose. If it has not become clear in the course of the proceedings of the Bill, let me explain how this will work. People will claim either or both of the tax credits by completing a form and giving details of their family circumstances, the number of children, and their income, including earnings. They will complete the form on the basis of their income in the previous tax year—information that they will have from their payslips, their P60 or their self-assessment return. So normally there will be no need for employers to be directly involved in the claims of their employees.
Amendment No. 14 would introduce a new burden on employers. They would have to send the Revenue the gross pay of all their employees—it is not clear whether the amendment would apply to all their employees or only those who are or may become entitled to working tax credit—for no purpose. It is the employees' responsibility to give information about their income. I cannot see the point of employers doing that.
Amendment No. 15 would require notices to be sent to employers telling them to start paying tax credits to an employee and to,
"indicate to the employers the appropriate payment to be made to each employee".
That is exactly what the Bill does. That is exactly what the start notice is. There is no work for the employer under any circumstances in calculating the tax credit. These amendments would not make things easier; they would make things worse.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Minister has explained the matter clearly. Perhaps one had not fully understood the exact way in which the mechanisms operate. This may also arise on the next amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Saatchimoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 19, line 12, after "calculated," insert—
"() for the payment by the Board of an allowance covering the estimated cost to the employer of administering tax credits based on the average number of employees paid during the year,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I move the amendment, I draw your Lordships' attention to the declaration of interest that I made at earlier stages of the Bill.
The amendment returns to the fundamental question of what assistance the Government are prepared to give to businesses to compensate them for

933
their work as suppliers of government social services. The Government propose to impose on employers, regardless of their size or profitability, the whole burden of administering this new tax credit scheme. Smaller employers in particular, as we have said on many occasions, do not have and cannot afford the substantial departments necessary to administer this scheme. This modest amendment seeks to require the Government to assess and estimate the amount of the costs to employers of carrying out the new task that the Government require of them and to offer them some compensation for those new tasks. We believe that such a responsibility will have the salutary effect of focusing the Government's attention on the costs to business when the Bill is implemented.
Perhaps I may briefly set out the background to the amendment. I draw the attention of the House to three letters that I have received in the past week concerning the amendments. The first was a helpful and elegantly constructed letter from the Minister containing a description of all that the Government had done for businesses over the years. She concludes:
"I hope you will agree that this is an impressive record and that it will explain why I cannot accept your suggestion that this Government is insensitive to the needs of small business".
The letter paints such a touching picture of a benevolent government with grateful businessmen gathered at their feet that I was on the point of withdrawing the amendment altogether. But then I received a second letter, this time from the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which painted a very different picture. It spoke of the many complications in payroll systems and lamented the fact that,
"more time will have to be spent by employers completing paperwork, administering records and notifications.".
The letter refers to a survey conducted by the London Chamber in April this year, exploring the general impact on businesses of the last Budget and specifically the impact on their payroll administration. Members were asked:
"Did the Budget … simplify the tax system for your business?"
Five per cent of respondents agreed that it did; 69 per cent disagreed.
At that point I was a slightly confused and, frankly, did not know what to do about the amendment—until I received a third letter—in fact, a copy of a letter from the Minister to my noble friend Lord Northbrook. This set out the details of the regulatory impact assessment for November 2001 in relation to the Bill.
Now here is a strange thing. There is no standard format for regulatory impact assessments; so it is hard to see all the required answers to one's questions. There is another odd thing about the regulatory impact assessment. Who, it might be asked, actually does the assessment of the impact of the Government's regulations? I was curious. Was it perhaps the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the National Audit Office, the Comptroller General, or some independent body of expert economists? No—I am afraid that the Government carry out their own assessment. This is
934
rather like the students of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, having the opportunity to design their own exam papers and then to mark them themselves. That seems to be the system.
The letter explained that under that system—
Earl Russell: My Lords, they would probably mark them rather more harshly than I would.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, that is possible.
The letter arrives at a specific figure. It says that when the whole process is complete, employers will save £11 million. It is very specific—that is the amount of the saving to which it refers. This was doubly interesting, and I was curious to see how the Government could have arrived at such a firm figure.
In order to demonstrate how the impact assessment is carried out, perhaps I may subject your Lordships to an IQ test of a sort. I promise that it is only a slight paraphrase of the Minister's letter. It goes like this: if it takes one man between 45 minutes and an hour to complete an earnings inquiry form, and on average 35 per cent of these forms are directed to small firms, at a cost of £20 an hour, and 65 per cent to large firms, at a cost of £10 an hour, removing the need for these inquiries would save employers between X million and Y million a year, what are X and Y?
Or try this: assuming that around 1 million WFTC/DPTC recipients who are paid by their employers renew their tax credit award each year, and assuming that the move from a six-month award to a 12-month award will eliminate around half of all renewals; and assuming that removing the need to stop payments in advance of a renewal will halve the time taken by an employer to stop and then re-start an award, what will be the cost saving for the remaining 500,000 renewals?
Or take this one: if around 35 per cent of tax credit recipients paid by their employer work for small or medium-sized businesses, and to stop or start a tax credit manually involves around 30 minutes' work by a proprietor or adviser, at a cost of £20 an hour; and if in large employers, with more sophisticated systems, a stop or start is likely to take 30 minutes for a payroll operator at £10 an hour; then by how much will reducing the need for stops and starts decrease employer costs? After seeing the third letter, I thought better of dropping that amendment. I thought that it would be better to let it stand.
In Committee, the Minister confessed that she was baffled by the persistence of our inquiries about costs to small business.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I did not say that I was baffled about the cost to small employers. I was baffled about the concerns about accountancy, "IR" in capitals, "ir" in lower case letters, and so on. It was entirely proper and I was glad to have the opportunity to reply to the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, explaining not only what government policy had done for small and medium-sized enterprises more generally, but in particular how

935
we came to a figure of £11 million. I did not want to be accused of plucking some figure from the air. It was built up by quite detailed analysis: we give the assumptions on which it is based, arrive at the calculations and, therefore, give the noble Lord the opportunity to scrutinise this in the way that he is doing.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the noble Baroness may remember the slightly chilling phrase that she used to deal with the difficulties that we pointed out in relation to the administration of tax credits by firms. She said:
-all they have to do is to pay out what the tax credit office tells them to pay".—[Official Report, 16/5/02; col. CWH 36.]
The curiosity is that employers themselves do not see it as quite so simple.
I should like to suggest a kinder approach. Perhaps I may remain in the idiom of the IQ test as I have started in that vein. Let us say that we accept all the assumptions that I have described as accurate, and that we accept that the Government carry out their own assessment of their own regulations. Let us say further that we accept a figure of £11 million to be the saving. The fact that it is a saving means that, before there is saving, the costs to employers are X. So the present cost to employers of tax credits is X- minus £l1 million. I have no idea what X is. I have never seen the figure published. I shall willingly sit down if the noble Baroness can say what X is. In the absence of knowledge—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is about £100 million. There are ways of calculating it.
Lord Saatchi: So, my Lords, let us say that the scheme is costing the employers £90 million—which explains why what on the surface appears to be the merit of the saving is not seen by the employers as quite the benefaction that it might otherwise be. It is only a reduction in a high cost, rather than an actual reduction in their total costs.
Having worked out that the net cost to business of the Government's involvement of companies in administering social services is £90 million, the simple proposal in the amendment is that the Government, having calculated the figure, should give it back to employers to compensate them for that sum. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we on these Benches are prepared to support this amendment. Governments for many centuries have been addicted to farming out their administrative work to private individuals and private bodies. Perhaps I may take one example, about which the noble Baroness may feel as I do. In 1517, the Evil May Day riots took place in London—the nearest that 16th century London came to race riots. Cardinal Wolsey drafted a proclamation commanding all husbands to keep their wives within their houses—as agents of the King, as if they were special constables. This obviously is a way by which the state can save money. When states are in the process of programmes of economy, they tend to find this sort of thing very
936
tempting. One sees it, for example, in the part that has been given to British Airways in the process of immigration control. It can be very expensive to the private individual or private body concerned. It is a way in which the state can shovel off its costs while getting all the benefit of having everything done its own way.
There is a case for saying that if other bodies are to do the Government's administrative work, they should be paid as if they 'were in government service. That principle has once been conceded in this House—on the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990. The universities have been very appreciative of that—and that includes me. In a lot of cases, they would have been left with a choice between two people running a loans office or one lecturer who might have to be dismissed to raise the money to pay for it, plus a number of books not bought for the library. Those are not the choices that one likes to have delegated to one.
I have read the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and I appreciate that the Government have in many ways tried to soften the blow. They have tried to ease the burden on employers where they can. However, the basic principle remains that if you get people to do your dirty work for you, you pay them for it. That is a good principle and it is on that ground that we support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that the House would appreciate it if I spent a great deal of time going over the intelligence test arguments. My only comment about the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, is that when the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, read out the assumptions and went on to ask what the conclusion would be, he failed to read out the essential assumptions on, for example, the number of earnings inquiries that there might be. He gave the House only half the evidence. If he had read the whole of the assumptions in the letter, mathematically he would have come to the conclusions that we have come to. I shall not make any more point of that.
However, I shall make more point of the substantive issues in the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, because we ought to appreciate the changes that have been made to the system that has been in operation for the past two years. They are described as minimal, but they are not. I do not expect the London Chamber of Commerce to understand that because the question has not been put before its members, who are describing the situation that is being reformed by the Bill.
There are four points. First, claimants will not routinely have to ask their employers to verify their earnings. Tax credit awards will be based initially on annual income for the previous year. People will have the information necessary to make a claim on their pay slip, their P60 or their self-assessment tax return. Employers have had to be involved in that and will no longer have to be involved in it.
Secondly, if an employee who is receiving working tax credit leaves, the employer will simply stop paying the tax credit. He does not have to complete a

937
certificate of payments, as now. Under the present system, entitlement to WFTC and DPTC fixed awards continues for six months even if the recipient stops working. If the employee remains entitled to working tax credit because he has another job, he—not the employer—will be responsible for telling the Revenue about the change of employer.
Thirdly, because the new tax credits will be awarded on an annual basis, there will no longer be six-monthly stops and starts, which are a troublesome feature of the current system.
Fourthly, the application procedure for employers who need funding will be greatly simplified. Employers will apply at the beginning of each tax year and the revenue system will adjust the funding amounts paid to an employer if there is a change in-year to the amount of tax credit that the employer has to pay.
On the technical side of the arguments, I am confident that the Bill makes things significantly easier for employers and no additional burden is imposed. However, it is much more important that we understand the principle behind this. The principle is not—as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said—getting other people to do the dirty work. As I have said, we have been committed to minimising extra work for employers. The fundamental argument is more basic. The arguments against paying compensation are the same now as they were when we debated the issue in relation to the Tax Credits Act 1999. The system has never provided for a direct subsidy or compensation to employers who fulfil their obligations in relation to tax. Employers are not reimbursed for operating the PAYE system. That is the point that I want to make to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in particular, as he unwisely expressed his support for the amendment without hearing the arguments. That has been the case since PAYE came into effect 40 or more years ago. I have never heard any objection to that from the Liberal Party, the Alliance, the Liberal Democrats or whatever they have called themselves at the time.
There has been a cash-flow benefit to employers with the PAYE system all the time. Any employer, as I was, who had a PAYE system collected the money from employees long before they paid it out to the Revenue. That is the significant point that has to be made.
In this case, there is no demand on the cash flow of employers. Their cash-flow benefit is marginally reduced, but there is no additional burden. Under the system proposed in the Bill, employers are not expected to fund the tax credit payments, even temporarily, out of their own resources.
Apart from the objection in principle to paying compensation to employers—in other words, to introducing a new principle of compensation on something that has been accepted by employers over a period—the amendment raises tricky practical questions. Paying tax credit with pay is closely linked to other employer procedures in connection with payroll and the PAYE system generally. Separating
938
out the costs associated with tax credits from employers' other operating costs would be extremely difficult and time-consuming and would almost certainly add to employers' administration costs. It would be virtually impossible for the Revenue to check on the validity of the costs claimed by employers, given that employers' compliance costs will vary according to the payroll system used and the general efficiency of individual employers. The amendment could well mean more bureaucracy and red tape for employers rather than less.
I have said that any costs to employers of paying tax credit will be kept to a minimum and I have explained exactly how. Those costs must be seen in the context of the many measures that the Government have introduced to help businesses. I shall not repeat them because they were all included in the first letter to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, on the basis of which he almost decided not to move the amendment. The fundamental principle remains that the Bill refines and simplifies rather than complicating any possible burden to employers. We have been entirely open about the costs to employers of the existing system and the extent of the savings that are made by the Bill.
Much more fundamentally, it is in all our interests that tax credits should be seen as making work pay and that they should be paid through employers. We shall come to that argument on the next amendment. It is also important that we should maintain the principle that has stood in our tax system for the past 40 years or more, that it is legitimate when adopting the most effective and economical system of collecting tax—which is through pay-as-you-earn—not to pay specific compensation to employers.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. I had the pleasure this morning of watching the first 20 minutes of the Prime Minister's first press conference. All the questions that I was able to see concerned the issue of spin and trust. We have had some stunning revelations in the course of our consideration of this Bill. I believe that that is a great tribute to your Lordships' House. We have had, for example, the first full explanation of the treatment of tax credits in the Red Book, and confirmation that the previously inappropriate treatment of tax credits, which I think Ministers have acknowledged, will he changed to bring it into line with normal accounting standards in OECD countries.
There were further revelations. We learned first that 90 per cent of the total amount of tax credits are not in fact tax credits but paid effectively as benefits. In other words, they are not reductions of one's tax liability. I do not think that anyone knew that until this House considered the Bill. The second amazing revelation was that the total cost of tax credits is now £15 billion annually. That massive figure was unknown to the body of economists and others who closely follow these matters. The third figure, which we have heard today for the first time, is that the scheme's real cost is £89 million annually. That figure at last finally clarifies

939
why employers have complained and these Benches have taken up their cause, particularly the cause of small businesses.
The last thing that Government Front-Benchers want is advice from our Front Benches. However, I do not understand why the Government do not wish to sing the Bill's merits from the rooftops. Thanks to your Lordships' House, the Government now have another opportunity to produce an annual report in which all the figures 1 mentioned can be brought together, allowing everyone to see in true light the benefits of this Bill, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, believes passionately. I am truly puzzled by why the Government would want these figures to emerge as the result of pressure from our Benches rather than as something in which they take a certain pride. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Exercise of right of appeal]:
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 26, line 5. at end insert—
"() The Secretary of State shall have discretion to allow an appeal out of time where the delay was caused by illness or other circumstances not within the control of the claimant."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I must confess to remaining quite remarkably unstunned. I bring hack Amendment No. 18 for a very limited purpose. The Minister told us in Committee when I moved it that a large part of the Bill was covered by the Taxes Management Act 1970, which conceded the principle that I wanted. However, she believed that there was a small area to which the 1970 Act did not apply. So I have brought back the amendment in order to discover in which parts of the Bill the principle of this amendment is not applied by the 1970 Act. I had tabled the amendment on Report but did not move it because it arose during the hours of darkness when it would not have been appropriate. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I think that I can give the noble Earl the explanation he seeks. If I cannot, I hope that he will allow me to follow this up in writing.
Section 49 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 allows someone to ask the Inland Revenue to accept a late appeal if there was a reasonable excuse for not making the appeal in the time limit. Under the section, the matter is decided by the commissioners if the Inland Revenue does not agree with the appellant. Section 49 is in Part V of the Taxes Management Act, and so applies in relation to tax credit appeals by virtue of Clause.39(6).
The noble Earl was concerned in Grand Committee about whether special provision for late appeals was needed during the transitional arrangements for claimants' appeals. I think that those were the grounds on which he quite properly explored the issue in Grand Committee. Your Lordships will be aware that a new clause has been inserted into the Bill to allow tax credit appeals by claimants to be heard by the (Social Security) Appeals Service for a transitional period
940
rather than by the tax commissioners. While those transitional arrangements are in place, Part V of the Taxes Management Act will not apply to them.
I have written to the noble Earl about the point he raised. I am also happy to confirm again that there is scope for late appeals to be brought to the Appeals Service, where it is in the interests of justice for late appeals to be heard. Applications for such late appeals are to be determined by a legally qualified panel member and not simply at the discretion of the Secretary of State. These arrangements, which are set out in Regulation 32 of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999, will apply during the transitional period for claimants' appeals.
The noble Earl pressed me particularly on which parts of the Bill are not covered by the Taxes Management Act. They are Part 2—"Child benefit and guardian's allowance"—and the transitional arrangements which I have just described for claimants' tax credit appeals. However, both are covered by equivalent arrangements in social security law which allow late appeals.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I think that, with that, the Minister has told me everything that I had hoped to hear. I thank her warmly and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 [Annual review]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 26, line 40, at end insert "and take steps to ensure that each amount fully retains its value"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, to some extent, and perhaps to a considerable extent, Amendment No. 19 covers much the same ground as Amendment No. 2 with which it was not grouped. As we said, the ground covered by Amendment No. 2 had previously been discussed, on 23rd May, at col. CWH 143, in Grand Committee. This amendment effectively raises the issue of uprating the various tax credits.
Amendment No. 19 and those with which it is grouped, particularly Amendment No. 21, seeks to ensure that, after laying the report already provided for in the clause to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has referred, the Treasury must take action to ensure that three things happen: that the basic working tax credit is increased with price inflation, the child tax credit in line with earnings, and that the child care element of the working tax credit is increased by an amount not less than the increase in price inflation. What we are seeking to do here—we may or may not have been wholly successfully—is effectively to include in the Bill the assurances that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has given us previously and today on Amendment No. 2, which we discussed earlier.
In our debate in Grand Committee, the noble Baroness made a statement which I found somewhat curious. She said that these tax credits,
"are not part of the social security system".—[Official Report, 23/05/02; col. CWH 143.]

941
I was struck by that remark. It seemed to me that they clearly are part of the social security structure, and it never occurred to me for one moment that they were not. As I have already pointed out, they are all concerned with a pretty massive redistribution of income to various cases which the Government feel ought to be helped. The question then is whether they should be uprated in the same way as other social security benefits. Reference was also made to the "Rooker-Wise amendment". More accurately, I think, it should be the "Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendment" as it was carried by a coalition of individuals who supported the proposals for uprating.
The noble Baroness also surprised me by saying, "We cannot accept this because the Government cannot bind their successors"—which is of course absolutely true. However, that does not mean that one cannot include in legislation provisions which are designed to continue indefinitely and can be designed to be reversed either by the same government or certainly by successive governments. So I do not really understand why she took the view that one could not include uprating provisions in the Bill.
I said that I hoped that our amendments had effectively embodied what the noble Baroness outlined in Grand Committee, at col. CWH 144, on 23rd May. Not surprisingly she began by saying:
"It is slightly more complicated than that. We are dealing with three elements in tax credits. First the expectation is the basic working tax credit will be reviewed annually in line with prices".
She said that it would be reviewed, not uprated. She continued:
"The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made a commitment that the uprating of children's tax credit, to my delight, will be in line with earnings, which is better than prices".
So far, so good as regards what we seek to put on the face of the Bill in paragraphs (a) and (b) of our amendment. For the reasons I mentioned, I do not believe that the earlier objections to our doing that were valid.
As regards paragraph (c) of our amendment, the noble Baroness continued:
"However, the situation is slightly more complicated because we do not want automatically to link"—
splendid grammar, as always, with no split infinitives—
"the third element, which is the childcare element, to price inflation, because childcare costs do not necessarily follow those same trends".—[Official Report, 23/05/02; col. CWH 144.]
I was not clear whether the noble Baroness argued that childcare costs do not go up as much as price inflation or whether she believed that they went up more and therefore she wanted to retain a degree of flexibility. We, being charitable as always, put the second interpretation on her remarks; namely, that she thought that occasionally childcare costs might go up faster than inflation. It seems unlikely that they would go up significantly less than inflation. Generally speaking, service sector costs tend to go up more rapidly than other costs. That has always been the case
942
as regards the wages of hairdressers—a well known example used in first-year economics exam papers. Paragraph (c) of our amendment proposes that,
"the childcare element of working tax credit is increased by an amount not less than the increase in retail price inflation".
As I say, we do not accept the argument that the measure is binding on future governments. All kinds of measures are designed as if they were perpetual. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that we merely seek to embody in the Bill what she has already said the Government undertake to do. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am rather disappointed that the noble Lord felt that he needed to move the amendment after the discussion and debate we have had and the undertakings I gave in response to Amendment No. 2 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I did not give assurances; I gave undertakings. I chose my words carefully as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was anxious that it should not be a matter of expressing warm words but rather of giving an undertaking for which the Government could be held to account. I hoped that I had met your Lordships' concern. I was able to give that undertaking for the first time. Although my right honourable friend in another place had expressed sympathy for the proposal, she made clear today—I was able to repeat her assurances to the House—that we shall undertake to raise working tax credit in line with RPI this Parliament.
The noble Lord knows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right honourable friend have already made it clear that the children's element will be raised in line with earnings. We have given a commitment to that extent. I sought to explain at some length—I thought that your Lordships had accepted my arguments—that it is not appropriate within such undertakings to deal with childcare in the way that the noble Lord proposes, partly because we do not know what will happen as regards supply and demand but, more generally, because we are in the middle of a childcare review.
There are all kinds of ways of meeting the very real need for childcare places. At present only one childcare place is available in all its forms for something like every eight children in the country. We are looking at ways to promote childcare. Earlier I tried to explain to your Lordships that perhaps a better or alternative way of doing that would be, instead of returning 70 per cent of the cost, to consider a different figure, perhaps a higher one or one that changes as people have more children. Given that, as far as I can see, childcare costs are almost certainly far more expensive in London than, say, in the West Country, it may be better to consider the matter on more of a regional basis. Alternatively, the right way to meet this need may be to look at support for informal childcare which might involve a different kind of financial structure than that which is envisaged.
For all those reasons it is not appropriate in my view—I thought that your Lordships had accepted that, certainly, judging from the warm response of the

943
noble Earl, Lord Russell, he had—to include the measure that is proposed. We have never included that formula of words in social security or tax credit Bills. What we have done today—I thought that your Lordships welcomed that—is to give not just assurances but undertakings that the two key elements—the adult element and the children's element—will rise, in the case of the adult element, in line with prices and, in the case of the children's element, in line with earnings, this Parliament. Obviously, I cannot give undertakings beyond that. The noble Lord is pushing me far too hard, particularly as regards the childcare element, for all the reasons that I tried to explain earlier. Given that the Government genuinely have gone a long way to try to make crystal clear our commitments and obligations today in the undertakings that my right honourable friend has been able to give, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the matter further.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the jargon is becoming more complicated. I have not previously distinguished as clearly as perhaps the noble Baroness considers that I should have done between assurances and undertakings. She seems to imply that an undertaking is somehow more certain than an assurance, in which case that casts considerable doubt on assurances given by the Government.
However, it is clear that the noble Baroness believes that she is giving an absolutely firm and watertight commitment on behalf of the Government. I note that she indicates assent to that. I accept her comments as regards the first two elements of my amendment. However, I am still slightly surprised at her explanation with regard to the third element; namely, the childcare element. I again quote the noble Baroness's words at col. 144 of Hansard of 23rd May:
"we do not want automatically to link the third element, which is the childcare element, to price inflation, because childcare costs do not necessarily follow those same trends".
I interpreted that to mean that they might go up faster than inflation. Indeed, I believe that that is likely to be the case given the usual underlying elements in the service sector.
However, the argument the noble Baroness now puts forward is not quite the same as the one she put forward in Grand Committee which was purely related to price inflation. She is now saying that the childcare structure is in any case being changed—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am trying to explain that we are discussing a different beast. We are talking about the purchase of a service. In response to the noble Lord in Committee and today I have tried to explain why it is a different beast. At the end of the day it is vital for this Government, if we are to seek to overcome child poverty, to encourage lone parents in particular into the labour market. They will do so only if they have childcare that they can afford, that they trust and that is convenient. I serve on a working party which is examining this issue. We need to keep that
944
issue under review but the right way to tackle it is certainly not through automatic linking as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness elaborates on the view that she expressed in Grand Committee. That is helpful. We accept the argument that she put forward; namely, that automatic linking would not be appropriate if one is not absolutely clear what one is automatically linking the price increase to, and that the structure of childcare benefit may change. That is not an unreasonable argument. As I said, the first two elements of my amendment have already been covered by an "undertaking". Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
Clause 42 [Persons subject to immigration control]:
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 22:
Leave out Clause 42.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, there are two reasons for leaving out the clause: one involves drafting and one involves substance. The argument about drafting is that the clause is a classically open-ended clause. It states:
"Regulations may make provision in relation to persons subject to immigration control or in relation to prescribed descriptions of such persons"—
one is not sure what is lurking under that provision—

"(a) for excluding entitlement to, or to a prescribed element of, child tax credit or working tax credit (or both), or

(b) for this Part to apply subject to other prescribed modifications".

In other words, the clause says that if one is dealing with persons who are subject to immigration control, one can do with them exactly what one likes. They are like the medieval villain; they do not know in the evening what they will be doing in the morning. That is a statement in law rather than in fact; I suspect that medieval villains probably knew rather well what they would be doing in the morning.
There may be clear policy intentions behind the clause, but it will fall into the hands of other governments and other Secretaries of State; it will turn up in other atmospheres and situations. For Parliament to abdicate completely any control over how tax credits apply to persons who are subject to immigration control is a very big handing-over of power. If Parliament is perpetually in the business of abdicating power, it cannot complain—it has only itself to blame—if it has not got much left afterwards. The drafting of the clause alone would be a sufficient reason for objecting to it.
More specifically, the treatment of persons who are subject to immigration control is one of those subjects in relation to which a great fear occasionally sweeps over a country. When that happens, there is a strong tendency to look for scapegoats. It is absolutely vital that that feeling should never be appeased when it arises. When one starts trying to appease it, one finds that one can never do enough. That is always the trouble with appeasement: the other people always

945
want more of it. As the noble Lord, Lord Healey, once said—I believe that he was Secretary of State for Defence at the time—"Offering defence cuts to the left is like offering herrings to a sealion". Appeasement is absolutely the wrong response to such racial panics.
If a clause of this sort was in the possession of a Secretary of State in any government—not just this Government—it would lead him into temptation. We should not lead people into such temptation. The clause makes it much too easy for future Secretaries of State to give way to cries of, "Let's be nasty to asylum seekers". It seems that they have now succeeded reds as what one looks for under the bed. This is a thoroughly dangerous clause and I hope that the Minister will consider leaving it out. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I originally tabled the amendment because it seemed appropriate that there should be much more clarity about the Government's proposals in Clause 42 than is apparent in the Bill. It seemed more appropriate that the noble Earl should move the amendment because he feels very passionately—we all do—about the issues that underlie the clause. It is also appropriate for the matter to be debated in your Lordships' House; the other place may not have an opportunity to do so. It is certainly right that the Government's intentions should be made clear. I hope that the Minister will spell out the position and seek to allay the concerns that those of us on this side of the House have about the way in which the clause could operate.
On the other hand, important entitlements are involved and we need to be clear about which groups of people the Government have in mind either to include or exclude, and in what circumstances. I hope that the noble Baroness will give us an assurance that if asylum seekers are granted asylum in this country, they will be treated in precisely the same way as everyone else and that there will be no question of them being put at a disadvantage in relation to those of us who already enjoy the benefits of being in the United Kingdom. I look forward to the Minister's reply; the situation needs clarifying as much as possible.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall try to do so. I remind noble Lords that we are talking about those who are subject to immigration control. It is worth spelling that out. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord: we should not confuse this issue with questions about the decency of treatment for asylum seekers, particularly those who have been granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we should in no sense seek to appease emotions that none of us would recognise as being in any way honourable or decent.
A person who is subject to immigration control is basically a person who is in the United Kingdom without permission or who has permission to be here but whose permission to remain is subject to the condition that he must not have recourse to public funds. That includes people with work permits, such as
946
someone coming from Australia to the United Kingdom for a year to work in someone's house. It also includes those asylum seekers to whom permission to work is granted because they have not had a decision on their asylum application within six months. It does not include EEA nationals, those who are granted asylum or—I made this point to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—those who are given exceptional leave to remain. With regard to those categories, I hope that I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he sought. We are talking about people who are not EEA nationals, who have not been granted asylum status and who have not been granted exceptional leave to remain; as I said, we are talking about someone from Australia or the old Soviet Union who has come here for a year or two and who comes on the condition that he does not have recourse to public funds.
The rules on immigration control are a matter for the Home Office and are set out in existing legislation—in particular, in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, to which the clause refers. That is why people who are subject to immigration control are not able to claim WFTC or DPTC—existing tax credits. Those are the grounds on which they come in, subject to immigration control. The clause provides for regulations to be made about the access that people have to tax credits.
A power to make regulations has been taken because it would not, in itself, have been sufficient just to insert references to working tax credit and child tax credit in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
In Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, expressed concern—he repeated it today—about the width of the vires. As I mentioned then, we will need to make special provision to ensure that couples are dealt with appropriately where only one person is subject to immigration control. In other words, at the moment, the rules are that no one who is subject to immigration control is allowed recourse to public funds. Should we wish to widen that at any stage—I may give examples—we need the clause to enable us to do so. Without it, the existing blanket rule—"no recourse to public funds"—remains.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I want to probe a little further about the reference to,
"prescribed descriptions of such persons".
Could the prescription be done in terms of race? The racial discrimination legislation does not, as I understand it, apply to immigration law. Does that bring the clause within the scope of immigration law or is racial discrimination under the clause illegal? The point is material.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am pretty confident of the answer but I shall get professional advice. I agree with the noble Earl that that is a major consideration.
When I have sought advice on the matter, the categories or descriptions of persons that are involved have never at any stage involved a particular race or

947
ethnic minority group. They have been concerned with situations in which, for example, one person in a couple is subject to immigration controls and the other is not. That is the category in question. It ensures that people in like circumstances are treated in like ways. That is why the word "category" is necessary, rather than making a rule or discretion for Joe Bloggs.
We may also need to modify other rules, such as those concerned with the engagement of the claim and in qualifying remunerative work and a person's responsibility for a child. At present, different systems take different approaches towards, say, the immigration status of children. But, again, we need to bring that within the broader framework of the Bill. We are considering which of the models—for example, the income support and JSA model or the WFTC/ DPTC model—is more appropriate. We are certainly seeking advice and would welcome the noble Earl's views on the matter.
In terms of the prescribed descriptions of persons, the noble Earl was concerned that, in relation to immigration control, we might need to draw distinctions according to nationality in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. I assure him that such distinctions are not a matter for these regulations. However, as the noble Earl will know, a person who is subject to immigration control can fall into various categories, irrespective of his nationality. The categories cover those who seek asylum, those who are in the country without permission, those who are in the country temporarily, and those who either have or do not have permission to take up paid employment, and so on.
As things stand—this is the substantive point that I want to make—all such groups are excluded from entitlement to WFTC and DPTC benefits and from anything that might count as recourse to public funds. We want to follow that approach, but we believe that it makes sense to keep all aspects of the tax credit rules under review. Without such a clause, we would not be able to make the kind of category exemption to which one person is subject but the other is not, and to which we might want to return.
I hope that I have addressed the noble Earl's concern. As I said, with regard to his point that we shall be running contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, I have given an undertaking and a written declaration that that is not the case. Therefore, I hope that that meets the noble Earl's concern. However, I shall be very happy to follow that up with further legal advice because I believe that he has raised an issue on which he is entitled to have more precise assurances than I have been able to give today. However, we are on the same side in relation to this matter, and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those concluding words. I understand what she says about couples. Of course, that will be a fairly common situation since people who are in this country for a number of years may well tend to marry. I still believe that these mires are too widely drafted.
948
However, I do not propose to take the matter any further tonight, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [General functions of Board]:
7 p.m.
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 30, line 32, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is possible that the noble Baroness will have a slight sense of déjá vu so far as concerns this amendment. Therefore, perhaps I may assure her that, if that is so, this is my swan song, if I may mix my metaphors.
At previous stages of the Bill, we have discussed at great length the curious way in which the draftsman insists on calling things which are pay-outs or benefits part of revenue, which of course is concerned with receipts. We have been over that point at great length on many occasions. But at this late stage in the Bill—at Clause 53—we suddenly find that for the purposes of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890, which, again, we discussed at great length previously, the definition of "Inland Revenue" here includes both child benefit and the guardian's allowance.
My objection to this clause is very simple. The clause says that things which are pluses are minuses:, it says that black is white; and it is an abuse of the English language to say that something relates to the Inland Revenue if one is paying out a sum rather than otherwise. I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, in considering the whole subject of tax legislation, might seek to clarify this point. None the less, since the provision covers two separate and new items—child benefit and the guardian's allowance—I hope that, even at this late stage, I can move the noble Baroness to see the overwhelming logic of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry but I am absolutely flinty on this matter. We have discussed the 1866 Act in great detail on previous occasions. We have discussed the 1890 Act, under which the Inland Revenue has its powers. I recall vividly that the 1866 Act—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have the words in front of me, as does the noble Lord. He got there ahead of me. When we looked at the 1866 Act, the words in front of us made it clear that after deductions of X, Y and Z, the gross revenues of the board may, and so on. Therefore, it was clear that when the board was set up originally by, I believe, William Gladstone, or at least given its powers in that form under that Act, gross revenues were what were left over after deductions had taken place. Therefore, the meanings that this Bill adopts are entirely consistent with those laid down by William Ewart Gladstone.

949
As I said, we discussed this matter at great length on a previous occasion. As I explained then, the amplification of the term "inland revenue" in the Inland Revenue Regulation Act is necessary to ensure that the statutory framework under which the board exercises its statutory responsibilities applies to the full range of its functions. That is why Clause 53(2) provides that the term "inland revenue", with lower case initials—I believe that I should belong to the compositors' union—is to be taken to include tax credits, child benefit and guardian's allowance. In other words, "inland revenue", with lower case as opposed to capitalised initials, means the comings-in and the goings-out of moneys.
Following the transfer effected by Part 2 of the Bill, child benefit and guardian's allowance will be administered by the Inland Revenue, with capital letters. Therefore, the term "inland revenue"—that is, moneys—which, in Section 39 of the 1890 Act is a reference to the scope of the Board of Inland Revenue's responsibilities, needs to be amplified so that it covers those benefits.
When we discussed the matter earlier, I explained that the term "inland revenue" had nothing to do with what counts as tax. The clause simply makes the point that no one is suggesting that child benefit and guardian's allowance will be anything other than social security benefits, even after responsibility for administering them has been transferred to the Inland Revenue. None the less, that power needs to be embodied by effect of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord is happy to agree that this is his swan song on the issue.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, happy? I am bitterly disappointed by that reply. The child benefit and the guardian's allowance are not deductions, even in the context of the earlier debate. But I believe that we are anxious to make progress. I shall see what other avenues are available to me, and perhaps the reforming group of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon will finally manage to put the matter right after a century and a half or so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Use and disclosure of information]:
Lord Saatchimoved Amendment No. 24:
Leave out Clause 59.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 24, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 29. There are two issues relating to Schedule 5. My noble friend and I thought that the easiest way to raise both issues was to move that the whole schedule be removed from the Bill.
The first reason for that suggestion is that Schedule 5 is intended to provide statutory authority to disclose information, which would be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. We believe that it may also touch on the Human Rights Act 1998. The exchange of information, for example, under paragraph 9 relating
950
to the passing of information about tax credit claimants in relation to health, may be in breach of Article 8(1) of the convention. That states that:
"Everyone has the right of respect for private and family life".
However, I imagine that the noble Baroness will say that that is justified under Article 8(2), which provides:
"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
I suppose that the noble Baroness will argue that the Government are relying on the phrase,
"the economic well-being of the country".
However, I should like to ask her whether that is really so. The interference of a person's privacy must also, according to the Human Rights Act, be,
"necessary in a democratic society".
I am told by those who know more about such matters that the case law clearly establishes that the interference must also be proportionate—that is reasonable.
To us that does not appear to be clear cut in relation to the passing of information among government agencies and departments that are described in Schedule 5. Given the events this week in relation to privacy in which your Lordships' House was closely involved, perhaps the noble Baroness can give further justification on that point.
I turn to the second reason why there is a case for leaving this clause out of the Bill, which is that the House of Commons has never seen it. Only the unelected Chamber has had a chance to look at it. Therefore, that touches on a fundamental point which is the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament. During the passage of the House of Lords Bill the then Attorney-General, now the Leader of the House, said that the result of that Bill would be a modern House of Lords,
"better equipped to do its proper job of holding the Executive to account".
Noble Lords will also remember that he warned us that we should perform that task in a manner suited to the humble House that this is. To spell that out for us a new word in the Government's lexicon emerged: "primacy". It was mentioned 12 times in the White Paper on the reform of your Lordships' House, mainly in the phrase,
"the primacy of the House of Commons".
So it was that on 7th November in the Statement of the Leader of the House on the White Paper to explain why it was impossible to have more than a 20 per cent elected element in this House, he said,
"Reform of your Lordships' House must satisfy one key condition".
He went on to explain that key condition. He said:
"It must not alter the respective roles and authority of the two Chambers".

951
He continued:
"The House of Lords should remain subject to the pre-eminence of the House of Commons in discharging its functions".—[Official Report, 7/11/01; col. 206.]
I stress the word "pre-eminence".
Noble Lords may remember that the Leader of the House gave a crisp reply to my noble friend Lord Kingsland at the end of a debate on the Parliament Act. He asked my noble friend whether he was questioning the supremacy of the House of Commons. The Leader of the House will have thought carefully and with great precision about the choice of the word "supremacy". I looked it up and its meaning is one that is perfectly benign and that all noble Lords could accept as a description of the House of Commons in relation to this House. There are meanings in the Thesaurus such as,
"above, greater, top spot, first place, senior, top dog, top banana, outrank, No. 1".
I do not believe that any of us would disagree with those definitions of another place.
We are a humble House and we know our place. The House of Commons sends us legislation which we revise and send back for its consideration. It has the last word. But I do not know of any speech by the Leader of the House in which he said that your Lordships' House would receive legislation directly from Government departments; in other words, directly from the executive, bypassing the House of Commons altogether. I do not recall the Leader of the House saying anything about the primacy of the Department for Work and Pensions, or about the preeminence of the Treasury. He did not say that because that would be a new constitutional departure whose only merit would be its extreme originality.
If the Department for Work and Pensions is to deal directly with your Lordships' House, why do we bother with the House of Commons at all? We could scrap it and let your Lordships' House deal directly with government departments. Is that what we want? We must remember that there is a great deal of concern about the lack of scrutiny of finance Bills. The Institute of Chartered Accountants said of the Finance Act,
"Much of this legislation was barely debated in its progress through Parliament. Many of the provisions became law without either a thorough review or the time for second thoughts or worthwhile amendments".
The ICA summed up its view of the process:
"The tax system has spun out of democratic control".
Therefore, what should we say about a schedule such as this one which has not been seen at all by another place. In my opinion, we should refuse to consider this schedule; we should send it back so that the elected House can perform the function that we all agree is for it alone. It is not the case, as the Minister said in Committee, that in putting forward this suggestion we are challenging the supremacy of the House of Commons. In fact, we are doing the exact opposite. On 18th December the Leader of the House said,
"The House of Commons is to be supreme‖it must have its own way".—[Official Report, 18/12/01; col. 130.]
952
Of course, that is right, but that is the problem. I have no idea whether this schedule is what the House of Commons wants because it has not had a chance to tell us.
We accept, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, says,
"that the vouchsafing of fiscal authority to the other place is a necessary conclusion".—[Official Report, 24/1/01; col. 266.]
However, we do not accept that, in the absence of any consideration by another place, we should vouchsafe fiscal authority to the Department for Work and Pensions. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have two points to make. First, the alleged primacy of the House of Commons has existed in our history for two periods, which between them amount to 26 years. The first was from 1649 to 1653 and the second from 1846 to 1868. Otherwise, what happened is that the executive learned to use patronage to control the House of Commons and still does. Secondly, if another place fails to do its duty, that is no excuse for us not to do ours.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has addressed some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. The amendments seek to remove the powers in Schedule 5 which enable the Inland Revenue to use the information that it obtains when administering tax credits, child benefit, or guardians allowance for any purpose except the particular credit or benefit to which it applies. In other words, if the amendment were to be agreed by the House, we would not be able to use that information or give it to any other government department and passported benefits would be wiped out.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, it does not mean that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it does. We have already said that. On a previous occasion I made it clear that that is why we need data exchange because without it the Department of Health, which is responsible for determining free prescriptions, and the Department for Education and Skills, which is responsible for determining free school meals, cannot function. The Department for Work and Pensions does not determine those matters, nor does the Inland Revenue; it is the home department that determines them. So they need that information either in its original form or with corroboration from our department. If you want to be responsible for taking free school dinners away from the poor children of this country, so be it. I am sure that is not the intention of the noble Lord, but his amendment would have that effect. It would remove the power that we have to provide that information.
The noble Lord is right to want to ensure that unnecessary information that may transgress the Data Protection Act is not transferred. Our starting point is that all information about claimants is confidential.

953
The schedule applies to tax credits, child benefit and guardian's allowance. The existing criminal sanction against the unauthorised disclosure of information by revenue staff applies. To provide that efficient, effective, joined-up service to claimants so that they may receive passported benefits, and occasionally to help protect against fraud, we need that information to be disclosed to other bodies. None of those provisions is contrary to the Human Rights Act.
This issue, together with all other aspects of the Bill, was specifically considered by my right honourable friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place and they signed, as I have, the certificate of compatibility on the introduction of the Bill. Nothing has changed since then. If we are to have passported benefits, these powers are needed so that the information is available to the home departments which will continue properly to exercise those powers within the constraints of the Data Protection Act. No one may use those powers for purposes other than those proposed and they are compatible with the Human Rights Act.
The second point was picked up by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He seemed to suggest that Schedule 5 has never been seen by the other place. He appeared to suggest that it is a late addition to the Bill and that the other House has never seen it. That simply is not true. Schedule 5 has been in the Bill from the outset. It is for the other place to decide what it scrutinises.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I said that the other place had not seen it, by which I meant that it was in the Bill, but that the Government had denied another place the opportunity to discuss it or to scrutinise it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Commons had not "seen" it. The plain English translation of that is that they had not seen it because it is new. On the contrary: they saw it; they chose not to debate it. That is a matter for the Commons. Whether or not your Lordships agree that that was wise, it is not for us to say that because the Commons chose not to discuss it, it is our job to take it all out.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I can assist the noble Baroness. Each House is sovereign over its own procedure. We have no more right to criticise the Commons' use of its procedures than it has to criticise ours.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, more elegantly put than I could ever hope to. I hope that as a result of those two arguments—first, that removing the schedule by going with this amendment would deny the departments the information they need to passport poor children and families on to their relevant benefits; secondly, that it is not our business to comment on what the Commons chooses to scrutinise—the noble Lord will not wish to pursue the matter further.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the House of Commons did not decide not to scrutinise this schedule; the
954
Government decided that it would not scrutinise it. That is what happened. Therefore it remains the case that this House is being required to look at legislation—not for the first time—and far exceed the duties and responsibilities given to it by the Leader of the House in his description of this place. We suggest that it is a responsibility that we should decline. However, the noble Baroness, as she said, is "flinty" on this point and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 [Regulations, orders and schemes]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
"ADVISORY BODIES AND CONSULTATION
The Social Security Advisory Committee (constituted under section 9 of the Social Security Act 1980 (c. 30) (the social security advisory committee) and Part XIII of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c. 5) (advisory bodies and consultation)) and its functions shall apply to tax credits, and paragraph 28(4) and (5) of Schedule 3 to this Act shall amend Part XIII of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 accordingly."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 26, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 28 which is grouped with it. The effect of these two amendments is to bring the matter of tax credits within the scope of the Social Security Advisory Committee.
When one has the transfer of business between departments, one has a merging of cultures. The purpose of this and one or two other amendments that I have moved is to ensure that within that merging of cultures, the most desirable feature—that is, the culture of social security, which is in many respects a good one—should not be lost.
The Social Security Advisory Committee is of immense value to us in our proceedings here. Regulations are not the easiest of reading matter and to have, when they are before us, the committee's exposition of what the regulations say—what they do, what the bodies it has consulted have to say, what specific defects have been spotted within them and in what ways, if any, they need changing—and to have then the Secretary of State's reply to those matters all in the Printed Paper Office whenever we consider a social security regulation, is an immense advantage to us. So I hope that the transfer of responsibilities to the Treasury will not mean that that benefit will he lost.
I understand that there are already informal arrangements for the Social Security Advisory Committee to be consulted. But that is not the same as actually having its recommendations in the Printed Paper Office where we can read them. That ensures a proper debate on regulations when we get them. In fact, it is an absolutely vital asset to scrutiny.
As I understand it, the problem that the Government have about this is the problem of accountability. I do not see a problem about the accountability of the Social Security Advisory Committee to the Department for Work and Pensions for what is within its remit, and to the Treasury for matters within its remit. After all, there are other

955
advisory bodies which may be accountable to more than one department for work which comes within their particular purview. Even if there is some difficulty seen about this, in the last resort, if Parliament is sovereign, it can do whatever it likes. If Parliament wants to do this, it can. I rather hope it will want to do this. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl in this amendment, which is a very important one. We all accept that the Social Security Advisory Committee does excellent work, and the noble Earl stressed its importance.
Under this Bill the responsibility for this specific social security benefit—it clearly is a social security benefit; I do not accept the argument put forward earlier by the Minister that it is somehow outside the social security structure—and the body best qualified to comment on the way in which the tax credit scheme develops is the Social Security Advisory Committee. The argument is put forward that somehow it is within the remit of the Inland Revenue and not social security. I do not accept that argument. It clearly comes within the social security structure.
I hope therefore that if the noble Baroness seeks to reject this amendment, the matter will be pressed to a Division and the opinion of the House taken upon it. It is an important amendment. After all, £2.7 billion is being paid out in what are indisputably and in reality social security benefits. They are not part of the Inland Revenue—we have been over this argument before—they are social security benefits. Even the parts which are genuine tax credits and deducted from other tax liabilities comprise only 10 per cent of the total. It is entirely appropriate therefore that the Social Security Advisory Committee should keep an eye on the way in which the tax credits system develops without regard to the exact department which is responsible for its administration. I strongly support the view that the noble Earl put forward.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry but I am unable to accept the amendment in the way it is presented on the Marshalled List.
The role of the committee is set out in Part 13 of the Social Security Administration Act. That role is to advise the Secretary of State in connection with the carrying out of his functions. This amendment seeks to widen the remit of the committee, giving it an advisory role in relation to the functions of the Treasury and the Inland Revenue under this Bill.
I understand the concern of your Lordships that the experience and knowledge of the Social Security Advisory Committee, to which we all pay tribute, in the area of social policy can inform the development of the tax credits and that proposals for draft regulations made under this Bill are subject to appropriate scrutiny and consultation. I agree with that sentiment.
When WFTC and DPTC were introduced—similarly when responsibility for national insurance contributions was transferred to the Inland Revenue — the Government were anxious to ensure that that
956
scrutiny and consultation took place. Inland Revenue officials were asked to make sure that the committee was shown any relevant regulations in draft to ensure that we benefited from the expertise of its members. That practice has continued and I should like to take this opportunity to place on record our appreciation of the contribution those members have made.
I said in Grand Committee—I repeat it tonight—that the Inland Revenue and the Social Security Advisory Committee, although they do not have a formal arrangement because that would alter the whole basis of the committee, have an informal arrangement under which consultation takes place. That will continue once the new tax credits are in place. Indeed, officials at the Inland Revenue have already agreed with the Social Security Advisory Committee a basis for ongoing consultation, renewing and updating the arrangements put in place in 1999.
The committee is consulted regularly. It was consulted about the proposed introduction of these two new tax credits and officials met to discuss the Government's proposals. We shall be consulting its members to discuss the regulations. I hope that your Lordships will agree that that consultation exercise is going ahead satisfactorily.
Perhaps I may quote from two of the most recent reports of the advisory committee. In its 12th report, 1999–00, the committee said,
"While these are still early days, these informal procedures have in our opinion worked well and we are grateful to Inland Revenue officials for the care they have taken to keep the committee informed of all relevant developments".
In last year's report, 2000–01, it said,
"We also continue to comment informally on proposals from the Inland Revenue concerning matters such as WFTC. We arc grateful to Inland Revenue officials who continue to keep us closely in touch with relevant developments within then areas of responsibility".
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness can assist us a little further. She says that comments or, at least, judgments from the committee on these matters exist. Is there any chance that in the future those may be made available to the House?
Baroness Hollis of Heiglham: My Lords, where the Inland Revenue and the Treasury introduce significant changes which go out to consultation, then, as with the original papers here and other major developments, there will be a response from the Social Security Advisory Committee. That would be published and placed in the Library of the House. The Social Security Advisory Committee does not publish its smaller—if I can put it that way—responses to the Department for Work and Pensions. Its major issues are put into its annual report. In that sense I hope the noble Earl will agree that there is some, although perhaps not perfect, analogy, between the two systems.
While I sympathise with what the noble Earl seeks to do, I think that the informal arrangements work very well, as do the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Inland Revenue. Where there are major changes which go out to consultation, the views

957
of the Social Security Advisory Committee are sought by the Inland Revenue, and are placed in the Library of the House. With those assurances, I hope that it is not appropriate to change its formal terms of reference. The informal arrangements that we have are proving, so far as I can see, highly satisfactory and highly effective. I hope that the noble Earl is able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am not clear what the noble Earl who moved the amendment proposes—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, wished to intervene before the Minister sat down.
I am grateful to the Minister for the one crumb of comfort that she has given me. I think that it is a rich crumb. The making available of the reports of the committee to this House is of great value.
I knew perfectly well that I was proposing to change the committee's remit. I do not see why that is such a particularly desperate and dangerous thing to do. I understand that there is a culture which says that it has not happened before, therefore it is desperately dangerous. But there is substance in the remark of Edmund Burke that,
"Whatever now is established, once was innovation".
So, I am not persuaded by those arguments.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, but when he urges me to divide the House, I think of the story of the 18th century MP. He was a particularly boring MP, who spoke for well over three hours until the Chamber was completely empty. At the end of which he began to read the Riot Act until Edmund Burke, of all improbable people, got up and said:
"Ah, my friend, you are too late. See you not the crowd has dispersed?"
For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we, on this Bench, decline. We believe that there is a case for putting the amendment formally on the face of the Bill. We therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
7.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 26) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 81.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L. [Teller]

Higgins, L.

Attlee, E.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Belstead, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Boardman, L.

Lucas, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

O'Cathain B

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rawlings, B.

Geddes, L.

Rogan, L.

Hanham,B. [Teller]

Seccombe, B.

Strathclyde, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Alli, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Amos, B.

Hayman, B.

Andrews, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bach, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Billingham, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Blackstone, B.

Brennan, L.

Layard, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brookman, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Carter, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Crawley B

Massey of Darwen, B.

Darcy de Knaytn, B.

Mitchell, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Puttnam, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Rea, L

Desai, L

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Dubs, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Elder, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Sewel, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon. V.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Filkin, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gale, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Thornton, B.

Gilbert, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Golding, B.

Uddin, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Grabiner, L.

Whitaker, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Whitty,L.

Grenfell, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Schedule 3 [Tax credits: consequential amendments.]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Use and disclosure of information]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

National Care Standards Commission (Children's Rights Director) Regulations 2002
7.44 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 3rd May, be annulled (S.I. 2002/1250).
The purpose of this exercise is to ensure debate in the House on the regulations and to persuade the Government that they should think again and give the Children's Rights Director some real powers to protect very vulnerable children.
Many in the House believe that the Government should establish a children's rights commissioner to promote and protect the rights of all our children and are bewildered that the Government still seem resistant to the idea in England, despite the appointment of a commissioner in Wales and commitments to a commissioner in both Scotland and Northern Ireland. This debate is not about that proposition but concerns the protection of very vulnerable children, whom we all agree need special protection.
In 1998, the then Secretary of State for Health, Frank Dobson, announced regional children's rights officers. By the time that the Care Standards Bill was presented to Parliament, that proposal had been reduced to a single Children's Rights Director within the National Care Standards Commission. Assurances were given in both Houses that the Children's Rights Director would be a champion for children. The Minister in another place stated that,
"the director will, I hope, be able to act as a powerful champion for some of the most vulnerable children in our society…children who need the additional protection that a powerful children's rights director can offer. Our challenge is to rebuild the confidence and faith of vulnerable children in a system that has failed them for far too long".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/4/2001; col. 667.]
This House tried to strengthen the role of the director in the Care Standards Bill but was assured that would best be done in regulations. We all acknowledge that the state—acting in effect as the parents—has failed many children lamentably. One measure of the failure is that by early in 2000 there were investigations into abuse at more than 500 residential children's homes across England and Wales, with at least 5,000 alleged victims. According to the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers, there were 80 police inquiries into abuse in care in progress throughout the country.
The Department of Health issued the regulations in draft for consultation on 18th January, with a deadline for responses of 11th April. By 3rd May, the regulations had been laid. That is a mere three weeks, which is a very short time. One might say they were laid with commendable speed but children's organizations
960
raised serious concerns during the consultation period and they have not been addressed. Organisations, including those for children in care, asked for a meeting with the Minister but were refused.
The regulations as laid do not differ substantially from the draft. A "powerful champion" for children living away from home needs to have the right of immediate access to those children in all kinds of residential homes and schools. He—the first holder of the post is a man—needs to be able to require bodies and individuals to furnish him with information. A champion needs to be able to take or at the very least support legal action on behalf of children.
In another place, the Minister stated also:
"We do envisage the children's rights director having the opportunity and the ability to take up such cases—individual cases as appropriate—as are brought to his or her attention by individual children". [Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee G, 4/7/2000; cols. 673–74.]
But the regulations make no mention of the director having the power to investigate any cases at all. The director is an officer of the National Care Standards Commission, who is appointed to secure "as far as possible" that the commission carries out its functions in relation to children properly; to ascertain the views of children and their parents about regulated services; and to monitor and review arrangements made by providers of regulated children's services.
Those are important functions, but they do not really add much to the National Care Standards Commission itself. The director cannot be said to be independent and the functions certainly do not justify the description "powerful champion" for these children.
In contrast, children in residential care and receiving other regulated services in Wales have been given a Children's Commissioner who does have—in relation to similar children—very much stronger powers and duties in primary legislation and in regulations issued by the National Assembly for Wales; for example, to require information and disclosure of documents; to examine individual cases and to compel attendance of witnesses and disclosure of material. In so doing he has the same powers as the High Court. He can assist children in making complaints, and in legal proceedings. He has a clear annual reporting duty. The regulations link his role to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and so on. All this is in addition to the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales.
So, not only are all England's 11 million children being deprived of a children's rights commissioner, but with these weak regulations, not even our particularly vulnerable children in care are getting the "powerful champion" they were promised, and which they certainly need and deserve. I hope that the Government will think again. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 3rd May, be annulled (S.I. 2002/1250).— (Baroness David.)
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady David, does not really hope to end up without the Children's Rights Director in the National Care Standards Commission as a result of this debate. Here I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the commission. Whatever the debate is about a children's commissioner, I believe that there is another debate to be had. We should concentrate on what we would be losing if we annulled these regulations, which I seriously hope we shall not do this evening.
What we have at present is a Children's Rights Director in the form of Roger Morgan, who has taken a great deal of time to write the regulations for children's services in the commission, and writing into them standards that will ensure that children will be listened to and that children who are brought together to discuss their issues will have access to all kinds of other people. Clearly, Roger Morgan does not have the kind of role and responsibilities that a commissioner would have, but there is capacity within the Act for him to be given additional responsibilities if the Government felt that that was appropriate.
At present, Mr Morgan has capacity to undertake case work through the inspectors of the National Care Standards Commission. I take a rather structural view of the situation; namely, that he has far more capacity to get, through the inspectors, dozens of officers visiting children's homes and other institutions around the country than would be the case if we had one person with a couple of assistants to deal with children's issues. We should not underestimate the structural issues when discussing a commissioner and the role of the Children's Rights Director in the National Care Standards Commission.
Mr Morgan has already been visiting young people. As soon as we have dealt with the regulations, he intends to visit regularly. I have heard him talk to children directly. He has a marvellous capacity for ensuring that their voices are heard. I believe that he will take forward very much the champion's role for children in regulated establishments. I recognise that there may be a wider role needed as regards other children, but this is for children in regulated establishments. In saying that, I should point out that I am talking about some of the most vulnerable children in our society.
Whatever the outcome of tonight's debate, I should like to make sure that we do not lose this role in the National Care Standards Commission. It is crucially important that we recognise that changes have taken place within children's homes. Because I worked in the area and especially in child protection for many years, I recognise that a good deal of historical abuse is being investigated at present. However, because of the introduction of better standards and better regulation, we should acknowledge that we are not encountering many new abuse situations. Most of the cases being investigated relate to historical abuse. In that respect, we should give credit to the commission and to the many local authorities for the work that has been
962
undertaken in ensuring that staff are properly trained; and, indeed, for taking the interests of children to heart.
Therefore, although I do not wish to oppose the noble Baroness, Lady David, with all her experience in relation to this subject, I hope that we shall not lose what we already have as a result of the debate.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady David, for giving us the opportunity to raise these matters tonight. As someone who is heartily sick of sitting through the proceedings on Bills with regulation after regulation being mentioned, it is good for this House to sit down once in a while and consider the kind of measures to which we are committing ourselves in primary legislation, and to subject such measures to thorough scrutiny.
I should like to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and talk about the structural reorganisational issues. The existence of the National Care Standards Commission in its present form was short-lived; indeed, it existed for a fortnight only and will soon become part of another investigatory body. I am sorry, such titles change so quickly these days that it is quite difficult to get one's head around them.
We need to consider these issues in the following context. There is a very great fear on the part of people who look into such issues that the resources devoted to this post—not the individual who is currently undertaking such duties—will be too stretched. That fear was outlined very graphically by the noble Baroness, Lady David. A limited role within a structure that is not perfect and is in flux seems to me to be a matter about which we should be most concerned.
We need not detain ourselves too long on the argument that Wales has a far more superior regulatory framework that that which applies to England. However, there are questions that need to be answered by the Minister. It is quite evident that children's services and child protection work, and, indeed, the whole area of listening to children who are in vulnerable positions, will be subject to a great deal of review over the course of the next year. We all know the reasons behind that move. In that context, can the Minster say whether the Government will consider the work of the Children's Rights Director in parallel with the work of the Children's Commissioner for Wales? At some stage in the near future, will it be possible for this House to consider the output of the two roles in order to draw a direct comparison? If, as a result of that consideration, it turns out that the Welsh framework is superior, will we have the opportunity to build upon the very valuable work that will be carried out by the holder of this post in the intervening period?
That is all that I particularly wish to say at this point, other than to wish the present occupier of the role all the very best in what I believe will be quite difficult circumstances. I should also like to offer my support to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for what

963
I consider to be a superior framework for looking after the interests of vulnerable children that will enable them to speak for themselves.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady David, on raising this important matter and thank her for giving me the chance to ask the Minister a question. England is bigger, more complicated and has more paedophiles. Why a commissioner for Wales but not for England? I hope that the Minister will do something about that and correct it.
Lots of hidden things are going on about which we do not know and children cannot say what is happening. That includes children in boarding schools. I know that there are problems in boarding schools and people who want to abuse children have a clever way of getting in there and getting a job. I therefore hope that the Minister will do all that he can to help children and to give some clout to the role.
8 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for ensuring that we debate this important issue. That gives me the opportunity to ask the Minister some questions. Of course, we on these Benches agree with the noble Baroness that those vulnerable children need special protection.
The Department of Health held a three-month consultation on the draft regulations—this statutory instrument —earlier this year. How many responses were received? How do the draft regulations differ from those before us today, and why have those changes been made?
In April, the Secretary of State announced that the National Care Standards Commission is to be taken over by two new bodies, the commission for healthcare audit and inspection and the commission for social care inspection. As the NCSC will shortly no longer exist in its current format, will that have any implications for the regulations? Will the changes to the National Care Standards Commission require primary legislation? When does the Minister anticipate that those changes will take place? How many staff will work in the Children's Rights Director's office, and what will be the budget? Regulations can be effective only if they are implemented.
According to the Explanatory Notes, the director is to be appointed by the National Care Standards Commission and will be a member of the NCSC's staff. However, many functions of the director as detailed in the SI require him to report back to the NCSC. For instance, Regulation 3(1)(m) requires the director to report to the commission about the availability and quality of regulated children's services. Obviously, the aim should not be for the director to report back to his own office within the NCSC. Are the regulations clear enough to ensure that
964
the work of the Children's Right's Director is reported back to a different appropriate authority within the NCSC?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady David for allowing us to debate the regulations and to revisit some of the important and interesting matters that some of us debated during the passage of the Care Standards Act 2000. The creation of the Children's Rights Director was an important measure that we agreed as part of setting up the National Care Standards Commission. The director is able to act as a powerful champion for some of the most vulnerable children in our country. Mr Roger Morgan, who has been appointed to the post, is already working hard to establish that important new role. The regulations enable the Children's Rights Director to perform that role in the most effective way possible.
We consulted on the regulation and, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, we received 40 responses, including responses from voluntary organisations providing services to children, social services departments and children's rights organisations. The changes that we have made are mainly drafting changes; there are no changes of substance from the draft regulations. But that in itself does not detract from the benefit of holding the consultation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Astor, suggested, the Children's Rights Director is a specialist director at the headquarters of the National Care Standards Commission and reports to the chief executive of the commission. The scope of the Children's Rights Director ranges across all the different constituencies of children receiving services regulated under the Care Standards Act 2000. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, suggested, that covers a wide range of services—residential and nursing homes, children's homes, private and voluntary hospitals and clinics, fostering agencies, independent medical agencies, boarding schools and local authority adopting and fostering services—provided to support and help vulnerable children.
The Children's Rights Director's role is aimed at responding to those children who are most in need of safeguarding. It is about listening to children and helping to protect them from harm. The Children's Rights Director has a special role in ensuring that vulnerable children have a voice in all decisions that affect them.
In addition, the Children's Rights Director will ensure that the commission provides full and effective coverage of children's rights in its statutory responsibilities for regulated children's services. Any significant evidence relevant to the rights and safety of children gathered through the process of regulation and assessment will be reported to the commission and disseminated in order to help local authorities and other providers to improve the services and support offered to children.
Of course, I listened with a great deal of care and attention to the points raised by my noble friend. If she reads the regulations, she will comprehend the

965
extensive range of responsiblities of the Children's Rights Director laid down, especially in Regulation 3. Regulation 3(1)(a)(i) provides that the director,
"safeguards and promotes the rights and welfare of children who are provided with regulated children's services".
Regulation 3(1)(a)(ii) provides that he,
"gives proper consideration to the views of children to whom regulated children's services are provided and to the views of the parents of such children".
Sub-paragraph (g) states:
"to ascertain … the views of children about regulated children's services provided to them … and to report such views to the Commission in so far as they are relevant to the discharge by the Commission of its functions".
Sub-paragraph (h) states:
"to monitor and review the effectiveness of the arrangements made by the providers of regulated children's services".
I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, to sub-paragraph (k), which states:
"to report to the Commission"—
there is a clear responsibility of the director to report directly to the commission—
"and the Secretary of State".
That means that, even though that person is an employee of the National Care Standards Commission, not only is that office-holder named in statute and regulations are brought before your Lordships' House to set out that person's functions; he can report directly to the Secretary of State any significant evidence relating to the rights and welfare of children who are provided with regulated children's services. The powers set out in the regulations are substantial. They will be used to great effect by the occupant of that extremely responsible post.
My noble friend also raised an interesting point about whether the Children's Rights Director could require information to be provided. My understanding is that the commission itself can require information. I draw my noble friend's attention to Clause 31(1) of the Care Standards Act 2000. Accordingly, the Children's Rights Director can require information via the commission's capacity to do so.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, suggested, if we were to annul the regulations and render them unusable, the functions of the Children's Rights Director would not be set out. A postholder would still be in place, but only as an employee and not as a special champion for children at the National Care Standards Commission.
Several important points were raised. I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who asked specifically about the impact of creating the new inspectorate. I well recognise that it is a significant change, which comes at a time when the National Care Standards Commission is bedding down, appointing staff and developing its functions. I recognise that we are asking a great deal of the board and the staff of the commission, and I want to pay tribute to them for the enormous dedication and motivation that they bring to their task and for the support that they are giving to the changes. It has been remarkable, and the Government recognise that.
966
Creating a single, comprehensive inspectorate for social care that brings together the inspection functions of the Social Services Inspectorate and the National Care Standards Commission will produce a rigorous inspection system, in which the public interest will be safeguarded and enhanced.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked how the role of the Children's Rights Director would fit into the new arrangements. I cannot answer that question directly; we are still considering the matter. We must consider also the implications of the transfer of some of the functions of the National Care Standards Commission to the new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. We will consider the matter carefully. We are, of course, considering the legislative implications, but I know that the noble Lord will not expect me to go any further on that. He also raised the issue of budgets and staff. We must recognise that the National Care Standards Commission is still at an early stage of development. I will ask the commission to keep in touch with the noble Lord on those matters.
The issue of a children's commissioner overrides the specific questions that we are debating. My noble friend Lady David has raised the matter assiduously at every possible opportunity. I do not doubt the symbolism and importance of such a post to those who passionately argue for it. I would never underestimate the importance of that symbolism. However, we need to take a hard-headed approach and analyse exactly what a children's commissioner would do. How would the commissioner's responsibility compare with existing mechanisms? Ultimately, we must ask whether having a children's commissioner would actually add value. Would it simply duplicate good work already being done? Would it dash the expectations, which may be impossibly high, of those who argue for such a post?
I hope that I can respond positively to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and say that I would welcome further debate along those lines. We should base our debate on consideration of experience in Wales. We are examining with great interest the work of the Welsh Children's Commissioner and the discussions taking place in the other devolved administrations. I would point out, however, that the commissioners being discussed in the other devolved administrations differ from each other with regard to the responsibilities that they are to be given. I agree with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I would welcome a dispassionate analysis of the potential added value of having a children's commissioner, together with an analysis of what the Government seek to do to ensure that the voice of the child is heard.
It is not the time for me to go into extensive detail about the initiatives that the Government have taken. We have established a Children and Young People's Unit across government; we have established a Cabinet Committee on Children and Young People's Services; there is a Children's Rights Director; and, in the Department of Health, we have appointed a national clinical director for children, and we are

967
working on a national service framework for children's services. We are also considering the potential reform of the ombudsman structure in England to allow children greater access to the system, and we are developing advocacy services for children. The measures that the Government are taking comprise a very powerful package that truly puts the interests of children at the centre of our thinking.
We will surely have further debate on the question of a children's commissioner. In that debate, those who argue in favour of having such a post should compare what a children's commissioner might do with what is already being done, rather than simply saying that, in Wales—and, perhaps, in the other devolved administrations—there is a Children's Commissioner and that that is, per se, a good thing, while what is happening in England is a bad thing. We must have a debate about the added value of what is being suggested. I say that because it would be all too easy for the Government to say that we will have a children's commissioner, although that commissioner will either duplicate or be peripheral to what is already being done. One of the advantages of the measures that we have put in place is that the Children's Rights Director is part of the National Care Standards Commission, so he or she will be informed by much of the activity of the commission in exercising regulatory authority.
I have spoken at some length on the matter. I do not want noble Lords to think that I am here to dismiss out of hand the possibility of having a children's commissioner. I recognise why there are those who are attracted to that proposal. Equally, however, I must defend the Government's programme. We have introduced several measures to promote the rights of children and their right to be heard. The Children's Rights Director is an important office that will bring a great deal of help and advice to children and children's services. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will consider withdrawing her Motion. I hope that she considers that I have listened with a great deal of attention to what she said. The Children's Rights Director has considerable powers and will use them to great effect.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for their support and for the knowledge that they have brought to this short debate. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his very careful response, which was more than I expected. He made a powerful speech. The Government have done a great deal for children and I am proud of that. I congratulate them on that.
I respect the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and I have a great respect for her knowledge. She, of course, has connections with the commission and may have a slightly biased view, but I respect what she said.
I did not intend to press this matter to a Division. I am reassured by what the Minister said and I am grateful for that. Perhaps he might give a guarantee that there will be a formal review, involving consultations with children in care and those organisations representing them, of the effectiveness
968
of the Children's Rights Director and the adequacy of the regulations within a year. That would be very interesting. We are working in the unknown—we do not know quite what will happen—and it would be very interesting if there was some kind of review in a year's time to discover whether the regulations have worked and whether they have been as effective as the Minister clearly thinks they will be.
The Minister said that the changes in the regulations were mostly to the drafting. Knowing what a lot of work went into the consultations, that is rather surprising. People sent in their comments and it would seem that they were treated rather abruptly—perhaps not slightingly—and without the attention that might have been expected.
We have had an interesting debate. I am glad that we have had it because I have certainly learnt from it. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Industrial and Provident Societies Bill
8.22 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set clown to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Graham of Edmonton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill
8.23 p.m.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Grabiner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
8.24 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I begin by thanking and paying tribute to those who have assisted me in the drafting of the Bill, the staff in the Public Bill Office and a number of IT professionals. It is fair to say that without their help the Bill would be a much sorrier animal than it is. Accordingly, I am hugely grateful to them for turning the germ of an idea into something of substance.

969
That substance, the Bill's purpose, is, I hope, entirely straightforward. It is encapsulated in the Long Title—that is,
"to protect computerised systems against denial-of-service attacks".
Your Lordships may wish me to flesh this out a little. Broadly speaking, denial-of-service attacks can be defined as hacking or, more correctly, cracking into computer systems. The most common forms, be they inspired by individuals or larger groups of people, target a network's connectivity or bandwidth by flooding it with such a large volume of traffic that it crashes. Trojan horse or worm programs such as the recent "I Love You" or the klez-h viruses are particular examples.
It is curious that, at this time, this kind of activity appears not to be illegal in the UK. As I understand it, there are provisions on the face of the Terrorism Act 2000 that make denial-of-service attacks conducted for the purposes of terrorism prosecutable, but there is no equivalent statutory sanction against attacks that are criminally or maliciously inspired.
It is perhaps worth making the point that a wide body of opinion acknowledges that the Computer Misuse Act has this lacuna and that it is a loophole that needs to be plugged. The National High-Tech Crime Unit has called upon the Government to amend the law to give police clearer powers to prosecute denial-of-service attacks. Indeed, if my information is correct, it has asked the Home Office to review and update the Computer Misuse Act in its entirety.
Peter Scargill, IT chairman at the Federation of Small Businesses, has observed:
"There is currently nothing remotely approaching adequate legal recourse against hackers".
The European Information Society Group, EURIM, in its briefing of April this year argued that the Computer Misuse Act,
"needs updating urgently, for example to ensure effective prosecution of those initiating denial-of-service attacks that prevent legitimate access to information systems".
Across the political divide, Greg Pope, a former Whip at the Department of Trade and Industry and Labour MP for Hyndburn, has said:
"This is a serious problem. The UK is a major business centre and a leader in e-commerce. We cannot afford to let a loophole in the law damage that position".
The publication Computer Weekly has been running its "Lock Down the Law" campaign, which is aimed specifically at this issue. All in all, the support for the Bill's proposition is overwhelming.
It is sensible to try to get a feel for the nature and scope of the problem. There are essentially two elements to this. First, the current vulnerability of computer systems to denial-of-service attacks; and, secondly, their cost to UK business, both monetary and in terms of denting public confidence in IT.
To deal with the first element, it would seem that cracking activity is increasing exponentially. In February of last year, a technique called "backscatter analysis", used over a three-week period by
970
researchers at the University of California in San Diego, detected more than 12,000 denial-of-service attacks against more than 5,000 distinct targets, including sites such as Amazon and Hotmail, even computers with dial-up connections.
The Honeypot project, reported by the Observer in July of last year, reveals truly staggering, if not chilling, statistics. Researchers involved in the project suggest that,
"any computer with a persistent internet connection is scanned for weaknesses on average 17 times a day. The life expectancy of a default installation of Red Hat 6.2 server—the time before someone successfully hacks into it—is less than 72 hours".
In this country, MessageLabs, the IT security company, published a report only this week revealing that it has intercepted more than 2 million infected messages in the first six months of this year, double what it encountered in the same period last year. The report makes the additional point that viruses also appear to be getting more malicious.
As to the second element, the cost to UK business, a recent investigation by the Department of Trade and Industry has estimated that cracking activity, together with cyber fraud and software bugs, is costing Britain as much as £10 billion a year. Coincidentally, Lloyds of London estimates the global cost of the "I Love You" virus to have been an equivalent £10 billion. According to EURIM, a recent US survey has estimated the global cost of e-crime to be some £1 trillion annually.
As an aside, the same DTI report suggests that attacks by crackers have more than tripled in the past two years, with Government Ministers suggesting that cyber crime is the world's fastest growing criminal activity.
However, all the time that UK business has no adequate recourse in law, there is no incentive for businesses to bear down on the problem. In this context, it is generally acknowledged that a significant number of denial-of-service attacks go unreported simply because businesses are fearful of compromising their on-line activities by revealing how often these occur and how vulnerable their systems are to cracking attacks. In effect, the case for legislating in this area is made in spades. I shall return to this point shortly, but this makes it all the more extraordinary that, if reports are to be believed, the Home Office attaches such a low priority to this issue.
The Government may seek to defend their position by suggesting that progress can only he made on the issue by international agreement, that it would he inappropriate for the UK to legislate unilaterally. It is, of course, true to say that the Internet is global and, to that extent, the argument could be said to have some currency. However, as Art Coviello, chief executive of RSA Security, has observed,
"If Tony Blair wants to make the UK the place to do e-business by 2005, the Government has to be a model, an example for companies to follow".

971
Quite apart From that, the proposition in the Bill is in keeping with policy that has already been developed at European level, although I would be the first to concede that that drafting is rather more precise than that before your Lordships tonight.
I should not let your Lordships run away with the idea that either the Bill or its central proposition enjoys universal approbation. There are those who argue that the premise on which it is based is flawed, because it fails to take due account of the way in which the Internet now operates. For example, it may have the consequence—unintended so far as I am concerned—of criminalising what could be termed "electronic civil disobedience".
I am bound to say that I have some sympathy with this view. I have no difficulty in arguing that the drafting of the Bill sits relatively seamlessly with the existing Computer Misuse Act. Unfortunately, that Act was passed, in IT terms, aeons ago. In a nutshell, its difficulty is that it relies on "trespass" as the concept by which to define computer crime, which, given that the Internet is now a medium that relies upon universal access—as it were, its "ownership" belongs to the public—-is now wholly inappropriate.
In terms, I agree wholeheartedly with those who argue for a wholesale updating of the Computer Misuse Act as a means to address the problem. Indeed, that is the main part of my motivation in bringing this Bill before your Lordships tonight: to implore the Government to acknowledge and understand the urgency attached to this particular task.
What is important above all else is that legislation establishes what I like to think of as an ethical base-line for computer crime. Much as I may have wanted to take on that task. I am only too well aware that the mechanism of a Private Member's Bill would be inappropriate to that purpose.
I actually have no idea what the Government's attitude towards my Bill is. I await the Minister's response with interest. What I am conscious of is that, in reality, it does little more than put a temporary sticking-plaster over a problem of major significance. Here, I return to the issue of the Home Office's perception of its priorities. Computer Weekly has observed:
"The Government has a poor track record in developing IT-related legislation".
I assume that that is a particular reference to their determination to get the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act—the Minister will remember it well—and the data retention elements of the anti-terrorism Act on to the statute book.
In truth, in recent days and weeks, if not months, the Home Office's priorities have been a source of bemusement to many. Rather than addressing the real concerns of whether the law deals with computer crime adequately, the apparent obsession with trying to impose unwarranted degrees of control on our citizens via the so-called "Snoopers' Charter" embodied in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act orders has held sway. As I say, to many this is indicative of an odd
972
sense of priorities, the more so because of the Government's stated ambition to make the UK the best place in the world for e-commerce by 2005.
To this extent, I am grateful that sense has prevailed in the mind of the Home Secretary. Quite rightly, he has recognised that those proposals were an occasion when it was entirely appropriate to stop digging the hole deeper. I congratulate him on his decision. None the less, it is my fervent plea—I make no apology for repeating it—that this translates as speedily as possible into a desire to update the Computer Misuse Act in its entirety. That, much more than anything else, is required in order to create some sort of order out of the current chaos—and seeming incoherence—of the Government's attempts at IT legislation to date. I merely note in passing that a spokeswoman for the Home Office recently commented:
"It is confusing and a bit of a minefield"
I conclude with this thought. In a sense, computer and/or IT related issues tend not to burn fiercely in the minds of your Lordships. But we underestimate the significance of the problems that I have sought to outline at our peril. I merely hope that the Minister will be able to offer me some comfort that the Home Office in particular and the Government more generally are entirely seized of this. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.— (The Earl of Northesk.)
8.35 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I like this Bill. I like the fact that it is drafted in a reasonably wide way, which means that the concept will not go out of date too quickly. The hackers and those who seek to disrupt the Internet move at an ever-increasing pace and it is ever more difficult to keep in touch with their ingenuity.
Denial-of-service attacks are a real pain if you are trying to operate a computer system. There is no defence against them once someone has found a way to operate them, because they are coming in down legitimate avenues by the time they reach you. They use faults in other people's computer systems just to flood yours out. It is rather like a flood. It is like suddenly waking up in the morning and finding that you are six feet under water; and it takes just as long to get rid of the problem—it takes a long time for the enormous queue to drain away, and all kinds of people have to be involved in cleaning up afterwards. You lose business while you are flooded, and it costs you a great deal to set matters right. By any standards, it is an attack; and, by any standards, you have suffered damage. Therefore, in principle, like other forms of attack, denial-of-service attacks ought to be considered a crime.
There are, of course, occasions when people wish to do things that are on the edge of crime. As an act of civil disobedience, you might want to go down the street making holes in people's motor cars. By and large, the question of whether an individual has committed a crime or has acted reasonably in a

973
particular set of circumstances ought to be left to the courts. But, in principle, doing things that harm people in a significant way ought to be a crime.
I therefore strongly support the thrust of the Bill. I have a few arguments with the detailed drafting. I should like to consider, for instance, how the phrasing would apply to people who created or used the system that holds the 1901 census. It could be said that those who had put that system together had done so in a way that caused it to crash and caused it to fall apart under use. It could be said that those who might be judged to have used it too enthusiastically, when they should have known that it was delicate, caused it to crash. We are perhaps going a little too far in terms of the precise in not allowing a word like "substantial" to be included in the concept before a crime is considered to have been committed, and a little too far in Clause 1(2)(2) as regards the guilt of someone who does not know that he is doing something illegal and the idea that he is guilty of an offence if someone could have anticipated the effect of his action. There is perhaps sometimes too much power in hindsight. One should not put ordinary people and ordinarily incompetent computer technicians at risk of committing a crime merely because they design or do something which in the end causes computer systems to crash. On the other hand, perhaps we could put Mr Gates in gaol for a long time, given the number of times that my system goes down every day due to the bugs that he has built into his system. But, sadly, that is a case of someone who is not a British citizen and it is not yet a realistic hope.
Given a "warm wind" from the Government, and with some attention to how we actually make this a usable piece of legislation, it would be a very good piece of legislation to have in place, pending the Europeans coming up with proposals to which we can all agree as a continent. This is one of those cases where individual Acts are important. There is no reason to wait for others. It will not cost us anything to make this a crime in our country. It will make Britain a slightly more attractive place to do business if it is known that we have some rules against domestic attacks against companies in this way. It is one brick in what eventually may become an effective dam. At least it shows the way constructively and gives some impetus to doing something that the civilised world will eventually have to get around to.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, on introducing the Bill and on the support that he has had from such authorities as Computer Weekly and many others that he mentioned. I am only sorry that he has drawn such a thin audience, although I am not altogether surprised, because I asked the British Computer Society, the Office of the e-Envoy and the National Computing Centre for comments before the debate and all three had nothing to say about the Bill.
974
Everybody agrees that cyber crime is a growing menace to government, to industry, to NGOs and to private individuals, as the noble Earl has outlined. The only question is whether the Bill identifies harmful activity that is not already covered by the Computer Misuse Act 1990. I am told that for every expert—computer scientist or lawyer—who argues that technological developments over the past 12 years have exposed gaps in the CMA, there is another who argues that the CMA already covers all kinds of harmful activity, including those at which the Bill is aimed. If gaps exist, the aim of the Bill is to close one of them.
The Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Centre's CERT co-ordination centre has produced a helpful overview of denial-of-service attacks. It divides them into three modes: consumption of scarce, limited or non-renewable resources; destruction or alteration of configuration information; and physical disruption or alteration of network components.
The CMA provides that a person secures access to any program or data if he alters or erases the programme or data, copies or moves it, uses it or outputs it from the computer where it is stored. That is a slight paraphrase. The access is deemed to be unauthorised if the person is not entitled to control access of the kind and he does not have consent to such access from a person who is entitled to it. If the hacker against whom the Bill is directed alters or destroys any program or data to which he has not been given access by the proprietor of the data, he is committing an offence that attracts a six-month prison sentence and a level 5 fine under Section 1 of the 1990 Act. That test is easier for the prosecution to surmount than that proposed in the Bill. They do not have to prove that the hacker causes or intends to cause any degradation or impairment of the computer where the information is stored. Harmless unauthorised access would constitute an offence, although no doubt it would attract a lower penalty.
If the hacker does not alter or delete information to which he has obtained unauthorised access, the position may not be so clear. That is what the Bill is aimed at. Denial-of-service attacks may concentrate on network connectivity, for example by establishing half-opened connections to the victim machine or by consuming bandwidth and other resources. Examples of such attacks are given on the CERT co-ordination centre's website. In its cyber crime survey last year, the CBI called for an extension of the CMA to all attacks that cause IT systems to fail.
However, the National High-Tech Crime Unit tells me that there has not yet been a case before the courts—and nor has it yet been given details of one—in which it has not been feasible to prosecute because of the apparent gap in the 1990 Act. The unit says that denial-of-service attacks are often associated with some other offence such as blackmail or fraud, to which the computer misuse is incidental. The British Crime Survey does not identify computer crime under a separate heading. The Home Office may wish to address that. I should like to know whether the Minister has any thoughts on it. Should we collect

975
information about offences in which computer misuse is not the substantive charge but is a necessary ingredient of some other offence?
The NHTCU also tells me that it is about to roll out an Extranet link to local force computer crime units which will enable it to collect anecdotal evidence of these crimes. It says that before April 2001, only a few forces had fully functioning high-tech crime units. That is one reason why there were not many prosecutions or cautions. I know of no way of ascertaining how many cases were abandoned before charge because there was no realistic chance of securing a conviction. Nor is there any means of recording the high-tech element of the crimes that were not pure CMA offences. For that reason, any figures have to be treated with extreme caution.
There is no doubt, as the CBI survey shows, that there has been considerable under-reporting of DOS attacks, as well as of other types of cyber crime, not only, as the noble Earl has said, because firms were reluctant to expose themselves to possible criticism for having taken inadequate precautions, but also because until recently they may have had insufficient confidence in the capacity of the police to respond effectively to the reported offences. In the eight months since it became operational, the NHTCU has been developing its relationships with industry and gathering strategic business intelligence about the nature of the offences being committed and the modus operandi of the criminals. The unit would not say so itself, but it seems premature to introduce the Bill when a little patience might enable the Government, with advice from the NHTCU and industry, to produce a more effective solution to any gaps that may be identified in the CMA. The noble Earl partly answered that when he said that he was introducing the Bill primarily to get an answer from the Government to his demand for a wider review of the CMA. I warmly echo that.
Computer Weekly suggests that the Government have already initiated such a review. That may be what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, meant in answer to a Written Question the other day when he said:
"The Government are considering whether changes are needed to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in the light of the United Kingdom's obligations as a signatory state of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime".—[Official Report, 25/3/02; col. WA 10.]
I hope that the Minister will be able to say this evening that the Government are going to cast their net wider—that was not intended as a pun. I should like them to announce a comprehensive review along the lines demanded by the noble Earl, which will not be limited simply to complying with the Council of Europe convention. I think that that is what the police and the CPS would like.
The convention would already require us to make unauthorised access under Section 1 an arrestable offence. That is one amendment that the police think would he useful. In this connection, I draw attention to the difference between the definitions of unauthorised access in the Bill and the CMA, which might lead to problems in court if the Bill were passed unamended.
976
In the Bill, the access is an offence only if it causes or is intended to cause an impairment of function of the "computerised system", which is not further defined. Presumably, the noble Earl wishes to include any devices that are used to input data to a computer, as well as the computer itself. If that is the intention, it needs to be spelt out.
In the Bill, the act that impairs the function of the computer constitutes the offence if it is "without authorisation". That means that the person carrying out that act is not the owner of the relevant computer system, nor does he have the permission of the owner. Under the CMA, there is an offence of unauthorised access, in which the person is not entitled to control access of the kind in question and does not have consent to such access from any person who is so entitled. That approach may be preferable, because nobody owns the Internet, as the noble Earl pointed out. A great deal of the software used on the Internet is open source and the ownership of it may not be defined.
Another problem that the police would like dealt with—which could be done only as a result of a comprehensive review of the CMA—is the theft of data, which is treated as a criminal offence in the US, but not in this country if there is no physical material involved such as a floppy disk or a zip disk. So, for example, the disgruntled employee who e-mails the company's information to his own address is not committing a crime unless it can be proved that he intends to use it in the commission of another offence such as blackmail.
It has been said that the use of the Internet has expanded enormously since 1990, and so has the scope for malicious or criminal interference over the net with other people's computer systems. It is big business. We should remind small and medium-sized enterprises and private individuals who are vulnerable that all users need to look at their security and not rely entirely on the law to protect them.
The fact that the CMA has been used so rarely means that, as Michael Gubbins of Computing points out, arguments about its current weaknesses are largely theoretical. Only 33 cases have been prosecuted and seven people gaoled over the 10 years in which the CMA has been in force. On the other hand, some weaponry is available to computer users. There is a British Standard for information security management—BS 7799—and for the individual user or SME there are anti-virus programs and firewalls, some of which are free. So the 75 per cent of firms that have no security policy, according to the DTI, should look to their own defences rather than rely on Parliament to enact further legislation that may well be unnecessary and is not easy to enforce.
Considering the difficulty of tracing and identifying attackers, it is perhaps surprising that hackers ever get caught. In a recent high-profile case, the author of the "Melissa" virus caused 80 million dollars worth of damage and was given a 20-month prison sentence in a US federal court. The criminal had used a stolen AOL account to jam up corporate e-mail systems in the UK

977
as well as in the US. It is reported that he was tracked down electronically, although I think that he might have got away with it if he had used a public terminal to launch his attack.
Another interesting recent case in the US was that of Robert Lyttle, who was arrested in May while on probation for 200 attacks committed while he was still under 18. He had penetrated high-profile sites, including Gartner, the US Geological Survey, Sandia National Labs and the Department of Defense's Defense Logistics Agency. It seems that victims in the US are readier to identify themselves. If law enforcement agencies here are to become effective against cyber crime, there must be a similar willingness by industry and commerce to own up when they are being attacked.
Since DOS attacks and other cyber crimes have global effects and can be launched from any place connected to the Internet, there should be an international database for recording attacks, and the criminal justice system should respond to them in every country where they occur. In this country, perhaps the Information Assurance Advisory Council might begin by sounding out equivalent bodies in other EU countries and in north America on how such a project might be designed.
This Bill seeks to deal with a very large problem, to which a part of the answer may well be improved legislation. I welcome the opportunity which the noble Earl has given us of discussing DOS attacks, and I hope that the Government will tell us more about the review of the CMA. Beyond all that, however, it would be good to have an assurance that the Government are fully aware of the burden on us all as consumers and taxpayers of this form of crime, and that in collaboration with industry, computer professionals and law enforcement agencies they are developing a comprehensive strategy for dealing with it.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Northesk for introducing this Private Member's Bill and for so clearly explaining its objectives. My noble friend pointed out the need to update the CMA. As he said, in IT terms, the Act was passed aeons ago, certainly long before the Internet became a reality. In 1990, no account was taken of e-commerce or trading over the world-wide web. The Act hinged on the concept of unauthorised access, whereas the invention of the world-wide web and the Internet is all about companies inviting people into their computer systems to buy and sell and to obtain information.
There is of course a passage in the Terrorism Act 2000 that refers to this issue. Indeed, amendments made in this House, following considerable pressure by the Opposition, changed the definition of terrorism to include "cyber terrorism" or action which,
"is designed seriously to interfere with, or seriously to disrupt, an electronic system".
978
However, this applies only where the use or threat is designed to influence the Government or intimidate the public or a section of the public or is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
We on these Benches express sympathy for the severity of this problem for businesses, and note the scope that the Internet offers those who wish to interfere maliciously with individuals or companies in this way. Two years ago, the BBC estimated that more than 50,000 computer viruses have been created and that up to 400 are active at any one time. More than 10 new viruses are released every day. Research by Computer Economics found that virus attacks cost business more than 12.1 billion dollars in 1999.
Eric Chien, head of Symantec's anti-virus research centre, has said that technology will never stamp out viruses completely. He said:
"No-one is ever going to win—we create technology to beat the virus writer. He tests those technologies and tries to get round them. It's an arms race and it's always going to be that way".
That is why it is vital that we take this matter seriously. Denial-of-service attacks, whether they take the form of numerous spurious web submissions or worm-type virus interference, are one of the most effective means of disrupting business and personal computing services. Widespread concern has been expressed by the industry at the lenient sentences for hacking offences under the Act. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that there have been very few prosecutions for denial-of-service attacks under the CMA?
My noble friend Lord Northesk mentioned that the National High-Tech Crime Unit has called on the Government to amend the law to give police clearer powers to prosecute denial-of-service attacks. I firmly believe that crime fighters must be given the means to fight modern crime in the modern age.
The definitions used in the Bill, however, are quite different from those currently in place under the Terrorism Act and therefore deserve some scrutiny. My first thought is regarding the provision which states that,
"a person is guilty of the offence … even if the act was not intended to cause such an effect".
I note that the offence includes actions which only "indirectly" cause a system failure. How might these two statements work in practice? Might it not prove difficult for someone who did not act with any intention of harming a server or other computer system to defend himself if charged under this provision? Equally, how practical would it be to prove that a "reasonable person" could have predicted that their actions would lead to a denial-of-service attack?
The infamous "Love Bug" relied on a person opening an e-mail attachment. While many people were alerted to the dangers of this virus, some still mistakenly opened the attachment, exposing themselves to the virus and triggering many e-mails to other people, potentially infecting them. Would these people be regarded as guilty under the Bill? Would human error be an acceptable defence where they

979
perhaps should have anticipated that their actions would lead to the further transmission of the virus to other machines?
Following on from this, I wonder whether the ongoing and rapid progress being made in technology, which my noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned, might not cause difficulties with this provision. I understand that there is scope for criminals to take advantage of unsuspecting people and companies who do not have adequate firewalls in place, and effectively to use these machines as "virtual hosts" for material and communications. Such actions would inevitably lead to problems in tracing and proving the identity of those behind any denial-of-service attack. I ask my noble friend whether someone whose computer has been abused in this way by a third person could be caught by the offence as proposed.
It is important that we do not forget that there are occasions on which legitimate use can be made of mass e-mailing. One example relevant to this House is that of lobbying. With this Bill are we saying that people should not use electronic methods of communication to express their views to government departments? Or are we, in effect, placing an obligation on departments to maintain sufficient system capacity to handle mass protests or registering of views?
There is a read-across to the issue of spam mail. Commercial advertising or "spamming" can generate thousands of unwanted messages—junk mail—targeted indiscriminately at any "working" e-mail address. Users often find that certain e-mail addresses are rendered virtually unusable due to the volume of unwanted, unsolicited and, in many cases, offensive mail that is notoriously difficult to block. This mass of messaging can involve offers of credit, university degrees which can be bought, and links to porn websites. What is most worrying is that this spam makes no reference to the user of the e-mail address, and children, including my own I fear, are opening obscene messages, often, I hope, by mistake. There has been an industry built up recently of scouring the Internet for people's e-mail addresses which are then sold by marketing companies as "working e-mail addresses". It is possible to establish whether any email address is in use simply by sending a test message to any address. If the message rejects this, it does not exist, and if there is no rejection message, the address can be sold as "in use". Certainly, ISPs must become much more involved in ridding the Internet of this nuisance, which is damaging the efficiency of industry as well as costing the nation in wasted time and money.
In conclusion, while some of these queries and applications are in themselves not necessarily a bad thing, I do think that they raise a need for widespread review and consultation on this issue. I hope that the Government will tackle this area of crime with the priority it deserves and will take the opportunity to review this area of legislation.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I, too, join in the general thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk,
980
for introducing the Bill and raising the issue in the House. As ever, the noble Earl was thoughtful in his approach and introduced the Bill in a constructive way. Like all of us, he recognises that this is an important part of a much wider and deeper debate. I place on record my thanks for the courtesy he has shown in informing my noble friend Lord Rooker, when the latter was in his previous incarnation, of his intentions.
Although only a small number of noble Lords have participated in the debate, an interesting breadth of detail and views have been expressed. Usually noble Lords say that they will read with interest what the Minister says. However, in this case, the Minister will read with great interest what noble Lords have said. In particular, I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, not having heard him say so much in the past on this subject.
I wish to place on record that the Government recognise and share the concern of the Internet industry and users, expressed so eloquently by noble Lords, in relation to denial-of-service attacks. Noble Lords have made reference to such figures as exist on the incidence of denial-of-service attacks. However, we argue that there are no reliable figures in that regard. That is probably an assertion that most would be happy to share. However, we recognise that there is a growing problem. It is clear that the number of attacks against computer systems and the consequent costs to businesses, be they large or small—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to small and medium-sized—enterprises and to individuals grow exponentially year on year as the whole system, particularly the Internet, expands. This is something which the Government take very seriously.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, suggested that the Government do not take cyber crime seriously. I do not think that he actually believes that. This debate has a ring of nostalgia. Over the past two or three years several of us have been involved in discussion and debate on various aspects of cyber crime, the Internet, the regulation thereof and so on. Last April the Government established the National High-Tech Crime Unit. Several references were made to that during the course of the debate. We placed that quite rightly within the National Crime Squad. Much praise has been heaped on the unit for its work, not least as regards its efforts to combat cyber crime such as Internet pornography, particularly child pornography.
The unit is staffed by IT specialists and law enforcement officers and undertakes the most technically complex investigations as well as providing technical support to local investigations and acting as a centre of excellence in developing new techniques, material and good practice with local forces. I believe that that is terribly important. We need to have that centrally provided expertise. We have provided an additional £25 million over three years to fund this new unit and fully trained computer crime teams in every force in England and Wales. That is a very significant commitment.

981
To be genuinely effective in combating denial of service attacks and other high-tech crimes, we must work with other countries. The noble Earl anticipated that line of argument, but it makes plain sense; this is a global technology with global applications and we need to work, act and interact globally. We must also ensure that there is effective legislation and enforcement internationally to deal with offenders. The "Wonderland" prosecutions proved that point wonderfully and underline its importance. The Government have focused their efforts on tackling the problems that were highlighted by noble Lords internationally, within Europe and through the G8. Last November, the UK signed the Council of Europe convention on cyber crime.
In relation to denial-of-service attacks, the convention commits all member states to legislate to ensure that,
"the serious hindering without right of the functioning of a computer system",
is a criminal offence. In addition, a new draft Council framework decision has been tabled that would require all EU member states to legislate to ensure,
"the serious hindering or interruption of the functioning of an information system … following intentional conduct, without right",
is a criminal offence. Similarly, we are actively working with the other G8 nations, through the high-tech crime sub-group, to ensure that all our legal systems appropriately criminalise all abuses of telecommunications and computer systems and promote the investigation of high-tech crime. Legislation to implement the Council of Europe convention on cyber crime and the Council framework decision, once it has been agreed, will be brought forward when the legislative programme allows. We always have to enter that caveat. Much of that should be achievable through secondary legislation.
The need to increase penalties in some areas has been referred to. We generally agree on that. If primary legislation is required, we will obviously need to identify a suitable vehicle. The noble Earl believes that primary legislation is needed in the denial-of-service area.
I put on record the fact that the Government are working closely with industry and law enforcement agencies to determine to what extent the Computer Misuse Act requires reviewing in order to meet the UK's commitments under the Council of Europe convention on cyber crime and the needs of law enforcement. That is where we are at with regard to that Act.
As the noble Earl said, denial-of-service attacks can take a number of forms. The common theme is that of disrupting users' legitimate access to material or resources. Most forms of denial-of-service attack are covered by the Computer Misuse Act. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made the point very well that there is a debate about whether that legislation is robust. That debate is important and needs to be had, and we have detected the fact that opinions vary sharply within the industry.
982
There is a specific issue about whether all denial-of-service attacks necessarily require the unauthorised modification of the contents of a computer, which would comprise an offence under Section 3 of the Act. The terms of the Act were deliberately undefined to provide flexibility for the courts in constructing them widely, and the courts have rightly shown willingness to do so. The issue is one of interpretation and the courts have not yet had a suitable opportunity to consider that. However, we are not complacent about the lack of clarity, particularly if it discourages enforcement authorities from proceeding against the perpetrators of those attacks.
We are looking with criminal justice practitioners at the Act's provisions on the denial-of-service. We are also very happy to meet noble Lords and industry representatives to share our thinking as it develops. That is a genuine and open-ended invitation. However, we are not yet convinced that legislation is needed. That must be understood to be a starting point; our minds are not closed.
Prosecutions can proceed only with evidence, and the identity of those attacking computer systems is, as noble Lords said, notoriously hard to determine. As the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, said, the Bill is intended to stimulate debate. He and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would probably accept that as it is drafted, it is not perfectly correct. My reading of it leaves me with questions about whether it is as well drafted as it might be to achieve the intentions that the noble Earl honourably seeks for it. The Government welcome this opportunity for debate. I will not detain the House with our concerns over the detail of the drafting, particularly in relation to intent, attempts and penalties.
In summary, the Government are working with industry and law enforcement specialists to make the UK the best and safest place in which to work and trade online. We will continue to do that by ensuring that the criminal law deals effectively with new threats in that regard, through international negotiation and rigorous domestic legislation and enforcement.
We welcome the debate. The contributions that I have heard this evening have been most constructive. As I said, we are not as yet convinced that extra legislation is needed. We do not have a closed mind on that. And we are happy to meet, and learn from, all those who are actively working in this field to ensure that we have the most robust defence against such matters as denial-of-service attacks.
9.14 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to tonight's debate. I particularly want to thank my noble friends Lord Astor of Hever and Lord Lucas.
In the context of the Bill, I had feared that I might have to resort to a recollection of a week or so ago. It seemed then that there was a perception abroad that I might have been indulging myself and wasting the time of your Lordships. Happily, noble Lords have been

983
charitable in explaining their respective positions towards my purpose and generous in their general support for my proposition.
I should respond to the specific query of my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever; namely, whether someone whose computer had been degraded by a third party could be caught by the offence contained in the Bill. Certainly that is not my intent. But I have to confess that the constraints imposed by the structure of the Computer Misuse Act may make that a possibility. To my mind, that makes the case for updating the Act, as argued both perceptively and persuasively by a number of noble Lords tonight.
As to the wider issues raised by my noble friend, I can only point out that there is growing currency for the view—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to this—that there may be merit in subjecting computers and their users to a "web-worthiness" test, in much the same way as motor vehicles are subject to MOTs. That may also be relevant to some of the observations of my noble friend Lord Lucas. I do not intend to speculate
984
on the point—it is outside the scope of the Bill—except to say, yet again, that an updating of the Computer Misuse Act would be an appropriate vehicle for such a debate.
I am also grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the current consultation process in respect of the CMA. I say genuinely that I draw both comfort and some encouragement from his comments. I should also say that I have no doubt about the Government's commitment to tackling cyber-crime. What I do carp about is the way in which their priorities here have been arranged thus far.
I believe that the debate has been a very useful exercise. No doubt, as of need, we can iron out some of the Bill's deficiencies during its later stages. But, for the moment, I merely hope that your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Commit tee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Development Council, 30 May
  Development Council, 30 May
  Pakistan: World Bank Loan
  Pakistan: World Bank Loan
  Zimbabwe: Consular Fees
  Zimbabwe: Consular Fees
  Centrex (National Police Training)
  Centrex (National Police Training)
  Kent County Constabulary: Use of Prohibited Firearms
  Kent County Constabulary: Use of Prohibited Firearms
  Covert Human Intelligence Sources
  Covert Human Intelligence Sources
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: Internet
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: Internet
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  Jersey: Financial Information
  Jersey: Financial Information
  Financial Services Authority Annual Report
  Financial Services Authority Annual Report
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Beaches
  Beaches
  Badgers
  Badgers
  Meat Imports
  Meat Imports
  Montgomery Canal
  Montgomery Canal
  Open Country and Common Land Maps
  Open Country and Common Land Maps
  Slug Pellets
  Slug Pellets
  Domestic Energy Efficiency
  Domestic Energy Efficiency
  Rights of Way
  Rights of Way
  School Playing Fields
  School Playing Fields
  Religious Broadcasting
  Religious Broadcasting
  Women's Sport Foundation
  Women's Sport Foundation
  Ulster Scots
  Ulster Scots
  Irish Nationality
  Irish Nationality
  Prime Minister: Holiday in Egypt
  Prime Minister: Holiday in Egypt
  Castlereagh Police Complex: Security
  Castlereagh Police Complex: Security
  Special Advisers
  Special Advisers
  Toll Roads
  Toll Roads
  Bus Lanes
  Bus Lanes
  Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: UK Delegation
  Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: UK Delegation
  Peers' Expenses
  Peers' Expenses